Amended 3/30/06
LAW ENFORCEMENT
March 16, 2006
Minutes
Members Present: Deb Nolan, Dale Copedge, Debbie DeLeon, Marc Thomas, Randy Schafer, Don Vickers and Board Chairperson Victor Celentino
Members Absent: None
Others Present: John Neilsen, Mary Sabaj, James Webster, Dr. Gallagher, Vicki Harrison, Stephanie Musser and others
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Nolan at 6:05 p.m. in the Personnel Conference Room of the Human Services Building, 5303 S. Cedar, Lansing.
Approval of the March 2, 2006 Minutes
MOVED BY COMM. THOMAS, SUPPORTED BY COMM. SCHAFER, TO APPROVE THE MARCH 2 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Additions to the Agenda
4. Joint Law Enforcement/Finance Meeting
Limited Public Comment: None
1. Sheriff’s Office
a. Resolution Authorizing the Ingham County Sheriff’s Office to Accept Historical Artifacts for Display in the Ingham County Sheriff’s Office
MOVED BY COMM. SCHAFER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. DELEON, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE TO ACCEPT HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS FOR DISPLAY IN THE INGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
b. Resolution to Enter into an “Ingham County Mutual Police Assistance Agreement”
MOVED BY COMM. SCHAFER, SUPPORTED BY COMM. VICKERS, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO AN “INGHAM COUNTY MUTUAL POLICE ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT.”
Comm. Schafer informed the Committee that he received a letter from State representatives expressing their appreciation for the Ingham County Sheriff’s Office participation in the Mutual Police Assistance Agreement.
Comm. DeLeon asked if this is the first Agreement or if it is a renewal of an existing Agreement. Mr. Neilsen stated the County has participated in mutual aid agreements for many years. This current Agreement is an updated and more encompassing arrangement. Chairperson Nolan asked how often the Agreements are renewed. Mr. Neilsen explained the Agreement is renewed when a new Sheriff assumes office or whenever updates are required.
Ms. Harrison, Sheriff’s Office, explained Ingham County has always had an Agreement with the Lansing, East Lansing and Meridian Township. The Agreement to be approved this evening is patterned after Kent County’s mutual aid agreement.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Community Corrections Advisory Board – Resolution to Authorize a Reorganization at Project Sentry and Amending the 2006 Budget
MOVED BY COMM. VICKERS, SUPPORTED BY COMM. DELEON, TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A REORGANIZATION AT PROJECT SENTRY AND AMENDING THE 2006 BUDGET.
Mr. Neilsen explained the Resolution would authorize a re-organization at Project Sentry and would amend the 2006 budget. To minimize the amount of Project Sentry’s deficit, the Manager will retire effective April 1, 2006. This Resolution authorizes a re-organization for the balance of this year. The proposed re-organization would still leave a deficit of approximately $109,496 which would be covered from the 2006 Contingency Fund. The current balance of the Contingency Fund is $295,633. Mr. Neilsen further explained if Project Sentry closes, approximately $20,000 would be needed for employee pay outs if the current employees cannot be relocated within the County.
Comm. Vickers asked if the County could place another agency at the facility if Project Sentry must close at the end of 2006. Mr. Neilsen stated he has informed the Facilities Department to keep this property in mind for future use to avoid a balloon payment if Project Sentry closes.
Comm. Vickers asked why the County Courts were not required to use Project Sentry’s services. Mr. Neilsen stated he understands the Circuit Court uses Project Sentry almost exclusively. The 55th District Court uses other vendors for various reasons. Additional vendors have moved into this area within the past ten years. The Courts are not mandated to use Project Sentry. Mr. Neilsen further stated the 55th District Court is aware of Project Sentry’s financial situation. Project Sentry has made attempts to regain its lost business to area vendors.
Comm. Schafer stated he believes Project Sentry provides quality services. He then expressed his concern regarding the use of Contingency Funds to cover the proposed deficit; and, what will happen in 2007 if Project Sentry is not able to increase its business. The Board of Commissioners is partially responsible for this situation in regard to the relocation of the business. Comm. Schafer then stated he does not understand why a valuable program is not being used. He stated he has great empathy for Project Sentry but he also has concerns regarding its long-term viability. Comm. Schafer asked if any changes would result from Ms. Sabaj’s current discussions with the 55th District Court.
Ms. Sabaj explained the history between 55th District Court and Project Sentry dates back to 1993. The Office of Drug Control Policy provided the funding for Project Sentry for nine years. During this time Project Sentry accumulated its surplus revenues from client fees. When the grant ended in 2002, Project Sentry had to use its accumulated monies to offset its deficits. A new vendor, A.D.A.M., moved into this area in 2004. The 55th District Court uses these services. The 55th District Court respects Dr. Gallagher and Project Sentry.
