Team Leader Meeting Notes, April 19th, 2010 Options

[Ethan Jewett]

Lynn Rossing took notes and compiled additions from others who were present.

Draft of Notes from Team Leader Meeting 4/19/10

In attendance:
Approx. 50 NET Team Leaders (TL)
Multnomah County ARES representative
John Klum, Chief - Portland Fire Bureau
William Warren, Assistant Program Specialist - POEM
Keith Berkery, Community Emergency Services Manager - POEM
Mark Chubb, Operations Manager - POEM, (meeting facilitator)

First half hour: introductions of everyone in the room, and Mark drawing a chart of POEM’s structure on an easel.

Some key points:
1. POEM is overseen by the Mayor
2. 15.5 FTE (full time equivalent) staff
3. $5.5 million annual budget
4. $1.7 of this comes from the general fund
5. One-third (Of the 5.5 or 1.7??) comes from other City bureaus paying for internal emergency planning services
6. NET falls under POEM’s Community Emergency Services (CES) section, which is run by Keith Berkery
7. CES does community outreach, public information, Citizen Corps Working Group projects. CES staff (Keith and William) attend many meetings, brown bags, etc., for different projects and with various groups, regional partners, business groups, faith-based organizations, schools, etc.
8. CES is responsible (along with ONI’s Crime Prevention program) for administration of the federally funded Know Your Neighbor program.
9. CES oversees the NET program.

The rest of the meeting was questions and answers, facilitated by Mark.

Some of the discussion points:

1. Mark indicated that the demand for NET training – basic and advanced – outstrips William’s resources.

2. NETs are just one of William’s responsibilities.

3. One TL said William’s main role should be the community organizing part of his job. It was also said that it is up to the Team Leaders to motivate individual volunteers.

4. Several TL’s talked about “the basics.” We need basic communication from POEM about issues, and more NET trainings. If NET teams are inactive (which is apparently about half of them) and if the NET program is not thriving, nothing else CES is doing really matters. Preparing households and neighborhoods should be the primary goal.

5. William has about a thousand NET volunteers that he manages. The span of control concept from ICS tells us this will not work.

6. The lack of a “peacetime mission” makes it difficult to prevent apathy. This is an ongoing issue to keep in mind.

7. Liability information from Mark: The “Good Samaritan” laws have been in flux for years. At this point, the City code does not protect NET volunteers from liability for performance or for their own health and well-being. The more organized we are as volunteers, the more expectation there is, and the more liability there is. The city code needs to change. (Q: is there any current effort to change the city code?)

Team leaders responded to the liability issue: it may be better to volunteer as an individual – no badge, no vest, than as a member of a city-sanctioned organization.

8. The Basic Trainings may be more important than advanced trainings. When we have no place to send new people, we lose them. Ethan Jewett, Marcel Rodriguez, and Mac MacCawley are FEMA certified instructors and do this as volunteers.

9. How many NET trained people do we need to have an effect?

10 We need to find creative ways to get training to people, whether or not they want to be NET volunteers. Ideas: classes at community colleges, NET trainings at the neighborhood fire stations, one hour training modules offered through the pdxprepared.net website.

11. Ethan Jewett, with pdxprepared.net website mentioned that this website contains a clearinghouse of NET-prepared/led classes that volunteers can sign up to take as additional training.

12. NET members want the opportunity to expand their ability to serve the community. POEM should facilitate this process with trainings, a website, etc.

13. There is a lack of “we” in the NET program. We are separated by our different trainings that have told us different things over the years.

14. The Return on Investment (ROI) is huge for volunteers. So, William’s role should be encouraging strong teams with enough members to be effective. For many of William’s activities (many grant-driven) the ROI is comparatively low.

(I think it was Mark who said this?) Most of the POEM budget is grant money. Do we want all of this money with all the strings that are attached to it? One-third of POEM’s activities are duties tied to these grants. It is a major distraction.

15. Battalion idea (LA CERT's approach), or citizen liaisons to POEM as a possible solution to William’s span of control issue. Let’s look at other cities to see how this is being done.

16. Mark acknowledged the communication issue. He is concerned about relying too heavily on one form of communication: ham, email, internet, etc. POEM will not tell us how this should be done – POEM wants to hear from NETs how it should be done.

