MEETING MINUTES

MEETING MINUTES

LOCAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE (LOC)

CENTER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AT UNIVERSITY PLACE IN IDAHO FALLS

Thursday, February 5, 2004

Present: Bob Stiger, Ann Howell, Carol Baldwin, Susan Morris, Chuck Hatch, Mark Brainard, Leo Herrman, Jennifer Fisher

Guests: Greg Horton, Ray Hart, Lee Krehbiel, Darrell Buffaloe, Connie Gomez, Carol Spain

Approval of Minutes – Carol Baldwin moved that the January 15, 2004, minutes be approved. Susan Morris seconded. There was no discussion. Motion carried.

Call for Additional Agenda Items – There were no additional items.

UPOC Meeting - Jennifer Fisher confirmed that the next UPOC meeting for Idaho Falls is April 6 at 8:00 a.m. in Boise. The agenda should be decided at the next LOC Executive Committee meeting.

Friends for Learning Request – Ray Hart and Connie Gomez said the Parking Committee is looking for direction from the LOC regarding parking permits for students in non-academic courses and seminars. Friends for Learning is institutionally supported by ISU. Some of the classes meet 2 or 3 times and others meet weekly during the semester. It was agreed that having this type of activity is appropriate for the Center. There was discussion regarding scheduling non-credit courses and events during periods of peak parking. Jennifer Fisher and Leo Herrman suggested encouraging groups to add $5.00 to their workshop fees to cover parking. This could be charged administratively and class participants wouldn’t know it was in place. Bob Stiger said one of the issues discussed by the Parking Committee was who should have free passes and guidance for the committee would be helpful. Institutional policies were discussed. ISU charges the departments for the parking passes. UI provides parking at no cost to program participants. Bob pointed out that both main campuses have large overflow parking lots and the Center doesn’t. Ann Howell said another distinction that came out in the Parking Committee is that if a group is paying rent for a room, the committee felt the parking was already covered in that rental rate. If they aren’t paying anything, like Friends for Learning, the Parking Committee is in a bind on what to do. Connie said that the rental money is not going in to the parking fund. Leo said the rental rates could be restructured to reflect parking and time of day as a way to encourage groups to use less crowded times. Remarks supported this idea. Action Item: Lee Krehbiel, Greg Horton, Joy Fisher and Mark Dodd, the Parking Committee Chair, get together offline and talk about this issue with the broad guidance discussed here and come back with a recommendation at the next meeting. It was decided to let the Friends for Learning not pay parking fees this semester but inform them that it could change in the future.

ELC Bus Status Report – Greg Horton said he and Lee Krehbiel had identified a different parking space for the ELC bus than previously discussed. It is in the west end of the lot behind the SUB and will accommodate the length of the bus which the other space did not. Action Item: Greg will make that change to the letter to the ELC and get it out today.

SUB Fire Alarm – Lee Krehbiel reported there were four steps of action. They reviewed the incident that precipitated the discussion. There was human error on the part of a dispatcher. There was a call from one of the BSUB staff about 1 minute after the alarm went off. At that time the dispatcher had received a fire alarm, read through the codes to determine what type of alarm it was, went through the calling protocol and had begun to initiate a call to the fire department in Idaho Falls. When the dispatcher received the call from the BSUB, the dispatcher wrongly aborted the call to the fire department. In response, they asked the fire marshal to come here to explain the codes and preferences and his interpretation of the codes. Subsequent to that the fire marshal was invited to ISU in Pocatello where he did an on site inspection of the protocol there and training of the staff. The Pocatello fire marshal also reviewed the protocol. As a result there is a revised protocol (Attachment 1). It is what is currently operative but it is open to small changes. Greg, Lee and Ray will review it and if there are no substantive changes they will forward it to Fire Marshall Sheets in Idaho Falls and then put it in place in Pocatello. Bob Stiger commented that it needs to be broken down into steps and in sequence. The same person shouldn’t be asked to perform two tasks at once. Concern was also expressed regarding the strong tone toward the dispatchers. Greg Horton said the use of “after business hours” is not clear. It should be a specific time. Lee will talk with Steve Chatterton to get that changed.

206 C – Ann Howell said 206 C is currently having equipment moved into it to support the CIS program. Bob Stiger’s request for Lee Ostrom to use the room is O.K. Lee needs to coordinate with Corey Schou. Greg Horton was contacted by Dr. Schou’s assistant regarding changing the locks for the classroom and specifically the server room. There is not a card reader on the back room. Ray Hart said the back room could be put on the super master key and leave the building master key on the front door. The custodial staff could clean and the only people entering the back room would be management. He could put an individual key on it as well. Bob asked about EIFIT’s use and that he and Ann became involved because Dr. Bowen had told EIFIT that they could put their server in there and because Dr. Schou wasn’t working with EIFIT. Ann said she assumed Dr. Schou is now working with EIFIT. Action Item: Ann will check on EIFIT’s use. Bob suggested the EIFIT server could be moved in the other half where Dave Anderson has equipment. Carol Baldwin said Dr. Schou is a member of the EIFIT Board.