Comm. Thomas asked if defendants could be sent to Total Health, an area vendor, for drug testing services. Ms. Sabaj stated she believes Total Health has discontinued their services. The 55th District Court is satisfied with A.D.A.M.’s services. The Court does send a few people to Project Sentry.
Ms. Sabaj further explained the 55th District Court does not regularly use Project Sentry’s services because newer area vendors charge less for the same type of services. A.D.A.M. also has the ability to provide drug tests on a seven-day schedule. Project Sentry uses a three-day schedule. District Court Probation Officers prefer the seven-day schedule. This schedule allows the Court to use the services as a monitoring tool. A.D.A.M. also has three locations; one site is located on S. Cedar Street in Holt.
Ms. Sabaj stated the CCAB has held meetings with the 55th District Court in an effort to accommodate their wishes whenever possible. Since September 17, 2005, the testing fees have been standardized for the District and Circuit Courts. Project Sentry has been trying to determine how it could meet the District Court’s scheduling preference. Project Sentry does maintain that a three-day schedule is clinically sufficient to detect continued drug use.
Mr. Webster distributed copies of Project Sentry’s “Services Provided – 2005” to the Committee. Ms. Sabaj stated Project Sentry provided a total of 30,424 tests and assessments in 2005.
Comm. Copedge asked for the difference between the number of client referrals being made to Project Sentry and A.D.A.M. Ms. Sabaj stated the number of referrals from both District Courts to A.D.A.M. would be a large amount. She further stated she did not know if the 55th District Court would return to Project Sentry if the program duplicated A.D.A.M.’s services.
Chairperson Nolan stated a split fee schedule between Circuit Court and District Court would alienate the Court paying the higher costs. She asked for clarification regarding the difference in costs. Ms. Sabaj explained the costs were determined through an arrangement with the grant funding agency. Dr. Gallagher agreed with Chairperson Nolan’s concern; however, the Office of Drug Control Policy set the costs based on specific court levels. Originally, the Circuit Court received free services from Project Sentry, and the District Court had to pay $3.00 to $4.00 for the same services. Mr. Neilsen addressed Chairperson Nolan’s question regarding the grant ending process.
Comm. Thomas stated the CCAB informed the 2003 Board of Commissioners that the new Project Sentry location would be sufficient for the size of the program. Ms. Sabaj explained Project Sentry experienced significant increases in business during 2001-2002.
The client population was bursting at the seams at the Hayford Street location. It took three years to find a suitable site which the City would approve. The current location is not a convenient one for Project Sentry clients. Comm. Thomas asked if Project Sentry anticipated a decrease in business when it relocated. Ms. Sabaj stated a decrease in business was not anticipated. Dr. Gallagher stated Project Sentry’s business grew every year for ten years. Project Sentry did not anticipate losing the 55th District Court to another vendor.
Comm. Thomas stated the 55th District Court had communicated its concerns to Project Sentry in 2002 or 2003. He asked if the 55th District Court had suggested how Project Sentry might meet their needs. Dr. Gallagher stated the District Court had used Project Sentry’s services for such a long time, he thought that would continue.
Comm. Thomas stated the testing schedule at Project Sentry was a concern of the 55th District Court. Random testing dates may enable Project Sentry to gain knowledge of other drugs a client may be using. Ms. Sabaj explained that Dr. Gallagher had discussions with Judge McCabe and Ms. Frenger in 2003 regarding the use of Project Sentry’s services. Based on that discussion, Project Sentry did not anticipate a loss of the Court’s business.
Comm. Thomas asked why Project Sentry did not act on any of the Court’s suggestions. Ms. Sabaj explained that Project Sentry complied with the Court’s suggestions when there would not be any major ramifications to the business budget. Dr. Gallagher explained Project Sentry did make a change regarding assessment evaluation teams and it has increased some services based on the Court’s suggestions.
Comm. Thomas asked Dr. Gallagher for the number of times he has provided expert witness testimony in the 55th District Court. Dr. Gallagher stated he provided the services a few times. Comm. Thomas then asked how many times Dr. Gallagher provided testimony for any other court. Ms. Sabaj referred to the “Medical Review Officer (MRO) Services” informational sheet which was distributed to the Committee. In 2005, actual court testimony was required five times.
Time for court testimony was scheduled 35 times throughout the year. In 12 of the 35 cases, defendants were required to proceed through the court. Seven of the 12 cases were resolved prior to the court hearing as a direct result of discussions with the parties regarding the testimony that would be provided. This saved the Court time which would have been spent on court hearings. Dr. Gallagher is asked to respond to other cases 50% of the times he has appeared in court on other cases.
Ms. Sabaj explained that, to purchase these services outside the County, an individual with the appropriate credentials would need to be able and willing to devote 10 to 15 hours per week to respond to phone calls, schedule time for court testimony to the exclusion of other activities and appointments, as well as agree to be on call for court testimony for often an entire morning or afternoon.
