Okay, I'm gonna call us to order uh Mr.

Seppin is on his way up.

Um, but Lori Casey is excused for tonight.

Cindy Perduan.

There he is.

Cindy Shaw.

And Chad Silk is excused our ale tonight.

If we can have our Pledge of Allegiance in prayer, please.

All right, thanks everyone, and I hope everybody had a great holiday break and we're back at it.

So starting right off with public comment on any item on the agenda.

All right, every banner of twenty six oh one Grand Avenue, Butte, Montana, for and on behalf of the Greeley Neighborhood Community Development Corporation and a triad of concerned citizens.

Reference public comment on any item on the agenda, item eight, unfinished business, neighborhood council's working group update.

Dan Clark said that the Montana Supreme Court said encourage and assist.

Maybe not quite as much as Larry was, but I am irritated that this body does not seem to be getting the message that the empty council chamber at your meetings, meeting after meeting, month after month should be telling you something.

Only twenty-one percent of respondents to your survey, not my petition, local government study commission survey, feel that their commissioners effectively represents the needs and concerns of his or her constituents.

That is seventy-nine percent of the people of Butte Silva Bowl who are at least partially and sidebar.

I included the undecided, because if you're not decided, you are at least partially dissatisfied, or more are dissatisfied with the current Butte Silver Bowl unrepresentative system of government at the neighborhood and the district level that does not accurately reflect the will of the people or include an effective mechanism by which to determine andor call lease to bring together the will of the people.

Not once in the nine years I attended council commissioner meetings regularly.

Do I remember them ever calling for interactive, consensus drawing, decision making, fact-finding, listening session?

The people indicated in your survey that they want a system that will require commissioners to actually listen and hear their constituents by holding regular neighborhood listening sessions with actual interactive consensual drawing decision making discussions.

The people indicated in your survey that they want public body meetings where they, the people, can participate and be a part of the consensual drawing decision making discussions process, not only be allowed to make comments at the beginning of the meeting.

I believe that this moves the creating of officially recognized neighborhood community improvement councils and a greater Butte Silverbow Community Council channel of communications with some checks and balances authority from being a one person coming up here every week and spouting off to a 79% of the people issue and moves it from an insignificant lesser important issue to the top of the list as the most important issue this body will address.

Representative system solution based on the Butte community situation, not on the Montana situation.

What is our problem?

Have you defined it?

And proposed solutions that we have brought before you.

So what are you going to do to us?

And for other neighborhoods to do the same.

Thank you.

Any other public comment on any item on the agenda.

Sorry.

Members of the commission, my name is Dan Strizek.

I live at 3235 Warden Street here in town.

I just you don't have bad hearing like I do.

Anyway, I just came up tonight.

I noticed on the agenda that the Superfund coordinator is now.

I spoke before the commission here several weeks ago with a couple of recommendations that I thought were important.

One was on the uh chief executive issue, the other was on superfund.

So I'm glad to hear this is there.

My my comment is on the record.

I think Matt and Ben were the only ones that weren't here for that.

I won't go back into reread that on, save some time, but it I I believe it's very important that that issue moves forward and it becomes before the people, and there's several proposals on how that can go, but we need to seriously look at how we how we go move forward with the superfund issue and how it's going to go.

So I'm here for that.

I'm glad to see it's on, and we'll go from there.

You guys got a tough job hanging there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comment on items on the agenda.

Okay, seeing none, I'll move on to public comment on anything not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

All right, bad on 2601 Grand Avenue, Butte, Montana, for and on behalf of the Gelee Neighborhood Community Development Corporation Inc.

and a triad of concerned citizens who have discussed this.

Here again further to public participation in the decision making process of our Butte Silver Bowl local government.

Here again, Dan Clark said that the Montana Supreme Court said to encourage and assist.

I am irritated that 79% of dissatisfied public indicated in your survey.

I am hoping that I am also irritated to the point that you will do something about the issue that the people are so irritated about.

Because here we are again.

The agenda still says we the people are to make public comments on items on the agenda before deliberation and before we the people know the position of the commissioners of this body.

You are fully aware that the Montana Supreme Court clearly ruled that the public has the right to participate in the decisions, discussions of the decision making process of public bodies on agenda items before a final decision is made.

You are fully aware that the current Butte Silver Bowl local government precedent for public comment at meetings of public bodies most probably does not fulfill the intent.

Yet discussions of the procedure for public comment on the agenda is still not on your agenda.

A recommended procedure for public comment on items to on the agenda at meetings of public bodies was presented to this body and should be discussed by this body.

Whether or not this commission is going to discuss and implement the intent of the rulings of the Montana Supreme Court, or is not going to discuss the intent and are going to continue to abide by the Butte Silver Bowl local government precedent on this issue of public participation in the discussion making decision-making process of the Butte Silver Bowl local government is most probably going to be the most important decision that this body is going to make.

Whether you discuss it or not, it is still a decision.

The public are only listening to and hearing the current administration.

Thank you kindly for your attention.

And yeah, I wish I didn't have your job.

I mean, I'm glad I don't have your job.

Any other public comment on things not on the agenda but within the jurisdiction of the study commission.

Okay, hearing none, I'm I'm going to take a moment as the chair just to address the referenced email from Dan Clark.

And in his email, you all received that.

He highlighted allowing the public to comment on any public matter that is not on the agenda of the meeting, and that public comment received at the meeting must be incorporated into the official minutes.

We do that.

He kind of gives us, he cites MCA for us, and then he gives us his own summary saying that public boards, commissions, and councils have a duty to encourage and assist public participation before taking any final action on matters of significant public interest.

And here's where I want to make a point.

This body has not made any final action on anything of public interest.

We've been listening, we've been gathering information, we've been doing research, we have done due diligence to go out to community and participate in community to gather their thoughts and feedback.

And I do not think that this is true that we have would not hold interactive consensus drawing at our listening sessions because indeed we did.

We listened to people to say what would you prefer?

How do you like these?

You know, what do you think about these issues?

Are there things that you want to have added to them or not?

Um the order of events for us is we are in the phase right now.

We were still gathering information, still doing our research.

We are not making decisions.

Um I would entertain from the body as we have time to chew on it, that when it's time for us to take our votes on what we are moving forward to the ballot, that we could have that each ballot issue have a public comment for that issue.

Um our timeline, as we're going to talk about later in the agenda tonight.

Um, once we finish our report, we will go out again for another set of public listening sessions that will be interactive and I hope in community like we did prior to this um this preliminary report being completed, and then we'll have that official public hearing, the very uh formal public hearing.

After that public hearing, we will be taking our votes.

Um so it would be that meeting that we can consider changing the order of operations where there's time another opportunity for comment.

However, I want to be very clear that I feel that this body is doing more than due diligence in regarding public comment and that we are taking very detailed action in that regard.

Um Dan Clark did sign off his email to us saying um that for items not on the agenda, the governing body may choose to place public comment at the beginning or the end of the meeting.

In practice, it is more commonly scheduled at the end rather than at the beginning.

We did move our comment for public comment on items not on the agenda to the beginning of the meeting at the request of Mr.

Banderob because sitting through the entire meeting for something to wait till that might have been um a trouble for people that are sitting in the audience.

So we we moved that on purpose.

That was purposeful action on our part.

And then the last section, he gives us um a Supreme Court case the challenge of revised growth policy, reasonable opportunity for the public to participate, summary judgment in favor of the county commission proper.

And in that case, the district court disagreed and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on appeal.

The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the county's planning board had held silver work workshops, hearings, and public meetings to discuss revisions to the policy and to receive public input.

The court concluded that under the facts of the case, the defendant had not violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights because it had provided a reasonable opportunity for public participation.

I believe we are providing more than reasonable opportunity.

It's about the scheduling in the in our agenda, and I don't find fault in that at this stage.

I I will bring it back to us.

Uh we can bring it back in January when we come forward for our final votes of what goes to the ballot.

Um but Mr.

Banderob, please.

I've heard you.

I believe that we are doing our work here, and I believe that we're doing it very well.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Thielen.

Madam Chair, and I don't know if this is appropriate, but I'd like to uh address Mr.

Banderob for a moment.

Ed, I I can understand and respect your frustration, but I am personally offended at the way you have accused all of us here by not doing our job.

Everybody up here is doing everything we can.

And quite honestly, sir, if you don't like it, stay home.

We've heard you, we have listened to you.

Thank you very much, but I don't want to hear it no more.

In the beginning you had me, but um at this point I don't think I'm gonna go for it.

So thank you.

I'm gonna go ahead and move us on if we could.

Um thank you very much.

So moving into approval of minutes of the meeting held November 17th, 2025.

If I could have a motion to approve those minutes, Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I read the minutes.

I think that uh Shann is doing a great job of putting our minutes together.

I want to thank her on the on the floor here for that.

Uh so at that, uh with that, I would like to move to approve the minutes from November 17th, 25 meeting.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Correspondence and our study commission update.

Do we have any correspondence?

Um I received none in my email.

And then Ms.

Dolan, I know you have one, but we'll read it in the new business section.

Okay.

I think that works for the um topic.

Okay.

All right.

So moving on into our unfinished business.

Um, just to bring us back to the review of our timeline really quick before we begin.

Um, our preliminary report drafting is happening now.

In January, we have that we're adopting that preliminary report, and then our public listening sessions would regarding that preliminary report would be in February of 26.

And then March of 26 would be the public hearing to gather citizens' response to the preliminary report, and that's when we will move to moving things forward to the ballot initiatives, and that's when um we would start working diligently with the county attorney's office for language for the ballot.

Um that said, I think this body, we could probably do some of our work in the uh working groups and come back in January.

So we could probably recess for the last two weeks of December.

We have coming up right now, we'd have December next week, the 8th and then the 15th, and we could recess the 22nd and the 29th, giving the work groups time to get everything loaded into that preliminary report coming back into January, say January 5th, and begin resuming our um weekly meetings.

So again, I'll put that back to us to consider next week.

We'll bring it into us having a little vote in regards to that timeline.

But really, we are coming down to the the um time that things are due.

So I think the working groups getting their work done is more important than sitting in the horseshoe so that we can have that report ready to go for public.

Um so next week, I just want you to kind of mill on that.

Next week we'll bring it back for a vote on um that timeline.

Um Mr.

Denehy, did you want to add to that?

Thanks, madam chair.

Um we talked a little bit, um, Ray Lynn and I uh this afternoon, and I thought it was important that the working groups have significant work to do on all of our issues that we have talked about.

And we really have spent uh Mary and I, uh, Mary and I again on two of our working groups with Chad and Laurie trying to um filter out some of the things that we discussed in our public hearings and in our discussions around the table.

So I thought that tonight we have two issues of another uh hearing from the public from the coroner's perspectives and from the super fund perspective.

And after that, I think we're I'm through the education process and the public process and the interview process.