17. Mark said that the NET “is not intended to be a uniform service,” suggesting that if we want vests and helmets it’s up to us.

18. The next regional Rodeo, hosted by TVF&R, will be the last Saturday in September at their training center.

Action Items
The next meeting of Team Leaders and POEM should be mid-July.

It was suggested that POEM provide us with a list of William’s responsibilities and how much of his time is actually spent on administering the NET program. Mark agreed.

Define the expectations of NET members.

A plan for the four large areas that need addressing:

1. Basic Training – a calendar for the 2010-11 fiscal year to be distributed by mid-June.

2. POEM Structure and Responsibilities – Mark will put together a draft for discussion by the end of May. This needs to be done before the

3. Indemnity Issue – a change in city code needed. Work on this on hold until POEM’s structure and responsibilities are defined

4. Communication – Send an email or phone (503-823-3739) Mark Chubb to work on this issue. Get the group together by mid-May. Report complete by mid-June.

[john schlichenma...]

ok let take this by talking point what kind of communication would work best to talk to all of us durning a non event so we all know whats going on with poem.

basic/ avanced training i do belive it need to be done and a refresher course need to be done once a year to bring us up to date on stuff

peacetime mission's there is the liabillty issue but im sure there is room to wigle some where


so where can we find room for inprovment

[felicis]

A minor correction - or at least what I got from the discussion of this point:


7. Liability information from Mark: The “Good Samaritan” laws have been in flux for years. At this point, the City code does not protect NET volunteers from liability for performance or for their own health and well-being. The more organized we are as volunteers, the more expectation there is, and the more liability there is. The city code needs to change. (Q: is there any current effort to change the city code?)

Team leaders responded to the liability issue: it may be better to volunteer as an individual – no badge, no vest, than as a member of a city-sanctioned organization.

My understanding of the liability issue is this:

If we self-activate and respond within the scope of our training, we are covered by the good samaritan laws.

If we are assigned a mission by the city, we are *not* protected by the good samaritan laws. The larger a role the city takes in giving us 'peacetime missions', the greater that liability becomes *to us*. That was Mark Chubb's response to the question of why we were not given more to do.

It is not that we cannot be organized, it is that the *city* cannot be the ones organizing us - we have to do it ourselves, and - as always - respond within the scope of our training.

cheers-
Eric Riley
TL FMA 29
N9 WJQ

Other than that point, the notes seem to be mostly what I remember.

[Ethan Jewett]

Eric,

That's kind of what I understood, however I don't see how self-activation changes anything because:

1. We are trained by the City to self-activate
2. We are trained by the City to organize in a specific way and operate within the scope of that traning.
3. We are (ideally) expected to establish radio communication with the ECC. If they did not tell us in that first contact to demobilize, they have effectively sanctioned our activation.

All that said, I do understand the basic issue the lack of clarity creates with regards to other potential uses of NETs that fall outside a severe disaster scenario. Regardless of whether it is parade route marshal or manning a first aid booth at a festival . . . the lack of formal indemnification means that the City is rolling the dice (for the volunteer as well) when they engage NETs to do almost anything. I think is was clear that Mark acknowledged how untenable that situation is long-term. The dilemma seems to be a chicken and egg situation, where City indemnification would require standards/training currently unrealized, but establishing those standards and training would (in the absence of City coverage) expose NETs further out into the grey area . . most likely well outside even a liberal Good Samaritan interpretation.

A minor correction - or at least what I got from the discussion of this point:


7. Liability information from Mark: The “Good Samaritan” laws have been in flux for years. At this point, the City code does not protect NET volunteers from liability for performance or for their own health and well-being. The more organized we are as volunteers, the more expectation there is, and the more liability there is. The city code needs to change. (Q: is there any current effort to change the city code?)

Team leaders responded to the liability issue: it may be better to volunteer as an individual – no badge, no vest, than as a member of a city-sanctioned organization.

My understanding of the liability issue is this:

If we self-activate and respond within the scope of our training, we are covered by the good samaritan laws.

If we are assigned a mission by the city, we are *not* protected by the good samaritan laws. The larger a role the city takes in giving us 'peacetime missions', the greater that liability becomes *to us*. That was Mark Chubb's response to the question of why we were not given more to do.

