Edgar Co. (ECWd) –
We reported on the Edgar County 911 calls which exposed we still have problems within our Edgar County 911 center in this article. The whole point of the article was to point out the lack of substantive training with some dispatchers is still a problem today.
Recently obtained records from a Freedom of Information Act request obtained by WTWO exposes even more problems. The very first paragraph of their news report stated:
“PARIS, Ill. (WTWO/WAWV) — The Edgar County Sheriff’s Office said Friday that two dispatchers did not violate agency policy during the tense moments surrounding a shooting at White Oaks Park on April 3.”
Not only does the internal investigation report provided to WTWO clearly confirm our initial concerns regarding training, but the records provided also raise serious questions regarding the internal investigation that claimed there was no policy violation.
On the subject of training, the report outlines 4 recommendations, with 1 of those being additional training.
“Provide additional training on high-stress call prioritization.”
The reports indicated a Final Determination regarding the complaints the Sheriff received. What did the Edgar County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy say in his internal Investigation report?
“Not Sustained – Insufficient evidence of policy violation or misconduct.” (emphasis added)
That statement is what the local news ran with.
We have a recommendation for the Sheriff, and it ties back to what I said at the last 911 board meeting. 911 is an emergency call center, and we need to train dispatchers that non-emergency calls are not part of this system.
Starting with the law:
“(50 ILCS 750/5) (from Ch. 134, par. 35) (Section scheduled to be repealed on December 31, 2027) Sec. 5. The digits “9-1-1” shall be the primary emergency telephone number within the system, but a public agency or public safety agency shall maintain a separate secondary 10-digit emergency backup number for at least 6 months after the “9-1-1” system is established and in operation, and shall maintain a separate number for nonemergency telephone calls.” (emphasis added)
Why would a public safety agency need to maintain a number for nonemergency calls?
Because 911 is for emergencies, not non-emergencies. When a non-emergency call comes into the 911 center, the dispatcher should instruct the caller to the appropriate public safety agency by providing them with the applicable telephone number, as the law outlines.
“Referral” means a 9-1-1 service in which the public safety telecommunicator provides the calling party with the telephone number of the appropriate public safety agency or other provider of emergency services.” (emphasis added)
What does any of this emergency/non-emergency call information have to do with this?
The internal investigation report indicates that the dispatchers were handling multiple calls. What was the other call they were handling?
“Dispatcher Schwarz received an unrelated call regarding a disturbance involving a vehicle performing burnouts.“
The Policy Defines an Emergency.
“For the purpose of this procedure, an “Emergency” is any incident requiring an immediate police, fire, or EMS response to prevent the loss of life, reduce bodily injury, and/or prevent or reduce the loss of or damage to property. An “Emergency” may also include situations where public officers/employees need assistance, crimes in progress, and such other situations which the duty personnel may reasonably determine from time to time.”
A disturbance involving a vehicle performing a burnout does not appear to rise to the level of needing an emergency response to prevent the loss of life, reduce bodily injury, or reduce the loss of or damage to property. This type of call is one that a dispatcher should provide the caller with the appropriate public safety agency number, known as a referral, as this would be a very low-priority call in the life of emergency services.
The Edgar County 911 policy indicates that “All 9-1-1 Telecommunicators will read and have working knowledge of 9-1-1 operating procedures.”
We did not see anything in the internal investigation that addressed the non-emergency call being treated as an emergency call. Is that a policy violation? Considering dispatchers are required to have a working knowledge of the 911 operating procedures, and a call was treated as an emergency call rather than a non-emergency, is that not a policy violation?
Failures of the Sheriff’s Office?
The internal investigation lists certain conclusions. One in particular was “high call volume”.
Looking at the calls and times listed in the report, if this is “high call volume,” then we have bigger problems. If they can’t handle the call volume, there is a policy in place for that.
“Any time there is a call overload or a call cannot get answered by the on duty Telecommunicator, calls will rollover to back up PSAP, Douglas County, as per agreement.”
If call volume is the excuse provided for the events and nothing was rolled over to the backup Public Safety Answering Point, is that not another policy violation?
The report also indicates what most would consider a disturbing position.
“Dispatcher Schwarz advised of individuals being harassed at White Oaks but indicated difficulty obtaining clear information from callers.”
Harassed? Difficulty obtaining clear information from callers?
What did the caller say? “They’re trying to kill us.”
When a call “clearly” indicates, “they’re trying to kill us”, I think most people would agree that is a far cry from a person being “harassed”.
While the report indicates “Insufficient evidence of policy violation or misconduct”, people need to understand that such a position is tied to the union contract, not to reality.
Depending on how the contract is worded and what may constitute misconduct, there may be insufficient evidence to support misconduct; however, when it comes to policy, we believe the investigation fell way short in the review of the matter.
We will update with another article once we obtain a copy of the union contract for the dispatchers.
WTWO-FOIA-response (002)