Now it's time to hit have the rubber hit the road in our working groups where we will come to consensus in the working group to have some decisions brought back to the uh council, the commission, uh have us comment on those discussions, comment on those uh changes, and at the end of the day at in the new year, get ready for discussions and public hearings on what the public wants, what the public feels, what the public participation will be.

But we need to have something in writing so they have a little legitimate comment.

So I would sugg I suggest it to Ray Lynn that maybe instead of coming back on Monday, maybe that Monday time frame from five to seven to five five to eight, we can work in the working groups, come in together, separate ourselves to the issues working group, and spend that two hours to three hours to formulate what we want to do to hash out some of our uh discussions to uh make internally in the working group something that we can provide for the entire commission, and then either give a presentation to the uh entire commission or a PowerPoint to the commission and have us discuss those.

Then again, have the preliminary results from that discussions, yes or no, five versus six commissioners, uh chief executive versus city county manager, whatever those discussions are.

We would bring it back, listen, and then have a format and a foundation of what we're going to do and have that public hearing on that format from the public, listening sessions, public hearing, everything we want to do, but we got to get it done in terms of putting something on paper and have that uh uh discussion or debate or whatever we want to call it.

But I would suggest that we use the rest of December to hash out in working groups what are what our comments are going to be, what the changes of the charter are going to be and move forward.

Um Mr.

Denehy, just to clarify, so you're proposing starting that next week.

Okay.

Um let's discuss that, I suppose, right now, Ms.

McCormick.

I think that's an excellent idea.

I mean, we have a lot of work to do, and we don't have much time, and we have to get things down on paper.

It's not just discussing anymore.

It's getting things down on paper so that you know we we have something concrete.

And like I've said before, we've done a we have, we have done incredible amounts of work researching, listening to people.

We can continue to do that, and we're never gonna get anywhere.

It's time for us to sit down and do this really, really hard work.

So I think to me that makes very good sense to use this time of December.

You know, I spent my professional career research and writing reports, and I loved research, but sitting down and writing and getting it on paper is the really hard part.

And we have a tight deadline.

That deadline um was made tight so that study commissions didn't goof around for two or three years.

You know, we have a time frame to get something done.

So I'm ready to I think that's an excellent idea, and I'm ready to accept that challenge.

Ms.

Dolan?

Thank you, madam chair.

I agree with Mary 100 percent.

Thank you, Dan, and thank you for all your work in trying to get all this information um together.

So two two points I want to make.

Um we're while we have uh testimony tonight, we're still not done researching and getting information.

We will do that at the working group level with the fire department.

I just wanted to put that on the record because we need to still have some, and we've had great reception so far for the working group idea with regard to the fire department from not only the career fire department folks who want to educate us, but also a group of the five chiefs with regard to the volunteers.

And I wanted to make that on the record as well.

And I think it's extremely important that we get some input from Anaconda.

We have had issues of logistical, you know, trying to get folks here to give us more information, but we're going to follow up on that as well to get some education with regard to the idea of um how Anaconda's charter in 1977 does not have the fire department in it.

And so we need to learn those things and how it works and everything.

So that is coming, and I just want to let folks know if they're listening tonight, that while we have gotten a deep dive into fire department issues, we still have more to get more information to get through, so then we can make the best possible decisions moving forward.

Um and secondly, with regard to unfinished business, the city county manager, the way it's listed on, and this is not anything with you, Shanna at all.

This is more to um parse out with the unfinished business with the city county manager working group that also is doing the mayor question and the number of commissioners.

If we could keep city county manager and mayor, those are both in the executive branch.

We should keep those together.

And then the council of commissioners number question is with the legislative branch.

Um I think you know, the overarching question is the question and that I've been getting from folks is the question of the level of power and how power is distributed in Butte Silver Bow.

Right now the power is heavy towards the executive branch, that's a fact.

And the idea that the legislative branch is more of a hate to say it, but a rubber stamp, and just listening to stuff and that's already been done.

So that's kind of the argument of what we're doing.

And I know Cindy, you don't have to roll your eyes, I get it, but you might not agree with me, but I was a commissioner as well, and I really think we need to keep executive branch issues together, legislative branch issues together.

We don't touch the judiciary, but I we need to make sure that we're educating folks in the general public correctly.

So those are my comments.

Thank you.

So the question to the floor or to the group to chew on is if we want to recess, not you know, actually recessing, but doing our working group work through December starting next week, and then reconvening maybe January 5th as a whole body, and then doing um presentations from each working group, I think would be excellent.

Um so that's the question, and I'd you know I want to hear some more comments about that.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think that we've recognized that that time of the of the week and of the evening is the time we all have blocked.

Um and I agree with what's been said that I think we're at a point where our time is best spent there.

And maybe a better question to ask is if we if not, what would we prioritize on the agenda the next couple of of uh meeting dates?

Any other comments?

I would entertain a motion then if you wanted to make that Madam Chair, I would make a motion that from December 8th through uh our Monday sessions till the 20th of December that we would work in working groups at that Monday meeting where we sit instead of sitting at the entire study commission, we sit in working groups and hash out our business for the month of December.

Wow, that's a Mr.

Attorney, could you maybe probably help me there?

Uh just a point of order.

Uh Madam Chair and Commissioner Denhi, are you asking to suspend the open meetings where you have the public discussion and specifically go into working groups only?

Uh no, I would highly suggest not doing that and working in your working groups outside of your meetings.

This is the meeting that allows the public to participate.

Uh and by doing that and suspending that and going the way you're thinking, I do believe it would violate state open meeting laws.

So I think that the working groups can work as they choose independently of this meeting.

So what what the motion would be is to recess um until December or January 5th, and then those working groups would have presentation.

And I know that there are people that are getting um public involvement, like with the fire.

I know Mr.

Banderob um had been asked by Mr.

Silk and Mr.

Denehy to um participate in that working group to kind of chew on some of the the questions.

So the public comment section would come when they're ready to present what their ideas are.

Would that meet um muster, Mr.

Enruth?

Uh Chairwoman Randall, please explain to me how would your Monday would you are you asking to recess your Monday meetings until it's all done I don't have a definitive answer for that right now.

I'll have to give you one next Monday.

Thank you.

So we'll just pause on this.

I think we do need to meet next Monday um to hash out what we're gonna be how we're gonna get our work done.

But I think January 5th, we need to be ready to present from those working groups.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it's important to make sure with any kind of decision with, and I agree with the county attorney.

Um we need, you know, we want public participation, but we need we keep saying this almost every single week, um, transparency and public involvement and participation.

And while we're, you know, chewing on these issues, it's very important.

Um, and if we can figure out a way to message that to folks to say we're trying to get all of our ducks in a row, and then we're gonna present, but you know, there might be some folks that want to listen in on that.

I don't know how what the solution is, but the county attorney defer to him.

Thank you.

Mr.

Enrith.

Madam Chair Commissioners, and the other reason I I'm thinking that you know, recessing or suspending the meetings until the working groups are done is is you have it right here on your agenda.

Uh the working groups are providing updates weekly, which then allows the public to comment on them weekly.

So by suspending your your weekly sessions all of them, uh I I do believe that you would then you know not necessarily limit but lessen the public's participation, which may then violate the law.

That's why I can't give you a definitive answer on it.

Now the ability to go bi weekly, I do think would possibly be a better solution, but I will give you a definitive answer next Monday.

I think going back to our original plan too, we were looking at the first, the eighth, the fifteenth still coming to session, and then we would recess the 22nd and the 29th, and those working groups could work those two Mondays if they so chose to wrap up and be ready to present on the fifth.

Ms.

McCormick.

I would like to make a motion that we um meet bi-weekly in the month of December, and at those bi-weekly meetings, that the agenda, besides public comment, be limited to reports by the working groups on where they're at.

And that's it.

So that we do not have two or three hour long meetings.

We report, the public can hear what come and hear our report.

But then in the meantime, working groups have to make a commitment to meeting with each other, whether they do it on it, they should get together and decide what time would work best for them, that they put that time in to do that work.

Working groups are allowed, they're an opportunity for people to sit down and really put their heads together and think about everything that they've absorbed and discuss and just make a draft proposal.

It's a draft proposal.

But we're not going to get anything done if we have to have working group meetings with a lot of public participation.

When they draft laws in the legislature, they don't have, you know, the led the legislatures get to go in and draft their laws.

They get presented and voted upon, but we don't have to have extensive public participation in our working groups.

There's no point of even having a working group then.

We might as well just hash things out here in front of everybody.

But I think working groups are a great way for us to really be able to, you know, we're I think everybody on this commission is so committed to doing a good, honest job.

We have been here, we have listened to the public, we have, you know, we have already done tons of research on our issues of the working group that I've been in.

And you know, the the public puts some trust in us to do a good job.

And so a little working group putting drafting together something that you know is going to go to the bigger group and then go to the public.

I don't know how that isn't transparent.

So that's my recommendation.

We have biweekly meetings.

The only things on the agenda besides public comment are working group reports, and that the working groups make a commitment to meet regularly during that time and get some substantial work done on their proposals for charter changes.

Mr.

Enruth.

And then with regards to uh Commissioner McCormick's uh motion of the bi-weekly meetings and then reporting back, I do believe would suffice under the open meeting laws.

Thank you for the point of order.

I appreciate it.

So your motion, Ms.

McCormick, would be to have bi-weekly meetings, and in the interim, you would be working where the working groups would do their work.

So that would give us the dates of it would be December 1st, December 15th, and December 29th to meet in chambers.

And also that the at the study commission meetings, the agenda is limited to do re due to reports by the working group.

That we're not scheduling more people to come in and talk to us.

You know, that that part of our information gathering is over with.

It certainly working groups should be working on their own now to gather additional information that they need to make the recommendations, but I don't think we should be doing that at a commission meetings anymore.

Okay.

All right, so we have a motion.

Is there a second?

Mr.

Thielen seconds discussion, Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I I agree and I I agree with the working group idea and the way the work it's done that gets done.

Um but my only concern, and maybe it's something we put into an agenda in it at some point in December.

F the fire department is going to be our biggest heaviest lift.

I have this feeling that it's very contentious, and the idea if we in a working group session have the information discussion about the anaconda charter, all of that, as we have with the education we've gotten from other folks in this setting.

To have that at the working group level is not being transparent with the public to let them listen to what Anaconda has to say.

And so with regard to that piece of it, everything else I agree with because we have done that due diligence.

We have missed this opportunity to talk about Anaconda Fire for the public to listen to that discussion.

And while I agree, it's it's just logistical concerns with everything that's transpired in the past year and at the end of 2024, what happened in Anaconda, our hearts went out to them and we had to give them some space.

So with that, I I want to make sure we tailor this motion so we can be as transparent as we can.

And I totally agree with you, Mary, with everything you said spot on.

Um but the pieces that we've missed with the public, I don't want to diminish down to a working group.