Chemistry Lab – Greg Horton presented a request from Steve Chatterton to install a security camera in the Chemistry lab, CHE 109 (Attachment 2). This is the same lab where they recently installed a burglar alarm. The camera will allow them to see who is setting off the burglar alarm. Ann Howell moved that the LOC allow the security camera to be installed in the Chemistry Lab. Susan Morris seconded. No discussion. Motion carried.

Security Plan Discussion - Ray Hart asked if we could put a hold on further additions until the Security Agreement is ratified or approved and then move forward according to the agreement. He doesn’t have a problem with the camera in the Chemistry Lab. Things are continually being added without a Security Plan and we really should consider the impact on the Security Plan. He did a quick survey of the campus. There are 25 cameras on the campus, the digital recording system, 10 card readers, 2 card reader systems, 19 locator buttons, radio communication equipment, dial up communication equipment, telecom room, 3 locations for security to work from, 2 dispatch services, several analyses and crime prevention surveys, 5 emergency phones, entry sensors, and motion sensors. All of which are only partially approved by the LOC. He asked

Darrell Buffaloe said he totally disagreed. We need to do all we can do for security for the campus. They are doing things that are reasonable and need to be done. He agrees the Security Plan needs to be done but he totally disagrees that we need to stop providing security and safety for students while waiting for the plan. Jennifer Fisher said ISU Risk Management should have their response to the proposal completed by the end of this week so they can send it to the UI. They hope to have a point meeting with ISU and UI Risk Management, Chuck, Ann, Bob and Jennifer to come to some consensus in the next month. In the meantime, we need to keep forging forward to take care of the campuses as well as we can. If it overkill, it is overkill. She’d rather be safe than sorry.

Chuck said he was glad we are moving forward with the Security Plan. He doesn’t see it as an issue of overkill. It is more of an issue of are we targeting our resources strategically so we really have them where they will serve us the best and provide the greatest amount of security possible. Without the plan it is difficult to confirm that is in fact what we are doing.

Darrell said that from ISU’s perspective, they have looked at it very carefully. As far as the camera in CHE 109, that is part of the strategic plan they have implemented on this campus. Input into the future Security Plan is something they would do anyway. We need to stick to the issue of the security camera right now. It was well thought out and funded by the federal government. Bob said he didn’t think that was a problem. The camera was already approved. He thought the comment was about adding additional things. If we are within a month of getting this ironed out, maybe that is not a bad request.

Darrell said since the camera was approved he thinks it is inappropriate to stop it. Ray clarified that the camera in CHE 109 was already approved. What he was trying to do was get the Security Plan in place so there are guidelines and so that things aren’t put in ad hoc. It is the process of putting things in and then Facilities and the LOC find out after the fact, like the motion sensors in 109. It is more procedural. Bob asked if we could resolve to bring things to the LOC before they are done. Darrell agreed. Chuck so moved. Leo Herrman requested more specificity. Chuck Hatch stated the motion: That these sort of issues be brought to the LOC before they are implemented rather than after they are implemented so we partner on these activities rather than get informed after the fact. Leo said that the Security Plan would take care of that. Chuck said the motion was to agree to do it until the Security Plan is in place. Leo said the motion is open ended and didn’t say security plan or what issues and it could be construed to everything to changing light bulbs. Ray said that to a degree that is the point. It’s not basic maintenance. It is any time physical changes or any kind of additions are made to the facility. Leo said he expected the motion to include that. Chuck amended the motion to read that we bring to the Committee in advance significant change and additions and renovations to facilities and facility operating procedures before their implementation. Leo said the motion didn’t define significant. Ray and Steve could have different ideas as to whether a camera was significant. It is still vague. Chuck said if we don’t define cameras as significant we can game play with how we want to partner all we want. The intent of the motion is that on these things that have impact on both parties that we talk about them in advance rather than after the fact. Leo asked if the operating agreement didn’t already specify that. Chuck said that obviously it isn’t being followed. Ray said that the lease agreement from the UI Foundation to the universities states that there can be no physical changes to the facilities, including the SUB without approval of the foundation. We have to be careful because we could be stepping on the lease agreement.