Comm. Thomas asked how difficult it would be for other vendors to provide NIDA-DOT certified urinalysis. Ms. Sabaj stated A.D.A.M. uses four-cup panel tests. Project Sentry uses a full panel laboratory test screen. Laboratory-based tests will pick up nitrate and creatinine levels.
Comm. Thomas asked what happens once a client urinates in a cup at Project Sentry. Dr. Gallagher explained the process and that this process maintains the chain of custody for court purposes. Each test is sent to an out-of-state laboratory. Project Sentry’s tests meet State standards. Dr. Gallagher further stated Project Sentry validates that each specimen is in fact urine. Many times, cup tests do not reveal if a specimen is urine or something else.
Comm. Thomas asked when Project Sentry receives the test results from the laboratory. Dr. Gallagher explained the results are transmitted to Project Sentry usually within two days. Morning specimen test results are received on the same day. Dr. Gallagher stated drug testing is a very lucrative business.
Comm. Thomas asked how the laboratory used by Project Sentry differs from the laboratory used by A.D.A.M. Dr. Gallagher stated he did not know which laboratory was used by A.D.A.M. Project Sentry’s specimens have to be sealed immediately after they are obtained from the clients.
Ms. Sabaj stated the Medical Officer Review sheet outlines witness testimony. Many people still contact Dr. Gallagher for his assistance with technical questions even though actual use of expert witness testimony has decreased.
On behalf of the Ingham County Sheriff’s Office, Ms. Harrison stated Project Sentry’s services are very important to the Office. Project Sentry handles all the DNA collections for the Sheriff’s Office. Project Sentry’s DNA costs were at least half the cost of other vendors. Due to Dr. Gallagher’s reputation, his statements carry weight with the Sheriff’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Probation Office.
Ms. Harrison further stated Project Sentry does not send the Office a bill for his expertise and his services. The Sheriff’s Office does not receive grievances regarding the tests like other testing companies experience. Project Sentry provides many non-monetary services to the Sheriff’s Office. The Office hopes to continue its relationship with Project Sentry.
Comm. DeLeon asked if the security level has decreased at the new site. Ms. Sabaj stated security is not required at the new location. Dr. Gallagher stated each office in Project Sentry’s building have security buttons. Mr. Neilsen explained the security services at the previous location were more for the benefit of the neighbors.
Comm. DeLeon stated the Board of Commissioners moved forward based on Project Sentry’s reputation, and Project Sentry was initially created for the Courts. The Courts should use Project Sentry’s services. The 55th District Court’s use of another vendor sounds like out-sourcing. Comm. DeLeon then stated she was not prepared to vote on this matter tonight.
Comm. Copedge asked if Project Sentry’s services save the Probation Office time and money. Ms. Sabaj stated that has been an evolution of the program. Dr. Gallagher stated the number of test result confirmations have decreased due to the accuracy of Project Sentry’s testing process. Many defendants plead guilty because they are aware of the accuracy and reputation of Project Sentry’s tests.
Dr. Gallagher stated cup tests are known for their false-positive and false-negative results. Testing accuracy is critical to the court system. Ms. Musser stated the felony population is experienced in the consequences of false-positive drug test results. Laboratory tests cannot be contested in court. False-negative results lead to public safety concerns. Ms. Musser stated it would be a tragedy if Project Sentry is closed.
Comm. Schafer stated he intended to vote against this Resolution. Based on tonight’s discussion regarding time and cost savings experienced as a result of Project Sentry and its services, he will reconsider his decision on this item. Comm. Schafer stated the courts should be encouraged to use the services of Project Sentry. Contingency Funds should only be approved for this expense if it is deemed prudent.
Comm. Vickers stated he supports the CCAB’s request to keep Project Sentry open. He then asked if the requested funds would be distributed when this item is approved by the Board of Commissioners. Also, if the funds are distributed at a later date, would the amount decrease if Project Sentry is able to increase its revenues. Mr. Neilsen stated any surplus revenues would be placed in the County’s General Fund.
Comm. DeLeon stated she would like more information from the 55th District Court regarding their decision to use another vendor.
MOVED BY COMM. DELEON, SUPPORTED BY COMM. THOMAS, TO TABLE THE RESOLUTION UNTIL THIS COMMITTEE’S NEXT MEETING. MOTION CARRIED with Comms. Schafer and Vickers voting NO.
Chairperson Nolan stated this Committee will continue to work on this issue to find a resolution. She then stated 55th District Court representatives should be scheduled for this Committee’s next meeting. Mr. Neilsen stated he would make the necessary arrangements to schedule the 55th District for the next meeting.
3. Board Referral – Resolution from Livingston County Regarding State Funding to Support 911
This item will be placed on this Committee’s next agenda.
4. Joint Law Enforcement/Finance Committee Meeting
Chairperson Nolan informed the Committee that the Joint meeting is scheduled for March 22, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
Announcements: None
Public Comment: None
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Neff