If if folks need that, come time in November 26th to vote on it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Stepin, did you hear from Anna Conda yet?

My last correspondence with uh Chief Executive Everett was probably two weeks ago that he was out of the country and that we would reconnect when he got back, and I have not followed up with him on that.

But I can I can at the conclusion of this meeting.

Okay, and I think it's reasonable we could schedule that discussion on the 15th or the 29th.

I think that's completely reasonable to do.

Mr.

Denehy.

Ma'am chair, I would agree.

Uh if we need to talk to the city uh county chief executive from Anaconda, we'll uh put him on the agenda and have that discussion in this body in front of all the commissioners and have that publicized so our audience and the general public can come and listen to what he has he has to say.

But I get I agree with Mary that we have to get some work done.

And I and so if it if it does um conform with the open meeting laws, Matt, that every other week we will have those meetings, the agenda will be limited to working groups uh decisions and um edits, then that's what we should do.

Um we have to get it done.

And to have it done in in this group, it might take us, we might not make our deadline.

So I just want to get it on the record that it's important that the working groups have their time to do the due diligence.

And again, whatever we do comes to this body, and whatever this body does goes to the general public for comment.

That's transparency.

That's how the process works.

Any other comments on the motion?

Okay, hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, motion carries.

So just so that I have it clear in our notes, we will meet on the 15th and the 29th.

And in the meantime, we'll have the working groups will do their their work.

Our agendas will be constricted to the working group updates, with the exception of chief executive coming in for the fire department working group update.

Thank you for that work, folks.

I appreciate you taking that time to um go through how we want to proceed with this process.

So that said, our city county manager working group update, mayor election, and number of commissioners.

Do we have an update from that group?

Ms.

McRimick.

Um what our group did was take a copy of the charter and update it to for so what it would look like if we had a city manager, what it looked like if we have a mayor, what changes we're proposing for the commission.

Um we provided it we did it in track changes um from a word copy of the charter, and we have provided that to the um county attorney to review a couple weeks ago.

So that's where we're at.

Mr.

Enrith, do you have any comments today?

Yes, the uh review of the charter that they provided uh has done an excellent job with regards to uh adding in the addition of the new form of government.

Um obviously there were questions in here that haven't been decided by this body yet, such as number of commissioners, uh, you know, when they will be elected, uh if it's you know two or three or if it's every two or three years, um excuse me, they will be elected every two years, but uh if it's four or six members.

Um I just had some more not necessarily grammar things, but where this when this body initially met, you know, there was some of that older language in the charter, and there's a couple of those in here that are easily fixable.

Uh I did add in a couple of notes that I will provide uh I will give this to Miss Mc or Commissioner McCormick uh after the meeting, you know, with questions on why a chair and vice chair was removed from the council of commissioners, you know, structure.

Uh however, like you know, the powers and duties of the mayor uh very much uh have been separated from the uh city manager position, and essentially what it's done is taken like it's supposed to, and given you know the mayor and the charter, the uh duties, part of the duties that the chief executive currently has, and then leaving the more administrative duties to the city manager with the council of commissioners, you know, voting uh by the correct uh number of people through a whole commission uh in a city manager, you know, setting that city manager's uh salary.

I do think we can put some additional language in there with regards to how the salary is determined and possibly additional language with regards to qualifications for a city manager rather than just the simple term of a qualified individual, we could possibly uh detail out what that what qualifications actually are, such as specific college degree, you know, when you look at a job type description.

Um a lot of the duty uh I do believe that the way they split up the duties between the mayor uh and the uh city manager uh was done correctly.

Um they correctly, you know, put in you know how the you would fill any of these vacancies if any one of them were to leave, or if the city manager were to step aside or be required to step aside.

Um there was a committee uh a question in here with regards, you know, if the city manager was to step to step aside or had to leave due to illness or family matter, you know that they shall the mayor or the manager shall designate uh the subject to the approval uh designate who uh would take their place subject to the council of commissioners.

Um we could also change that a little bit if we wanted to, but other than that, it looked very well done, and I've just got a few few notes on it for them to look at their next meeting.

Questions or other comments?

Um I have a quick question, Mr.

Enruth.

Um I think we've talked about that three questions that are changes to form of government.

Is there more than three questions for a ballot in what you have there?

Do you think it is if you split them up?

So that's where we're gonna go back and we're gonna look at uh those emails and then that what we'll call a semi-legal opinion from Mako that um I just kind of randomly found where they took you know three questions and combined it into one, such as uh with the council of commissioners, the question would be uh, you know, rather than three separate questions of this many council of commissioners, this many term or this many years elected this way, you combine it into one question.

So it would be X amount of county commissioners, you know, per you know elected for four-year terms based on this schedule.

That qualifies in my opinion as one question.

And then obviously we do have to present these to the Secretary of State to make sure that they agree as well.

But then that way we can take all the little issues inside the county of commissioners question or issue and make that one question, you know, with changing the charter.

Same with uh the city mayor form, and then um the third one is still sounds to me like it's gonna be uh the firefighter issue.

But yes, I think we can get it into three questions.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Mr.

Dennehy?

Madam Chair, we will get together probably next Monday in our group that have what Matt was talking about.

We left that pretty blank in terms of how many commissioners for or six city county commissioners for or six.

We will provide a number, and that will be what the entire commission will make a decision on.

We also said that the mayor uh uh is a voting member of the commission versus a non-voting member, so that's what the commission will have to make a decision on.

Um so those are the things that we are talking about in our work group that has to be discussed here and made it and have a decision made by this commission as a whole.

So that's what we're kind of talking about here.

But thanks, Matt, for looking at that.

Um and I'm sure there's some other issues here, but I think uh I think we did okay.

Um so thank you.

Mr.

Thielen.

Yeah, I just have uh question for Matt.

Thank you, madam chair.

Just just so I got it kind of straight.

So we can put three per se into one question.

What about the change on language in the charter?

Is that separate?

Chairman Brandle, Commissioner Thielen, it depends on the language that you're changing.

So if you're with we're doing you know the simple language changes, uh those are fine.

It's uh what you are limited to is the three questions with regards to the form of government.

So that's the your commissioners, your chief executives, your mayor form.

Yes.

Okay, any more discussion on that working groups update.

Okay, so fire department working group update.

Ms.

Dallin.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just as and in addition to what I said earlier with regard to fire.

Um so thank you.

I think Dan's idea of of meshing that in with the current schedule and updating would be great.

So thank you, Dan, for that.

Um because Chad's not here, um, we had asked to get that list of equipment from Chief Osborne.

Um, so we don't have that yet, but um I can reach back out to Chad and see where he's at with that.

And then um I know there's been some discussion with regard and we'll chew on this, I'm sure a lot.

Um, with there was discussion last week with taking just the volunteers out of the charter.

Um, but when again to reiterate with regard to Anaconda, they're completely out of the charter.

So I think those are two big discussions that we'll probably have in chew on.

Um, and I just wanted to get that on the record as well.

Thanks.

That's all Mr.

Thielen or Mr.

Steppen.

Anything to add?

Oh, sorry, Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Cindy, for that.

Um I also believe that uh Chief Osborne was going to provide us with some information on ownership of property, not just the equipment, but the ownership of the property, the land, the buildings, and that that will be interesting to find out.

Um yeah, I think uh we need to do is gonna be a big one.

This is gonna be a very important and detailed discussion.

I also agree that if we do have speakers, they should be up in the I I believe the public should be able to hear speakers.

But other than that, I think that we've got to concentrate on getting this down on paper.

And the more input we have, not you know, not against any transparency or or public input, but it's just a net uh uh necessary thing that we have to do.

And uh yeah, I I I do believe that it's very important that these working groups have an opportunity to just put their heads together and get the work done, and it'll always be a public uh the document, whatever we put down in paper, is gonna be public in every in every way.

So I think that that's gonna work out.

Thanks.

I just received a text from Chad Silk that he will get the equipment list and the ownership list to everyone tomorrow.

Okay, any other discussion on fire?

All right, how about neighborhood council working groups?

Madam Chair, um, Chad uh sent us Mary and I a message today.

He's working on a survey regarding neighborhood council working groups as they pertain to other uh class one cities in Montana.

He has provided that survey.

We are reviewing that survey.

I think it's fairly well done.

I don't know where he got it, and right if it's he did a really good job.

Not saying he didn't do it himself, but it was very professionally done, and thanks, Chad.

I know you're listening.

Uh that was it was good.

Uh so that's gonna go out.

I also have list a number of city managers and liaisons for city uh councils that we will be talking to during our decision making uh meetings um to ask them their impressions of how that works and how it's working from them in a in a historical form.

So we are uh moving forward with Chad's effort and with Mary's efforts.

Mary has provided all of us with handouts uh and attachments of all the city charters of class one um class one cities in Montana in terms of what their charter talks about in terms of neighborhood councils, and I think I believe Spokane's in that too, isn't it?

Yeah, Spokane is also uh uh yeah, so there's two other cities in Montana that uh are working through neighborhood councils, so we'll be gleaming that information and coming out with some of our decisions.

And I know Chad said something to uh Mr.

Van Rob uh today, so I I didn't get all of that information, but I think that went out to him today.

Questions all right, excellent.

Um thank you all for taking these on and doing this work to get the report ready and getting that analysis chart done and bringing in all the information, and I'm sure we'll have more questions as we get moving along, but I appreciate your efforts.

They're very much um needed, and I appreciate the urgency with which we're getting our work done.

Um moving on to our party line.

That's called friendsgiving, right?

We had way too many people there for that day, so we rescheduled to December 17th.

And so we will be on December 17th.

And I will make sure that we get that last Wednesday spot reserved.

That was just a miscommunication between myself and KBOW.

Moving on to new business, we have our coroner discussion.

We have Mr.

Hagerty and Mr.

Parrish here to talk tonight.

So Mr.

Hagerty, I'll invite you to come up and give your discussion with us.

And um Ms.

Dowan, I know has questions to lead that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to introduce uh Mr.

Dan Hagerty.

He is currently Jefferson uh Jefferson County Commissioner, but has worked as a um in his former job and former life, he was a sheriff slash coroner in Jefferson County.

So I thought it would be interesting to learn a little bit about his job and what that entails having a combination job.

Um and Dan has been so gracious with his time with us tonight to give his expertise on that.

And I will make the caveat that um, and it's not our purview, and like I said in an earlier email today, that um we don't have budgetary discussions or uh information with regard to budget.

So um anything other than budgetary questions, um, I'm sure Mr.

Haggerty would be happy to answer.

So thank you again, Dan, for coming tonight, and um floor is yours.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the commission.

Um, as Cindy said, I'm Dan Hagerty.

Um started back, I've been in the law enforcement, was in law enforcement, now retired 37 years, 24 years as a deputy coroner, and also Air Force time in law enforcement.

So to start with that, I started out in Marr County as a coroner and then continued on in uh Jefferson County where I retired.