Jennifer said we ought to agree in the spirit of cooperation in the next month we won’t make any substantial changes such as the camera or anything like that related to security or other issues until we do get the Security Plan approved. She suggested a nod rather than a vote and that we be more mindful of communicating any changes in the next month before we have our final meeting. Bob reminded LOC that there was a motion on the floor and seconded. Chuck said he would be more comfortable if it didn’t have that specific statement of month because it may take longer. He would be more comfortable if it was until the agreement is formally in place and issues addressed. Leo said he was in agreement with the spirit of the motion but not the technical motion itself. Bob asked if someone would attempt to restate the motion in a way that it agrees with the discussion. Jennifer asked Chuck if a motion was needed or if they could agree to communicate and try to get this security situation resolved without a motion. Chuck thought it would be desirable to have a formal record in the minutes that we are in fact working together on these activities and have recommitted ourselves to do so. Darrell Buffaloe said he has no problem as long as everyone goes along with it. He reminded Mr. Hart that he is the one who brought this up and that Ray has made a lot of operational decisions on the buildings that was not cleared by the LOC and was not brought to the attention of ISU. As long as Ray is willing, and that group is willing, to bring it to their attention when they make those kind of decisions and changes to the buildings, they will certainly do the same kind of things. They will abide by whatever decisions are made. Bob called for the motion to be restated again. Jennifer Fisher moved that any changes to the I.F. facility be brought to the attention of the LOC before those changes are made. Seconded by Ann. No discussion. Motion carried.

Security Officer Reporting – Bob Stiger said this is a continuation of the discussion regarding reporting relationships. We need an agreement on the way we deal with the security person. A matrixed employee is not a new thing but this seems to be a hard point right now. He is worried that we have an employee who feels he is not being treated fairly. Bob asked for a clarification on who Greg Horton and Steve Chatterton work for. Jennifer Fisher said according to the organization chart Greg is paid ½ by ISU and ½ by UI, reports to this committee, and has a reporting line to the UI Dean and ISU Director. Bob said he thought that was the way it was but he hasn’t ever seen a performance plan or appraisal for Greg and he hasn’t had any input into Greg’s salary or raises. Jennifer we might also look at the issue of reporting to the committee: Who is the committee, to whom does Greg really report, what kind of annual appraisal are we going to do if Greg has to report to the committee, and will Bob and Ann give input? No one has had a raise in three years, so even though Greg deserves something for what he has to put up with, it is not an issue. We probably ought to standardize how the process is going to work. She thought the security officer received a letter this week defining his reporting line. Bob said he received a copy of the letter second hand and it wasn’t exactly what was in the minutes from the January meeting. There seemed to be a minor disconnect with the way that is working. Jennifer suggested that personnel issues be discussed in an executive session. Bob said he thinks the security officer question will be answered in the Security Plan eventually. Ann said she had been doing the evaluations for Greg every year and she will include Bob in them. Bob said the Greg really isn’t the problem he had in mind when he brought it up, but the issue grew out of the concern for relieving the pressure on Tony. He doesn’t know how to get at that issue in the next six weeks while we are working on a Security Plan. Chuck Hatch said he is not sure a reporting line is an executive session issue. It doesn’t seem to him that reporting to the committee is the sort of structure we should have. Personnel issues are appropriate for the Executive Committee but the reporting structure should be a full committee issue and not an Executive Committee issue. Jennifer said the original agreement does show Greg reporting to the LOC. We may want to renegotiate or take a look at it. Greg said he met with Darrell and Steve and with Tony after the letter came out. He thinks they can iron out the issues and alleviate Tony’s concerns until the Security Agreement is done Ann thinks that the agreement between Steve and Greg, regardless of what the letter stated, is what we stated at the last meeting. Bob and Ann are satisfied with that arrangement.

Adjourn – Carol Baldwin moved the meeting adjourn. Ann Howell seconded. There was no discussion. Motion carried.

Minutes prepared by Carol Spain, Management Assistant, University of Idaho at Idaho Falls.

Attachment 1

Idaho Falls (University Place) Fire Alarm Instructions for Dispatch

(Revised 1/21/04)

Following is the protocol for responding to alarms sent from the Bennion Student Union in Idaho Falls to Idaho State University Public Safety in Pocatello.

I. The first set of call lists is for alarms coded as indicating fire (coded 1110-001 thru 1110-030).

A. During Business Hours: Fire Alarm

1. Idaho Falls Fire Department must always be called first! A speed dial button has been

programmed on both dispatch phones (phone # 529-1200). Always hit that and call them first (even if it is a false or accidental alarm).

After pressing the speed dial button, and while making notification to IFFD during business hours, if possible, radio dispatch the on duty officer and bring up cameras at Bennion to look for signs of fire or smoke. After normal business hours call the on duty officer by cell phone.