It is not that we cannot be organized, it is that the *city* cannot be the ones organizing us - we have to do it ourselves, and - as always - respond within the scope of our training.

cheers-
Eric Riley
TL FMA 29
N9 WJQ

Other than that point, the notes seem to be mostly what I remember.

[felicis]

Eric,

That's kind of what I understood, however I don't see how self-activation changes anything because:

1. We are trained by the City to self-activate
2. We are trained by the City to organize in a specific way and operate within the scope of that traning.
3. We are (ideally) expected to establish radio communication with the ECC. If they did not tell us in that first contact to demobilize, they have effectively sanctioned our activation.

All that said, I do understand the basic issue the lack of clarity creates with regards to other potential uses of NETs that fall outside a severe disaster scenario. Regardless of whether it is parade route marshal or manning a first aid booth at a festival . . . the lack of formal indemnification means that the City is rolling the dice (for the volunteer as well) when they engage NETs to do almost anything. I think is was clear that Mark acknowledged how untenable that situation is long-term. The dilemma seems to be a chicken and egg situation, where City indemnification would require standards/training currently unrealized, but establishing those standards and training would (in the absence of City coverage) expose NETs further out into the grey area . . most likely well outside even a liberal Good Samaritan interpretation.

The difference between self-activation and city-activation is one of *control*. It's not about training, it's about who decides what gets done. Many of us are CPR-first aid certified. We don't wait for instructions to use those skills, we just act when needed (self-activation on a tiny level). In that kind of situation we are acting as 'good samaritans', and are protected (so long as we stay within the scope of our training). If we are controlled more by the city, then we are no longer acting as good samaritans, but more like employees. However, since we are not actually employed by the city to do this kind of work, the city attorney will not step in to protect us. The greater the control the city exerts over our activation and mission choice, the less we are covered by the good samaritan laws - and while there may be other laws that cover our participation, the city's priority will not be to defend us in court from lawsuits.

Note that this does not stop us from volunteering to act in any peacetime mission we choose, but we need to find those opportunities ourselves.

That's the way I understand Mark Chubb's presentation of the information.

cheers-
Eric

[john schlichenma...]

no its do to this artical and by the way with this ruleing as nets we are not protected by the city or state law either.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A woman accused of rendering a friend a paraplegic by pulling her out of a wrecked car "like a rag doll" may not be protected by California's good Samaritan law, an appellate court ruled.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal wrote in a decision Wednesday that the Good Samaritan law only protects people from liability if they are administering emergency medical care. The perceived danger of remaining in the wrecked car was not "medical," the court ruled.

Attorney Robert Hutchinson who represents plaintiff Alexandra Van Horn, said the state's Samaritan law doesn't require people to render aid. But if they do, he said, they must act reasonably.

Van Horn was in the front passenger seat of a car that slammed into a light pole at 45 mph on Nov. 1, 2004, according to the negligence lawsuit filed against Lisa Torti.

Torti was a passenger in a car that was following behind the vehicle and stopped after the crash. Torti testified she placed one arm under Van Horn's legs and the other behind her neck to lift her out of the car.

Van Horn, who testified Torti grabbed her by the arm and pulled her from the car "like a rag doll," suffered injury to a vertebrae and a lacerated liver. Court documents said that the question of whether she was paralyzed during the crash or when she was pulled out of the car has been disputed.

Torti lawyer Jody Steinberg said he will appeal, saying the Samaritan law should protect everybody.

"There was no evidence that our client was doing anything but trying to rescue a person in need," Steinberg said. "This is a public policy issue that needs to be re-examined by the Legislature."


do to this calfornia changed there laws to protects there nets witha new law sb39 but still does not do any thing for peace time missions
and i think we need we need to start a letter compain to change the state law then we canchange the city law

i checked oregon law and it leaves net's open to be sued
so for now if a building falls you can't move the building off the person but you can give them cpr and that's bs

[felicis]

john schlichenmayer

For us, the applicable state law is ORS 30.800 - 30.810 (see the full text below) I got this from:

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/030.html

There are a couple of other sections through there that may apply in some special circumstances. Of course - that's why we have courts and lawyers.

As for John's concern - the decision was by a California state court about a point in California law. While it may have some bearing here, I'm not sure how worried we should be. Any lawyers out there?