And at that point, I've seen almost anything and everything, from the fatalities to hospice all the way to deaths inside the home, um, accidental, etc.

etc.

So I guess what I would do is I would open it to the questions that you have, so maybe I can expound on that.

Ms.

Dillon.

Thank you, madam chair.

I I guess right out of the gate, Dan.

The reason why we're doing this in Butte Silver Bow, obviously looking at our entire charter.

But could you give us some sense of the difference between or your your experience with just being you know a sheriff versus adding the coroner responsibilities, the pros and cons of that and and what your estimation is as well as a follow-up to that overarching question to more um specific whether or not um a coroner office should be autonomous and what are the pros and cons of that autonomy?

That's a loaded, very huge question, but in the kind of two parts.

Thanks.

Okay, first of all, I would start with uh as law enforcement when you go in, always make sure the scene is uh secure or not secure, rather make sure everything is uh good to go, then secure the scene, as we're law enforcement officer would do because you don't know all the parties involved, and then depending on the circumstances, whether it be criminal or any other, depending again what it might be, go in, and if that uh then prevails, then you will become the coroner.

You are the coroner, you are the first one in charge, and you do not release that body until you tell everyone else that they're allowed to do so to include your other counterparts of law enforcement or you um EMS or fire or anything else, which then allows you to if you need a actual help.

I mean you can then determine within a degree because of all the training for with my 24 years.

It gives you a good idea if it's possibly a uh criminal case or suicide or homicide.

Um and then if it's above your bearing at that time, that's when you would call the detectives, but at least you have a good idea.

You need to secure this scene and make sure no one goes around it whatsoever.

You are at that point are responsible for that body period.

You are the only one.

And then as you go on and doing this, uh you're you should be if you can't at that point draw fluids, which are we call toxicology, which includes vitreous fluid for those that don't know that's the eye, urinal or urine, excuse me, not urinal, and then also uh uh femur, out of the femoral as for your blood.

Those are usually sent to do the uh to the lab, crime lab.

And then they're analyzed.

But at that time, if you cannot still secure the scene, and then you've made the arrangements, you've done everything you can, you contact the mortuary or the mortician, whoever that might be in charge, and then they'll come and then you and them remove the body, nobody else.

And then you immediately follow it because, in a sense, it's evidence.

You follow it to the mortuary, where then if you have to, you can then draw the fluids, and then uh make a determination there.

And if you have any questions, the one in point contact would be your sheriff.

He is your coroner, he represents that sheriff's office or entity, and you are a deputy coroner.

So he's he is solely responsible to have to answer any and everything, so to speak.

So did I add enough to that, or you need a little more on that.

Thank you, madam chair.

No, that's that's great.

Um, could you answer the follow-up question, which is um what is your your personal opinion, and we're asking for your opinion, um, with regard to having a sheriff slash coroner versus an autonomous coroner's office.

Um, what is your sense on that?

My sense honestly, it makes you better, pardon expression, a better cop.

You know what to look for.

They I mean you learn a lot about rigor mortis, anything and everything that sets into the body, possible uh foul play.

There's a lot that you learn that I didn't know as a deputy just going in there with your eyes blind and pardon expression, just imagine done.

You are an investigator at that point.

And uh it tells it tells me or tells those a lot a lot different.

As a matter of fact, I was an EMT.

So when I would go in there, just like you would an EMT, check for a pulse, etc.

etc.

If rig of mortgage set in or whatever, you have an idea of what you're dealing with and where you're going with, and at the same time, based on the scene, is that body in that in that uh the location you find it, is it in that right position of where it should have been?

Or is somebody moved it or foul play?

Therefore, that's why I say secure the scene or with a body, whereas if you have to wait for someone else or excuse me, I'm a mouse getting back, and then uh law enforcement shows up.

Well, at the same time, that doesn't mean you know, is that whole place secure?

You don't have time to go run around the house and stuff, you've got to stay with that body.

So, in my opinion, yes, it makes sense to be law enforcement and uh coroner, deputy coroner.

You you'll learn a lot more, believe me.

So it helps for the cases, it's pretty much not cut and dried.

There's questions about somebody.

If we always have a question, we always sent the body off to the crime lab, which went to Missoula in this case.

And then they would come back with a determination, besides what fluids we sent them, or if we had or if they draw them, and then uh based on that they can tell us more.

I'll give you an example of one.

I was telling Cindy I had an incident where a gentleman was backward and he had a roommate.

Honest to God, I thought that uh he pushed him over backwards and his head uh due to blunt force trauma killed him.

Well, after uh continue my investigation, I called the sheriff, told him what I had.

I ended up calling uh one of the morticians over here, and came and got the body.

We then immediately the same day took it over to Missoula.

Well, come to find out, which I would have never known.

He actually uh ended up um what was it?

I think he was diabetic and he was convulsing and stuff and fell over backwards and hit his head.

But to me, it looked like something else.

So I mean, there's some determination there, but at least you're allowing that person, that officer in this case, to have to think about what's going on instead of saying, Oh, I'm not worried about it, coroner's gonna come, it's not my problem.

There's more to it than that, honestly.

Because then you can determine possibly time the time of death, possibly cause a death, and what was all involved, whether it's blunt force trauma, etc.

or whatever the case might be.

So does that help anybody?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have one more question.

With regard to um if um, because you know, we're just gathering info with regard to this idea, um, but if the coroner's office were to stay autonomous, what would your opinion be in suggestion of qualifications going back to the county attorney's um, you know, the idea of qualifications for jobs in Butte, we don't have many qualifications in Butte.

Basically, you know, a lot of the some of the jobs here, I don't know a lot, but some of the jobs here, you just need to be 18 years old and have a pulse.

So I'm hoping that you can give me some um what your thoughts are with regard to what qualifications should a coroner have in a small rural county in Montana?

Thanks, Dan.

Well, I would say most every uh police officer I know has gone uh post-certified, it's gone to the police academy, therefore they've had the background check, everything else done.

I mean, that would sort of eliminate that.

But at the same time, it would put uh them with more responsibility, not saying that within our department, not everybody was a coroner, some can't really deal with it.

Or those that it was closer to home would ask, hey, you as a coroner, can you deal with it?

Because maybe it was a closer family member as such.

But uh to me, it made like I say, I made a better officer because you were right there, and you had to make that determination.

And if you didn't know, I mean, there's always the phone, you can call the sheriff in this case.

So that help?

Okay, I'll start with Mr.

I'll start with Mr.

Thielen and then I'll take you, Ms.

Shaw.

Mr.

Thielen.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Uh Dan, so back to her question about experience.

So somebody that's had prior experience that's worked under another coroner.

Would you say that that would suffice?

So if somebody worked uh under the previous coroner here, for example, and they have the experience dealing with that, would that experience suffice, would you think?

No.

Not big, it depends on the experience in the terms of how many years.

Are they in other words, are they brand new to it, or have they been in the round for a while and they understand how that works, uh, so that they can you know teach the others?

And uh, and I don't know if you guys know it, you also have to go to the academy for the or you the police academy offers this basic is once a year you go in December, then advanced is two years thereafter, so it's continual education all the time.

So I guess to answer your question on the basis, I guess it would depend on the experience of that person in a sense as opposed to sending sort of like new recruits into the into the field and getting them to get trained and stuff.

That answer your question?

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Dan, for being here.

Quite interesting.

Um I you answered part of my question about um continuing education.

So if a person elected, which they are, we've elected our coroners, you know, for a long time.

Um, I assume now maybe I'm assuming uh something, which you know what that means, but I assume that there is a continuing education uh opportunity or even a mandate by the state for a coroner to go to this uh continue education, not because they're with law enforcement, but just that in general, kind of like we do that with the treasurer and other people that are elected.

You're correct.

Okay.

Could you give me a little bit about if you know what if what that how that works for an elected official?

For going to the uh yeah, okay.

How it works, like I say, like in December, it comes up every year.

They go through, they learn all the basics, you see pictures, the whole nine yards, some of the stuff what to look for.

They talk about particular items like patikia, which is lack of oxygen in the eyes, and then the red, and other things, and again um how body uh works when rig mortis sets in, how long that so that's all the basics.

So they talked about all that.

When you come out, I'm gonna be honest, it's like what did I learn?

Once you start getting into the advance and get your hands on, you start learning a lot more.

They start covering, as a matter of fact, some of them are homicides that they show pictures about from other departments, or pictures that might have come from your particular department that and that had uh an interest to them so that they could teach the whole class.

It just depends on what it is, but it broadens the whole horizon then in the terms of uh being a coroner and what more so to look for is that we just walking in and go, No, this person's deceased, but how do you know that person's deceased?

There's many numerous ways to go through it once you go to the advanced level.

So you're not gonna learn it the first year, but it comes with education and then again uh hands-on.

So does that answer your question?

Follow up.

Thank you, Dan Chair.

Uh thank you, Dan.

So just in your opinion, like we were saying, yes, we appreciate your being here, and you know, we don't really have any knowledge on our own, any institutional knowledge ourselves.

But are you saying that a person that's elected that has to go through continuum education is in a you know more um let's say they're not as as well educated as if they go through law enforcement?

I'm I'm thinking that they're two different things.

I would say no.

I mean, I I all I'm saying is they're more ver they wouldn't be as versed in law enforcement what to look for scenes or at the crime scene or anything else.

Their duties would be to go in and say, okay, here's the body, what am I going to do with it?

How is it that I need to what do I need to do basically?

And then remove the body.

Whereas would law enforcement going in, you spend more time with that body.

And me, I look at the position of the body, and due to what the nature of the death might be, is it in the right position?

And I don't know, I can't speak for others in the sense of the civil side of it, but I don't know if they even do that, because I know they have a job to do, but in there and I'm thinking that they go in and yes, that their duties are to remove the body and take it to the mortuary and stuff after it's re after they have the authority to release it, as opposed to law enforcement being there that if they have the authority and no disrespect to these gentlemen at all, but at least you know that uh you've looked at it and evaluated possibly is it a crime scene or isn't before you release that body.

So I guess that would be the more part of the adversement for law enforcement.

They should have a better idea of what to look for due to a crime scene, as opposed to the civilian, so to speak.

One last thanks and then I'll take Mr.

Steppen so Ms Ms.

Shaw follow up yep thank you so just in uh conclusion here with my my questions um so I a coroner is always going to be involved with law enforcement you know in just extraneously just at the scene and everything else so you still think that being in you know under the well you wouldn't be elected you being a uh uh employee of the sheriff's department you think that that's a better deal than being uh separate as far as that goes because then you got the sheriff's insight in on it and then again you're gonna pull in a county attorney if there's something that uh doesn't look right as opposed to the coroner coming out and dealing with it law enforcement has how can I they're supposed to have more training is what I'm saying.