If you are informed of the cause of the fire alarm after the initial fire department notification, call the IFFD back to inform them of any additional information.

DISPATCHERS BE AWARE! Failure to contact the Idaho Falls Fire Department first may be considered a misdemeanor. The Dispatcher that does not follow this protocol may receive a misdemeanor citation!

2. On Duty Security Officer 221-0401

3. Steve Chatterton Always Call

4. Lee Krehbiel 282-7865/2794 or 221-4031

5. Marcus Chavarria 282-7862 or 221-3599

6. Ray Hart 282-7968 or 589-0342

7. Greg Horton 282-7823 or 221-4061

B. After Business Hours: Fire Alarm

1. Idaho Falls Fire Department must always be called first! A speed dial button has been

programmed on both dispatch phones (phone # 529-1200). Always hit that and call them first (even if it is a false or accidental alarm).

While making notification to IFFD, bring up cameras at Bennion to look for signs of fire or smoke and call the on duty officer by cell phone. If you are informed of the cause of the fire alarm after the initial fire department notification, call the IFFD back with any additional information.

2. On duty officer by cell phone until 10:00 pm. After 10:00 pm:

3. Marcus Chavarria 528-8755 or 221-3599 Responder

4. Ray Hart 523-5120 Responder

5. Greg Horton 524-3212 Responder

6. Tammie Fletcher 535-0355 Responder

7. Steve Chatterton Always Call

8. Lee Krehbiel 233-4798 or 221-4031 Information Only

9. Karen Larsen 356-4247 Information Only

II. The second set of call lists is for alarms coded as indicating system or equipment trouble (coded 1373-001 thru 1373-030, 1571-001 thru 1571-030).

A. During Business Hours: Trouble Alarm or Supervisory Alarm

1. On Duty Security Officer 221-0401

2. Steve Chatterton Always Call

3. Lee Krehbiel 282-7865/2794 or 221-4031

4. Marcus Chavarria 282-7862 or 221-3599

5. IF Fire Department*

6. Ray Hart 282-7968 or 589-0342

7. Greg Horton 282-7823 or 221-4061

B. After Business Hours: Trouble Alarm or Supervisory Alarm

1. Marcus Chavarria 528-8755 or 221-4031 Responder

2. Ray Hart 523-5120 Responder

3. Greg Horton 524-3212 Responder

4. Tammie Fletcher 535-0355 Responder

5. IF Fire Department*

6. Steve Chatterton Always Call

7. Lee Krehbiel 233-4798 Information Only

8. Karen Larsen 356-4247 Information Only

*Notify IF Fire Department of any Trouble/Supervisory alarm and tell them that an officer and/or maintenance have been dispatched to check out the nature of the problem. Make sure you re-contact them regarding the nature of the problem and re-contact them when the problem has been resolved and the system in back on-line.

III. Test Alarms (coded 1604-000, 1602-000, 1602-099, 1601-000 thru 1601-010)

Always notify the IF Fire Department anytime maintenance is being performed on the panels and tests are being run (this does not include the auto tests or 24 hour check-in alarms we receive), and re-contact them when maintenance/tests are complete.

Automatic or 24 Hour Check-in Alarms - always acknowledge these alarms.

Definitions of Alarms in Accordance with the National Fire Alarm Code:

1. Fire Alarm Signal - A signal initiated by a fire alarm-initiating device such as a manual fire alarm box, automatic fire detector, waterflow switch, or other device whose activation is indicative of the presence of a fire or fire signature.

2. Alarm Restoral Signals - (codes 3110-001 thru 3110-030, 3373-030, 3571-011 thru 3571-030) Indicates an alarm has been restored or reset.

3. Supervisory Alarm Signal - (codes 1203-001 thru 1203-030) A signal indicating the need of action in connection with the supervision of guard tours, the fire suppression systems or equipment, or the maintenance features of related systems.

4. Trouble Alarm Signal (Equipment or System Trouble Alarm) - (codes 1571-001 thru 1571-030, 1373-001 thru 1373-030) A signal initiated by the fire alarm system or device indicating a fault in a monitored circuit or component (i.e. alarm panel).

Subject:	che chemistry cctv
Date:	Wed, 04 Feb 2004 08:15:50 -0700
From:	Steve Chatterton <chatstep@isu.edu>
Organization:	ISU PUBLIC SAFETY
To:	Greg Horton <hortgreg@isu.edu>, Darrell Buffaloe <buffdarr@isu.edu>, Jennifer C Fisher <fishjenn@isu.edu>, Ann Meikle <meikanna@isu.edu>