I I'm not found but I mean I understand their job and I respect that at the same time but I feel that law enforcement you learn a lot more and that's continuing education at the same time too always okay thank you.

Mr Steppen Thank you Madam Chair uh thank you my question is is there any value in having those duties separated from a conflict of interest standpoint or let's say uh you know if the death involved the member of the sheriff's department do you seek an outside agency at that point or is there is there value in keeping those functions separate to give you an example and that was I I used to work with the previous uh coroner a long time ago because I'm I'm the station not a white hall and we had an incident where if it involved law enforcement in this case uh there were suspicious circumstances the deputy got out to check this individual individual jumped out on the interstate and got run over we as the coroner at that point in that sheriff's office cannot do the investigation we have to have any adjoining county that can do the investigation because that way it's impartial and then they can make a determination and then it's just like the same thing then you go through the the crime scene and follow through with uh over there in Missoula and send them over it's just that we can't touch the body we are impartial to that so for that part and what was your other part of the question sir um I I think that answered my question using an outside agency but to to clarify are you removing yourself from the coroner duties or the investigative duties at that point from the the whole thing at that point.

And then if that had to do with it possibly I don't know if you guys are familiar with the CSI criminal or criminal investigations I can't remember Helena Attorney General's office they could possibly get involved but it would leave us out of it because of the cause of death instead of saying hey we're gonna point the finger at the sheriff's office because you know there's a civil suit that's going to be coming down the road and that's what happened with us but at the same time with an impartial entity they would make the determination uh the cause of death so we would have nothing to do with it no matter what but we would be going through an interview and I don't know if you guys are familiar with what they call a coroner's inquest if there's hesitancy or something that comes up it would be just like you have here and then you have like madam chair here then they come up and they ask questions of uh the ones all involved and then uh there'll be a coroner that's usually up there from another county they'll be asking questions and they'll make a determination at that point whether or not this is going to be criminal and that would be forwarded over to the attorney or county attorney but that is if there's any question of foul play or anything else.

Does that answer that question Ms.

Dowan thank you madam chair just one comment um and again Dan thank you so much for your uh time tonight um the the reason we're talking about this and you referred to it in your county um when you were sheriff coroner it was a a lawsuit in butte Silverbow and the chance that we now have as a study commission thanks to the voters of butte to look at our charter and to figure out how to correct any you know we're not here to correct mistakes but we're here to help and move and I always like Chad uh Commissioner Silk's idea of um this body setting us up for success and I think that you know if we can help the coroner's office the sheriff's department in but Silverbow be better and and have the tools they need and set them up for success and and and even if we have to work from failure um with these chain of custody issues um having a deputy on 24-7 that are on shift after you know morning shift afternoon shift graveyard shift they're constantly in rotation and could be deputized um so those trying to help that set up um but then again you know really appreciate your time tonight to give us a sense of what these different ideas look like and from your experience so thank you so much and uh I I really appreciate your time tonight and and coming here to butte.

Um, but then again, you know, really appreciate your time tonight to give us a sense of what these different ideas look like and from your experience.

So thank you so much.

And uh I I really appreciate your time tonight and and coming here to be.

Thank you.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, and that brings up a question that I have.

We have a sheriff's department, of course, it combines city county together back in the 70s, as you probably know.

Um I think that we should have somebody from the sheriff's department to come in and discuss what they think about a combination.

Well, I meant.

I somebody from View Severbow's Sheriff's Department to talk about what it would be like to combine or to put the coroner underneath the sheriff.

Did I say something wrong?

I think I recall Mr.

Lester giving that testimony when he we interviewed him to begin with.

He talked about um I I believe I probably missed that meeting.

Yeah, maybe go back to those notes, and then if that isn't satisfying, we can certainly have him come back.

Absolutely.

Okay, that that was my only question.

And and obviously your sheriff's department embraced the idea of having the coroner, you know, in in your under their jurisdiction.

So okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, could I add something to that?

Uh one thing I found out is being a coroner after that many years.

Usually that's when those folks are in their need in need of time or in need of help, and they don't know where they're turning or what to do.

I've interacted with so many in different ways, whether it be they've lost their child or even their loved one, whoever that might be, but it gave me an opportunity to talk to them, and they got to see us in uniform from a different light.

Instead of always going to the house, do a domestic or everything else, or get arrested or charged, or whatever the case may be.

And it was humbly an experience.

When you came out, yes, they asked the questions, it was hard, but you'd answer the questions.

I mean that one they always asked was uh was it sudden?

And I'm going, yes, you know, but they'll you're always going to ask that question, but they were so humble, but at that point in time, they were reaching out to you, and they got to see law enforcement in a different perspective at that you care.

Whereas, you know, you go in as a law enforcement, and first thing you do, okay, what's going on and break things up or whatever the case may be.

They see a different-hearted person.

So that's me.

Okay, but I hope that sums it up.

So we appreciate your time.

Um, Mr.

Parrish.

Always an IT guy, it never fails.

I've tried to give it up, but it just keeps coming back.

Madam Chair, members of the study commission, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to uh be here tonight and address uh this commission.

I guess I'm going to be speaking on the other side of the aisle.

Uh I am a civilian coroner.

That does not mean that I've not served in different formats.

I have been an EMT and a paramedic uh in the past, working in large urban environments, and I have attended multiple deaths uh as an emergency medical technician, paramedic, uh, etc.

I've also had military experience where I've uh worked on some scenes that most people can't uh can't fathom.

According to sinuses.

According to Montana Code annotated, and that's where we're we're we all have to look.

The entire duty of a coroner is to determine the cause of death and the manner of death.

The cause of death is the actual mechanism uh of injury that leads to the terminal event.

Manner of death is whether or not it is a suicide, homicide, natural death, accidental, or in some cases where the death is undetermined.

The training that is required of us is the same as what a law enforcement uh personnel would be required for the coroner side of it.

It is 40 hours initially and 16 hours every two years continue education credits.

Post-training, which is what the law enforcement must go through, is a wonderful trading.

But it I do not believe it gives an overt advantage over a civilian coroner, provided the mentality is built into the coroner's department that we're not here just to pick up the body.

Because that is not it.

As we go through our scenes, and this is something I have been instructed through by Dan Hollis uh prior and from other individuals through training in uh the uh mortuary sciences academy uh with the military.

What we have to do is to take in the entire scene.

Not unlike law enforcement looking for evidence, not unlike a detective trying to eke out each and every clue.

We do not just look at the body, we look at the entire environment.

We process a scene cautiously, we process it carefully, and we process it thoughtfully.

Each step is inclusive.

We do not leave anything unturned.

Every medication bottle, every little piece of paperwork that we find that might provide more in uh instructions as to what had happened, more evidence as to what the case may have been prior to the uh the immediate termination of life.

As we are called to scenes, we do not work against law enforcement, we work with each officer.

If you'd ever uh been on scene with them, they have a dead body form.

It is uh an individual found a deceased, and each one has a set of questionnaires.

It discusses rigor, it discusses lividity, it discusses other signs of foul play, to include, as Mr.

Haggadry pointed out, patikia or Tash noir or any other sign that indicates the uh time of death, cause of death, manner of death.

So in working with our law enforcement, they have been gracious, they've worked with us very well.

They do not touch a corpse until we are on scene, and then together we process it.

And in that case, we are able to throw ideas off of each other as we find evidence that might suggest foul play, that might suggest you know immediate cause, if there were uh other factors involved.

Uh we also work with the EMS, say for carbon monoxide.

We'll have fire rescue there on site.

The process is very logical.

As 911 receives a call, they dispatch out EMS rescue, generally for a welfare check.

Uh they'll send law enforcement right away.

Once it is determined that a person is uh devoid of signs of life, uh they will contact the coroner's office immediately.

It's generally myself or one of my deputies uh who are on at various times that will respond within 10 minutes.

So there's no waiting uh uh an egregious amount of time for one of us to show up on scene.

And then once we have processed the scene with law enforcement and under the auspices of proper uh scene detection and scene security, we will assist in maintaining the chain of custody of any evidence, any personal property, and of course the body itself, which is itself evidence towards cause and manner of death.

We will follow the funeral home once we call them.

We'll assist them in loading uh the deceased into their vehicle, we'll follow them into the funeral home, we'll draw talks where it is appropriate, we'll do any other investigation where we have additional lighting.

Uh occasionally, yes, we will have to do cut down procedures just to make sure we have exactly what we're looking for in terms of toxicological biological specimens.

Does that mean that we're better?

Does that mean that being a law enforcement officer first is better?

No.

What it means is if you are in coroner mindset, you are looking for exactly the same stuff in a different light.

If you are a law enforcement officer, you're looking at it from a law enforcement standpoint first, and then a medico-legal death investigator standpoint.

It is a matter of perspective, it is a matter of framework.

It is not a matter of who is better or otherwise.

Um it is a matter of your experience and your education and your perception.

Mistakes can be made by either side.

Let's not forget about that.

We are human.

We are all human.

Within this range, we do not just rely on the 40 hours and the 16 hours mandated.

We provide new coroners coming in, new deputies, uh, with a field training officer, and they uh fly with us on each scene until we are confident that they know what to look for.

It is not a take your course and jump in the car and go.

We make sure that they're going to handle it, because let's face it, some of those scenes can be a little less than awe-inspiring.

But we also make sure that they are asking the right questions.

They are looking for the right things.

They know the procedures, and they treat the people and the decedents with respect and empathy.

We make sure that they have a good rapport with law enforcement from your your newest uh training officer all the way up to Sheriff Ed Lester and all the detectives.

We make sure that we maintain that line of communication so that we can throw ideas back and forth to finally ascertain the the appropriate cause.

As far as the advantage that I see of being a civilian law or a civilian medical legal death investigator versus being law enforcement adjacent, is that we do maintain a more unbiased view as we may proceed into a death that is in custody or in incarceration or in the process of being placed in custody.

It allows us to remove ourselves from the law enforcement perspective, look at it more obliquely, and have a more humane view that not humane, a more unbiased view that's not going to be tainted by well, this is standard procedure versus whatever the case may be.

Then we can go back and discuss it with other folks in the medical legal community, including officers who are not attached to that investigation because that would be conflict of interest.

In the state of Montana, through the Department of Justice in the Forensic Sciences Division, we have an amazing person.

They are a coroner liaison to the Department of Justice.

She is we are able to contact her.

She has literally thousands of cases under her belt.

She is able to provide us with uh great information, very uh solid foundations, and if we need, she can come on scene and assist us if there is a biased portion, excuse me, or if there is anything that may be questionable.

Beyond that, we can reach out to Dr.

Willie Kemp or Dr.

Siavan or the medical examiners in Montana, uh both in Missoula, and of course, over in Billings.

And they are reachable 24 hours, seven days a week, and they too have gone through considerable training, obviously, being a medical doctor first and a pathologist and medical examiner uh board certified.

We are not without our resources, we are not without a clue.

Uh we do provide a very valuable service in this county, and I do believe that there is a solid reason for us to maintain it independent from law enforcement.

There are advantages if we were to go together.

One would be budgetary and having a little more cooperation in certain cases.

However, as it currently sits, we enjoy a very beneficial relationship with our law enforcement individuals.

They're extraordinarily professional.

We get very good information when we need it, uh, and they're able to reach out to us and get information at the same time.

So it's not a matter of withholding, it is not a matter of stakeholding and state building and castle building.

It's a matter of cooperation.

And if we're to provide unbiased, introspective, and objective medical legal death investigation, I think we need to move forward and maintain an independence from law enforcement being our own department.

Uh with that, I know I've just rambled.

Uh, so madam chair, uh members, I entertain any questions.

Mr.

Denny?

Madam Chair, Jason, how big is your department?

How many assistants do you have and and those sorts of things?

Currently we have my oh, pardon me, Madam Chair uh Danny, members of the commission.

Uh we have myself and four active uh deputies.

Uh we uh have one who's currently out uh and we are looking to uh on maternity leave.

We are able to split up the time periods very well.

Uh I'm Monday through Friday uh 24-7 until about 17.30 on Friday when one of my deputies will take over uh for the weekend, and then they are on until 17.30 on Sunday, in which case we turn back over.

There's also availability in the week if I need their assistance, or if on the weekend they need anything from me, they can always call me.

So we work very closely together.

We are always scheduling uh additional trainings, sharing information, making sure resources are available.

Uh all of our deputies and myself are current on our uh basic training and also on uh the latest batch of advanced training from the Department of Justice.

Thanks, Jason.

You're welcome.

Ms.

McCurmick, and then I'll take you, Mr.

Thielen.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Jason, for being here tonight.

Um my understanding is the civilian coroner is elected.

Correct.

And so the I mean, my concern is you have great qualifications, but people can run for that office that don't have qualifications and be elected.

Do you have any solutions to address that?

Madam Chair, uh, Ms.

McCormick, uh this is one of those occasions where you have to trust your electorate.

And unfortunately, that also involves public communication, the ability to uh present one's experience and one's integrity and present it in such a way that is understandable, reachable, and approachable.

So you have to trust the voters to make the decision for experience and integrity versus popularity.

Mr.

Thielen.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Uh Jason, um, just because I don't know, how long have you been working with Mr.

Hollis?

Uh Madam Chair, uh Mr.

Thielen.

I've been with uh Mr.

Hollis since May.

Um I have approximately 12 years of experience in EMS and paramedic and mortuary affairs, otherwise.

Okay.

That follow-up.

So back to the election thing.

Would you see it being uh better as running for election or being appointed?

Madam Chair, Mr.

Thielen.

Uh you run a risk here between the right person for the job versus the wrong person, and you're gonna get it either which way.

The advantage of election is you let the people speak the advan or disadvantage of by nomination or by having somebody just placed in the position is it can run into the old boy society, which But Silverbow has been accused of not necessarily always fairly.

So running it through election allows you to have fair and impartial in theory elections.

Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks.

Thanks, Jason, for being here.

Um he was appointed in this very unusual situation because Jason was appointed to fulfill the the uh remainder of the term, and then he can offer to I hope I would hope to run for the job.

But we have a unique situation because Jason, you do have a lot of great experience.

I've known you for a long time, and your background is is a is perfect, I think a perfect fit.

Ordinarily, like Mary said, it's a crapshew in a way, you know, when you have elected officials, you don't know you could run and and win, and then four years from now somebody else could run and you'd like to see a popularity content or whatever.

Right.

But I I think that uh at this point in time, is there two more years of the term that you're fulfilling, I believe?

Are you madam chair?

Uh Ms.

Shaw, uh one year.

I I will have to run beginning in February when we're just thinking ahead.

One year, and then if you did run, and we I'd vote for you because I think you do have the qualifications, just saying uh, and that would be a big plus for a person like yourself to run and get it for another four years.

Um I'm not sure at this point, as it still is kind of a roll of the dice, if we want to just wait to see how that works out, because I you know it'd be hard pressed to find a better candidate in my opinion at this point, just because I and from what you've told us.

Um I'm just saying that uh just just to throw it out there that if we make a decision to do something.

I don't know if we would want to do it now or wait on it.

Madam Chair, may I?

Uh Ms.

Shaw, one of the statutes that I'm attempting or not statutes, but ideals I'm trying to press forward uh as the appointed official uh in the position is the establishment of a fully working standard operating procedures manual and accreditation for the entire department through the International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners.

Getting that in place and maintaining that accreditation will assist if we have an election where somebody who does not have the experience is elected.

If they were to maintain the deputy lineup who uh is in place currently uh and have the knowledge of the standard operating procedures and the the working relationship with accreditation, they would be able to take that elected coroner under their wings and essentially instruct them in the appropriate way that the county works until they decide to make uh their own changes.

I should remind everybody that the sheriff's position does not necessarily require law enforcement uh experience to uh get in that position either.

So I'll take Mr.

Steppen and then I'll take you, Ms.

Dolan.

Um Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you, uh Mr.

Parish.

Um maybe a comment and then a question.

Uh the comment is when we talk about you know uh uh elected versus appointed and the idea of the appointed having more technical expertise in those things.

There are there are positions that are elected like county attorney that require a certain amount of qualifications education so that they can be melded into something different than what it is and not be an appointed position.

Um the question that I had, and it's you you talked about one potential benefit being a budgetary one of the coroner being under the sheriff's department.

Were you were you saying that as opposed to having an additional person you can appoint somebody that's already on the payroll?

Is that is that the budgetary benefit that you were referring to?

Uh Madam Chair, Mr.

Stepan.

Uh, that would be part of it.

Uh one would be the simplification of uh finance and budget for payroll.

I know uh when we have silverbow employees who work in other departments and are deputy coroners, uh Joe Dell and payroll wants to strangle me uh in the nicest way possible.

But uh having access to a larger budgetary uh portion is always a need for any department, most especially of ours.

Uh we uh operate on a very razor-thin budget, and we still have to uh maintain the costs of indigent burials uh for those who are not claimed or whose families do not have uh sufficient funds to uh uh properly uh take care of their uh loved ones who've been uh deceased.

So in that there's always going to be a budgetary need.

Whether or not that would be repaired under law enforcement, that's a whole different story.

That would come under finance and budget to answer those questions.

I would like to imagine a perfect world where I put in a nice budget request and the council of commissioners gladly rubber stamp it and say you bet you how much you want.

However, we know that doesn't work that way.

Um but in the same line, law enforcement has their own issues too when it comes to uh their budgets.

Every department does.

We try to maintain the tax line for this uh citizens of this county at an affordable rate.

We would like to reach for the sky, but let's keep it affordable for the the citizens.

Thank you.

I ask a quick follow-up.

You have follow-up and then I'll take Ms.

Dolan.

Okay.

Um I don't want to speak for Sheriff Lester, but it my recollection of this conversation with him is that while it could be a cost savings to have it under the department, there they're already expressed concerns over their personnel that you know um short staffed and taking on an additional department within their department, if I remember right, was a concern of Sheriff Lester.

I I agree.

Um Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Jason, for being here.

And I've learned a lot tonight, and I appreciate the fact that you gave us your resume and your backstory because that helps a lot.

I think a lot of people, you know, I've met you tonight for the first time, and I'm real excited about your background and what you bring to the table for Butte.

So thank you.

Um I just have two questions, and it actually questions following up from other questions to you earlier.

Um with regards, so the first one is with regard to the chain of custody issues in the coroner today, um, because the reason we're even talking about this is not only the study commission, we've been brought to this is the 10-year mark, and we were asked to do this, and that's gonna be my second question, but because of what transpired and it and it was you were not coroner, butte Silverbow is currently in litigation over failures of the department.

And what I want to get to is as a coroner today, and you go to a scene, tell me the process with securing, and you mentioned it earlier, securing the chain of custody of especially high potency drugs, personal property.

What does that look like?

And if you can explain to us and to the folks listening tonight what that looks like and what that process and procedure when you get onto a scene.

Certainly.

Uh, Madam Chair, Ms.

Dolan.

Uh Trina Custody, as we process uh a scene, including the body, including all the drugs.

Uh let's say we obtain uh amounts of narcotics on the person or in the near proximity thereof, or within the house.

Those are bagged into evidence bags uh with an officer present.

So everything is done with a second set of eyes.

Same thing with any personal property, wallets, keys, anything of the sort that could be attached to monetary or fiduciary value.

Uh they are packaged into evidence bags sealed and initialed.

We maintain uh signatory evidence and case numbers on those bags.

Those are transferred either to the coroner's department as personal property if it's not uh a criminal investigation or if it is an investigation criminal investigation or it's a narcotic, it will go to the law enforcement uh department.

Uh and those items are put into the evidence processing area uh for law enforcement in our side.

Uh we have a very large locking vault where they are cataloged, inventoried into what's called MDI, it's medical death uh investigators log, which is an electronic log format.

We will go through the property, we'll ascertain what exactly we brought from that scene as we go through it, maintaining that log within MDI until such time as it is either released to the family or is called for as a part of law enforcement or uh legal uh necessity.

As far as uh decedents as we um see the necessity to package the decedent, that body bag is sealed with a locking plastic ID'd tag, which has a number we take photographs of all of that to make absolutely certain that it is not uh tampered with in from the moment they're in there until they get to the crime lab or to a funeral home, depending on the procedure.

And at that point in time, if there has to be a change, everything is uh uh 100 percent documented, either in MDI log and or photographically.

Thank you.

So I had my mic on.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um just one two quick follow-ups.

So does the coroner off coroners have an office?

We do now, yes, ma'am.

Where is it?

It is 600 Gilman Avenue.

It is in the old uh National Guard Armory.

Okay.

Uh it is now the Don People's Complex, Building B room 139.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I was gonna say it's a new Don Peoples Complex.

That was great.

So um my final question to you is, and and you started to address it with um Commissioner McCormick and Shaw's questions to you, but I want to drill down on this because I wanted your opinion.

And I know you know, and and I'm I'm grateful that you've been um appointed and then um moving forward, but I don't want to write off the question with regard to qualifications, because yes, and I and I'm glad you made the point tonight that I think we need to look at the major um and and it's not uh the major jobs in Butte Silver Bow that needs some qualifications.

And so to your point, coroner, sheriff, um the idea that the county attorney has a law needs to have a law degree is paramount.

So I would ask you, as far as a coroner and your experience, um beyond being old enough and living in Butte Silverbow proper or in Butte Silverbow County.

Beyond that, what do you think are the best qualifications for someone if it stays autonomous and it is an elected position moving forward?

What can we put in our charter in Butte Silver Bow to have make sure we get someone like you who has has that background of inform uh background of skills and a skill set that is good for a coroner?

What would you suggest?

Madam Chair, members of the council, uh Ms.

Dolan, that is a wonderful question.

And this is something that I've been looking at uh as we move forward.

As we know, of course, Montan Code Annotata gives us minimums for the state.

It doesn't give us preferences.

Uh and we can always uh adjudicate for a higher standard.

I would like to see in at a minimum a uh either a four-year degree and or EMT certification or paramedic certification with experience in the field uh as being minimal.

Whether or not that is currently in application, I believe all of my deputies have at least a four-year degree.

And I know that would be essential for most positions uh of this sort.

I think that would give and by four-year degree, computer science may not be the best uh degree for the position, but something in an appropriate health related field.

Let's remember that part of our job is public health and human services related.

That's what the death certificates that we certify are for, is for public health.

Therefore, a degree within biology, anatomy, physiology, uh, pre-medicine, anything of that sort, or public health administration, I believe would be uh sufficient, or a two-year degree with uh EMT uh certification at least, EMTB.

I think would be an ideal position uh to start.

That being said, I think there should be some leeway uh for alternate experience.

We might take a police officer on if they're nice.

Thank you, Mr.

Parrish.

Um committee, I want to move us along.

Um it is getting to be seven o'clock and we have more items to finish.

And I think that I appreciate your time.

I appreciate both both um you and Mr.

Hagerty coming and giving us um this background experien this background and information that would help us in our deliberations.

And um, Commission, I also have a document for you that is from the um CDC that talks about um it's a map basically of the type of medical legal death investigation systems that are across the United States, and then you look at Montana and we have this kind of mishmash of um a mix of coroners and other elected officials uh or um other county officials that are doing that work so that can help inform.

Um I think this mood is that we might want to um also work group this idea or this um issue as far as putting it into leaving it as is is in the charter or making changes to the charter, so I'd open up that conversation.

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think that's an excellent idea.

Um I don't think it's gonna be the lift that the fire department is gonna be.

Um I think but I think going to a working group setting to go through what's current and um all the information we gathered tonight from Mr.

Haggerty and Mr.

Parrish, thank you again.

It was so informative and educational um and I hope the public feels the same way.

Um but yeah, I I totally agree.

I I think that it would be a good opportunity to kind of gel all that information and bring something back to the commission for discussion.

Are you volunteering?

Absolutely.

Okay, so I have Ms.

Dolan, Mr.

Steppen.

I have a question.

I'm happy to work on the working group.

Okay, question.

And maybe this is a question for county attorney and Ruth.

The the question of if we were to to pose the question to the public on whether or not to keep it as an elected position or to for it to be an appointed position, is that considered a form of government question?

Uh Chairman Steppen, I I don't think so.

And I actually made a note of that tonight.

If the fireman question, that question, and yeah, firemen and coroners questions are part of the big three.

And so I will send off I know who I need to email to get that answer.

I am genuinely thinking myself, those are not forms of government questions.

Those are just charter questions, charter changes.

And so I don't think that counts as the big three, but I will get an answer on that.

I already made a note of it.

You're thinking with my brain, thank you.

And you volunteered, I heard.

Mr.

Thielen, you'd like to?

Okay.

Anyone else?

Okay.

So we'll go with the three of you with that.

Um and like I said, I will send you that background information that I have from the CDC for you to review just as information in terms of how things are done across the state of Montana compared to this the uh rest of the United States, which is interesting.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, just so you both know in the audience, Mr.

Haggerty and Mr.

Parrish, um, with our working group, we may reach out to ask you some additional questions, but uh hopefully uh we can just do that via email or or a call and then bring it back to the working group.

So again, thank you for your time tonight.

Thanks very much.

Um moving on to our superfund coordinator, Ms.

Dolan, I know you have a commission uh communication.

And then um, we do have Mr.

Hassler in the audience if we have questions for him.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um yes, I I was talking with um the chair earlier tonight, and um I uh had a nice discussion uh with uh Fritz Daley, and he was the one who put forth this question about having a super fund coordinator position.

Um and so uh while Fritz is not here tonight, he did send me a letter.

Um I I know he'll indulge me and understand that I'm not going to read the letter entire letter into the record tonight.

I will read though a couple things um from the letter.

I will forward the entire letter on to the commission and some attachments that Mr.

Daly has provided um with regard to the superfund coordinator position.

I will say before I read this into the record, um what we discussed was um our mission and what is in our purview in the study commission, and we talked about the two buckets the one for the ballot issues for the general public and the bucket of recommendations for the county commission.

And so in our discussion today, and after uh Mr.

Daly had a chance to uh ruminate on it and figure out the best course of action, he felt that it would probably be the best to go um to the second bucket and um discuss the superfund coordinator position as a potential um to put on the potential list of recommendations to our council of commissioners.

He thought that was a great way to go.

Um so I just wanted to clarify that for everyone's here tonight.

Um Mr.

Daly, um he said he's a former seven-term commissioner legislator, lifelong butte resident who has been actively involved in buttefund, excuse me, butte superfund issues for well over 40 years.

And he says the following I believe the cleanup and restoration of Silverbow Creek, the last first mile through Butte, the Butte Hill, the Montana pole site, and the cleanup and restoration of the Berkeley Pitt and establishing responsible lead and arsenic soil removal action levels are the most important issues facing the economic, environmental, and social future of this great community.

Butte, Montana is without question one of the most important cities in shaping and creating this great nation.

Or mined in the Butte Hill was used to create the electrical and communication systems throughout the U.S.

And more importantly, it was used during um to build the material necessary to defend this country during times of war.

We have paid our dues.

If it were not for Butte and Anaconda, Montana, we may be having this discussion in Japanese or German.

What Butte absolutely needs now is a thorough evaluation of all Superfund decisions made to date by a reputable legal environmental firm, including all consent decrees, agreement and principle, allocation agreement, but Silver Boat Creek Headwaters Coalition lawsuit, and any other documents associated with the consent decree.

And again, I will um send this to all commissioners and to Shanna so she can um put this on the record.

And so it's uh uh if folks want to research that, they'll have that information um about Mr.

Daly's um efforts to have a superfund coordinator.

Thank you.

Questions.

Do we have questions, Mr.

Umruth?

I don't have any questions, but uh if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure we already have a superfund coordinator, or at least someone that does the job.

Uh live Director Hassler is here if we have any questions for him.

I mean, I know only I know that's because I deal with Superfund stuff with him all the time.

So Ms.

Dolan, is Mr.

Daly asking for a superfund coordinator who is a lawyer?

Is that the request?

Um I think the the impetus for the question and the for the study commission is not so much qualifications attorney of that nature.

It's more so having an independent superfund coordinator that is not involved with local government.

And I think that's the impetus for this.

Um and again, it's something we need to work group through and figure out where um you have a question, Ms.

McCormick?

Okay, thank you.

So that's that's the impetus what's right.

Um so yeah, that was the impetus for his initial back in January of having this question to the commission or February.

I forget when he sent the initial email Ms.

McCormick.

I thank you, Madam Chair, and uh I do apologize, Commissioner Dolan.

But I do wonder why this group would be considering a position that is not a part of the local government.

Making I mean we have no authority to recommend somebody for have a another a super fund coordinator that is out the purview outside the purview of the local government.

How can we do that?

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, Mary, um let me get back and and figure that out.

That's a great question.

That's absolutely a great question.

So I'll reach back out to Mr.

Daly and follow up.

I guess my my comment would be I'm trying to understand what problem we're trying to solve.

Um, you know, if it is that we need uh you know, an environmental lawyer that's part of the team that can help us with looking at the the consent decree and the legal decisions and the agreements that we've made with ARCO.

Um, you know, do we already have that position, Mr.

Enruth?

We have in the past.

Uh the individual is now gone, and again, Director Hassler and I have now tracked down the other two individuals in the country that are extremely qualified to do this, and we are already doing that.

That's why I was just confused on the request.

Is uh I I understand uh uh Commissioner Perdutolin's I understand it now.

Now I get what you're saying.

Uh but I was just saying we already we have an in-house super fund person.

Um we kind of have a semi-in-house super fund attorney, uh Aaron Rains has an undergrad degree that uh compliments working on that type of stuff.

He sits on the vast majority of the meetings.

Um I sit in with him because my undergrad degree also compliments it.

We understand the process.

Uh but uh we we've also you know are in the process of sending out another RFP for a new attorney to help with uh the rest of that, uh the super fund stuff.

There was a local one here in town which we were hoping to use.

Uh however, he has a conflict.

And then um Ms.

Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I I'm kind of flummoxed here.

Look that word up.

I don't even know what it means.

Um with Mary, I agree that we're the local government study commission, and I think we got a boatload of things to do as far as subcommittees and our you know, our team works that we're trying to get things done to add something in that I don't believe is in within our purview, I find troubling.

It's just my opinion.

Thank you.

I think there is a question of jurisdiction too.

It like back to um the comment, you know, how do we recommend something that's outside of what we're doing, which is the charter.

And we have um director Hassler, and he's you're not named as a director, correct?

I'm sorry, Mr.

Hassler.

Can you come up?

Let me yell across the the room to you.

So if I recall when we were interviewing our uh county employees, one of the things that was a concern is that you're not necessarily named in the charter.

Is do I have that correct?

I can't remember the whole conversation.

Madam Chair, members of the commission.

Um the charter is a little outdated.

I believe it is brought up that the county would have a superfund coordinator, but we have since moved from the coordinator type format.

Um previously, Superfund was housed within a couple different departments.

You had aspects in the health department, you had aspects in the planning.

Now Superfund is a standalone department with a director, which I was appointed to in 2020 to be the director of this new department known as the Department of Reclamation and Environmental Services.

So Superfund Coordinator in the county charter, probably antiquated, needs to be updated to meet the format that we work under today.

Thank you.

Mr.

Thielen.

Madam Chair, uh Eric, so your recommendation would be to just change the charter to include that then.

Uh do away from the superfund director, make it a standalone department and have you as the director, correct?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Thieland.

Um I'm not sure if I'd use it as a recommendation, but I think it might be valuable for it to be memorialized for the betterment of the community and have a department that's involved with superfund going forward so that we have uh seat at the table, if you will, on making decisions in regard to the cleanup going forward, where without it being in the charter at this point and housed in other departments, I don't know how you would guarantee the existence of such a department or memorialize it.

Mr.

Denhey.

I don't think this is in the preview of a local government study commission if it is or if changes need to be happened, and we'll go to the city manager or the council of commissioners.

I'm very happy to have uh Matt involved in this as all other county attorneys were when I was there, and also uh another person looking for uh an RFP for uh having that certain requirement of uh environmental law, which is very hard.

We had one uh we appointed one or had a contract with an individual when I was there.

Uh I don't know how cost effective that was.

Uh we spent a lot of money on that individual uh and he was worth it, but um you get get what you paid for, and I'm just happy that uh Matt and uh and his associate and uh Eric and having the RFPA uh going out for environmental uh law is important.

So again, I'm I'm with my colleagues on this side of the dais that uh if this is something that uh the council commissioners want to uh move forward on and it'll be their decision, not ours.

So group, I I guess I I would entertain some direction of where we want to go.

Do we want to uh wrestle with the issue about changing language in the charter?

Do we want to leave this issue behind and let it sit as is?

Um do we want to put it in a recommendation bucket or you know, I guess we're gonna hear from public a lot too on this.

So um do we want to form a work group on this one or how do we want to proceed?

Ms.

Dolan.

Thank you, madam chair.

I think um I don't want to put the cart before the horse, and I appreciate the fact that we do want to work group, we understand the the necessity of a work group, um, but I think it's incumbent upon me to reach back out to Mr.

Daly and get some clarification with regard to this position and what his intent was and within the scope of local government, because I agree that if it's not in our scope, then we need to punt it to the council of commissioners.

But that said, we need to make that determination first, and then I think there is such great value in the idea of uh a small working group to go through these issues with um with input from Mr.

Hassler as well to figure out if there's some language we can put into the charter because we're gonna have to wait another 10 years at least to do it again.

So I think some clarification, and then I can email the group and let you know what some more specifics and then make that determination maybe next week.

Uh I don't know if if that's feasible.

Thank you, Ms.

Dolan.

I have a question for you, Mr.

Enruth.

Um with and this kind of goes back to our discussion about parks and rec where there was um a request to have a director named in the charter for parks and rec instead of having that internal to um public works.

How important is it to have directors named in the charter or in your opinion?

Is it important at all, or is that something that the commissioners can make up directors as they choose?

How do you see that going out?

Honestly, I mean if it's in uh excuse me, uh Madam Church Commission.

Honestly, I mean, if it's in uh excuse me, uh Madam Chair Commission, honestly, if it's in the charter, I mean it creates a good pathway forward of you know, we have directors of these departments.

The directors are the head of the departments and they run them, and that's kind of the issue that you're having with parks and rec is he's not labeled you know a director in that sense, and and so the putting that in the charter and correcting that works, but you can also correct that via ordinance if it's completely removed from the charter.

Um but I I definitely think you know, having uh the charter give the power to the commission, you know, to create departments as needed and put directors in charge of those departments uh, you know, is it's good, it provides a clear pathway.

So, yes, I mean I think it's good to have it in the charter.

Is it absolutely required?

No, I think you can do the same thing via ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Ms.

McCormick?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Eric.

Can you tell me are you do you think the way your department is organized and operates now is what we need Madam Chair, Commissioner Morgan McCormick, sorry.

Um I think it fits the current state of Superfund.

I think the department is going to have to be somewhat organic as superfund progresses through our community and meet the needs as further remedy are implemented.

Um so I I know that doesn't really answer your question, but I I I do feel that it needs to be organic as more remedy comes online as we learn new things, as more operable units are developed and things of that nature.

So form and function-wise, yes, but size may need to differ in the future.

Ms.

McCormick.

Uh thank you.

Follow-up.

So uh just sort of like your basic organization of how you what you are now, that you're the director, that there's a director.

Would that be a sufficient would that be a good change to make to the charter?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Morgan, I mean Commissioner McCormick, sorry, I've got the other one and spent a little time there too.

Oh, I look a lot like him, but yes, I do feel that it would be.

But on the topic of outside resources, outside council, I I think that is a necessity as well.

I mean, there are going to be some legal circumstances and some liabilities associated with this that we may want some outsort outside resources to supplement the department, supplement the county attorney's office, make sure we're going in the right direction with all of this going forward.

This is an important topic for our community in the forever.

So, but day-to-day operations, implementing remedy, keeping the place operating underneath operations and maintenance the way it's opposed to.

Yes, I think the department is a good fit and is set up well for that, but there are going to be times when outside resources will be necessary.

Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Hassler.

So that I'm clear when you talked about recommended changes to better memorialize the position or the department in the charter.

Were you saying that there's a concern that under the the way that it's noted in the charter now, a future administration may not see value in it and won't have to keep it.

Commissioner Steppen.

I I think it's the same issue that you were looking at with the parks and rec director scenario, is to be blunt when we were under other apartments, it became secondary, not necessarily the health department, Mr.

Denigy, but under others.

And I mean, there was that times where we were looking at maybe it's a fit for public works.

We tried that.

But the municipalities needs started to come before superfund.

So I think the memorialization of the department, not a position, but a department in general that is specific to super fund activities in our community is vital going forward.

And just go ahead.

This one to director, I believe the Civic Center asked for a similar for director and parks and rec, and I think it was focused on the duties that they're performing and the difference between a coordinator and a director.

And so maybe that's where the starting point needs to be for this position as well.

I think that's an excellent suggestion to loop those three departments together as a discussion for the study or for a work group.

Mr.

Lynn.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I'm glad you asked that question, Matt, because we've got parks and rec, we've got civic center, superfund if director, and then we also have the animal shelter that's now autonomous, but the animal shelter is director is just a manager.

But again, I will add the caveat that if you add up these changes to directorship from management from manager to director means a pay bump.

And that's just fact.

So another budgetary consequence of what we're discussing, but I think it's a very valid discussion to have with all of these different things with the charter and to figure out how we can again set up for success the next 10 years and making sure that um there's value in the folks that are leading those efforts.

Thank you.

So I'd like to kind of wrap this.

Um Ms.

Shaw, sorry.

Thank you, and I'll make this quick.

You can wrap it up.

Thank you, Eric, for being here.

I'm just saying uh you don't know how much this gentleman works is amazing.

And I just want to say that 20 years ago I was on the study commission in 046, and that's when we put in the only reference to superfund.

And it says the powers and duties of the chief executive are to interface or excuse me, be accountable for coordinating all superfund activities, monitoring the funds, and she'll interface with uh volunteer citizen advisory board, which I think is doesn't even exist anymore.

This is 20 years ago, and it was before our consent decree.

A lot has gone you know, across the bridge or under the bridge since then, and then what you're doing with the in perpetuity of all the things that the superfund is going to be doing forever, honestly.

Um I I can't say more emphatically that we have to put something in this charter with the superfund.

It needs to have a coordinator or a director, it needs to be mentioned that there is ahead of that and it should be standalone.

I can be say it it's under the chief executive as a um administrative thing, but uh there's just so much more to it, it's just huge.

And uh I think what's in here is just certainly not appropriate anymore.

So that's what I have to say.

Thanks.

Thanks, Eric.

Thanks, Ms.

Shah.

You summarized for me pretty much.

Um I agree that with a perpetuity label, which means forever or 30 years, whichever comes first.

Um I think we should have you know something that's stated in the charter to um put everything into a a form and function.

So um I would volunteer myself to start heading up a department's working group, and maybe we can come back to it given um I think it's okay that we can get Fritz's input um, but we can form that with departments working group and take on the four that we had mentioned: Superfund, Animal Shelter, Parks and Rec, and Civic Center.

And it may be that one of them goes forward, but not all of them, or um, you know, the working group is gonna have to make decisions.

But given, you know, super fund's importance in our community, uh, my personal opinion is that it needs to be called out in the charter.

Um, especially I I get concerned that those of us with institutional knowledge are leaving the the roles.

And so the charter, like you said, memorializes some of those roles and the importance of them.

So I think it you know it can be important work that we do.

Um so if there is there another person that will work with me on this.

Okay.

Ms.

Shaw, thank you.

Anyone else?

We're getting tired.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

I think we're we're we're muddying the waters here, having another working group.

I think we need to figure out first and foremost the clarification from Mr.

Daly, and then within the auspices of the working group that was established a little bit ago in this meeting, myself, Mr.

Steppen, and Mr.

Thielen, to then figure out, you know, i I mean, it's I guess if you want to do another working group talking about titles, that's fine.

Um, but as far as superfund goes, I think we need to take a step back, make those clarifications, and then move forward.

And so not, you know, I I I guess I'm not clear on what you're trying to do with that.

Yeah, I just disagree.

I think that there was there were four questions of people having um a title change or are being called out in the charter.

I'm not sure that all four need to be called out in the charter.

Maybe one does.

And I think that what Mr.

Um Daly's asking for could just inform the group, you know, in terms of are you looking for an independent of us, which we can't do, um, or are you looking for a charter change that is within the county government?

Uh Mr.

Steppen.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um and I think maybe part of the confusion is the the working group that you're referencing with us three is was for corner.

We didn't establish a superfund working group.

Yeah, so that probably was where it appeared there was mudding in the water, but no, we had not established a superfund working group.

Thank you.

Mr.

Dennehy?

Madam Chair, in the current uh charter, there is Article 7 administrative departments that go uh that has public works department, memorialized, fire department, land record system, finance and budget system, human resource department, animal services department.

So in that section, um you can probably add to what Eric, your department is.

Um and some are established by ordinance.

Um there shall be established by ordinance to maintain an animal service department for the purpose of enforcing animal control ordinances and confirming and confining nuisance animals.

That's not that's not to you, Eric, but I mean it could be something to there shall be a whatever what what is the department again?

I'm sorry.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Denigy, it's the Department of Reclamation and Environmental Services.

Right.

So and oh you can establish that by ordinance too.

So there is a placeholder in the current charter that if you want to establish other departments, that can be done in section 7.06 of the charter, um, very you know, minimally, and if you want to make it more uh pertinent and with a little bit more teeth, you can also put it in an ordinance form of what that should be.

Just some uh food for thought.

And just uh uh attaching to what Dan just said, that's by ordinance means it goes through the council of commissioners.

It would have to go through the um uh legislative branch, so that would in order for it to even be put in the charter, I believe it would have to be go through the council of commissioners.

But I mean it says it shall be established.

Shall be established.

So I guess you could have it in there and then they have to do it after that, but it wouldn't have anything to do with us other than just putting it in the charter.

Okay, more discussion on this departments.

So it looks like you and I, Ms.

Shaw to look at those.

And we can look at that section and uh coordinate with Mr.

Enruth.

And it might be that we're just out of bandwidth that we'd have too many questions for the ballots because we talked about trying to keep things um important.

Um with the we have the three questions that are the change of government sections, and then we were talking about maybe five cleanup questions, so that will be part of the discussion, I think as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Hassler.

Thank you for that.

Any other discussion on that issue?

And thank you for clarifying, and I appreciate that.

Um we don't have a public hearing tonight.

Any other scheduled matters?

I don't think so.

Um our announcements are we changed our schedule completely?

No, I'm just kidding.

So our our schedule, our next uh weekly meeting will be on December 15th.

Um and then in the meantime, the work groups will do their work.

Okay.

Can I have an emotion to adjourn?

Mr.

Thielen's making the motion.

Is there a second?

Ms.

Seconds, all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Right, let's go home.

Thanks, Al.