The liability seems to (from my unschooled interpretation of Oregon Law) rely on the definition of gross negligence: gross negligence is negligence which is materially greater than the mere absence of reasonable care under the circumstances, and which is characterized by conscious indifference to or reckless disregard of the rights of others. (from earlier in the document - that language is used in a couple of places).

So - if it is within the scope of our training, and we are able to help, we can - *but* as we have not been trained to remove someone from a wrecked vehicle - that would be leaving the scope of our training. Light SAR in a wrecked building *is* within the scope of our training - as long as we act properly (for example - not trying to move someone with a possible spinal injury without any need to do so).

Again - that's how *I* read it, and while *I* will act this way, you determine your own actions.


cheers-
Eric

<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
30.800 Liability for emergency medical assistance. (1) As used in this section, “emergency medical assistance” means:

(a) Medical or dental care not provided in a place where emergency medical or dental care is regularly available, including but not limited to a hospital, industrial first-aid station or a physician’s or dentist’s office, given voluntarily and without the expectation of compensation to an injured person who is in need of immediate medical or dental care and under emergency circumstances that suggest that the giving of assistance is the only alternative to death or serious physical after effects; or

( Medical care provided voluntarily in good faith and without expectation of compensation by a physician licensed by the Oregon Medical Board in the physician’s professional capacity as a team physician at a public or private school or college athletic event or as a volunteer physician at other athletic events.

(2) No person may maintain an action for damages for injury, death or loss that results from acts or omissions of a person while rendering emergency medical assistance unless it is alleged and proved by the complaining party that the person was grossly negligent in rendering the emergency medical assistance.

(3) The giving of emergency medical assistance by a person does not, of itself, establish the relationship of physician and patient, dentist and patient or nurse and patient between the person giving the assistance and the person receiving the assistance insofar as the relationship carries with it any duty to provide or arrange for further medical care for the injured person after the giving of emergency medical assistance. [1967 c.266 §§1,2; 1973 c.635 §1; 1979 c.576 §1; 1979 c.731 §1; 1983 c.771 §1; 1983 c.779 §1; 1985 c.428 §1; 1989 c.782 §35; 1997 c.242 §1; 1997 c.751 §11]



30.801 [1999 c.220 §1; repealed by 2005 c.551 §8]



30.802 Liability for use of automated external defibrillator. (1) As used in this section:

(a) “Automated external defibrillator” means an automated external defibrillator approved for sale by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

( “Public setting” means a location that is:

(A) Accessible to members of the general public, employees, visitors and guests, but that is not a private residence;

( A public school facility as defined in ORS 327.365; or

© A health club as defined in ORS 431.680.

(2) A person may not bring a cause of action against another person for damages for injury, death or loss that result from acts or omissions involving the use, attempted use or nonuse of an automated external defibrillator when the other person:

(a) Used or attempted to use an automated external defibrillator;

( Was present when an automated external defibrillator was used or should have been used;

© Provided training in the use of an automated external defibrillator;

(d) Is a physician and provided services related to the placement or use of an automated external defibrillator; or

(e) Possesses or controls one or more automated external defibrillators placed in a public setting and reasonably complied with the following requirements:

(A) Maintained, inspected and serviced the automated external defibrillator, the battery for the automated external defibrillator and the electrodes for the automated external defibrillator in accordance with guidelines set forth by the manufacturer.

( Ensured that a sufficient number of employees received training in the use of an automated external defibrillator so that at least one trained employee may be reasonably expected to be present at the public setting during regular business hours.

© Stored the automated external defibrillator in a location from which the automated external defibrillator can be quickly retrieved during regular business hours.

(D) Clearly indicated the presence and location of each automated external defibrillator.

(E) Established a policy to call 9-1-1 to activate the emergency medical services system as soon as practicable after the potential need for the automated external defibrillator is recognized.

(3) The immunity provided by this section does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the action is brought acted with gross negligence or with reckless, wanton or intentional misconduct;

( The use, attempted use or nonuse of an automated external defibrillator occurred at a location where emergency medical care is regularly available; or

© The person against whom the action is brought possesses or controls one or more automated external defibrillators in a public setting and the person’s failure to reasonably comply with the requirements described in subsection (2)(e) of this section caused the alleged injury, death or loss.

(4) Nothing in this section affects the liability of a manufacturer, designer, developer, distributor or supplier of an automated external defibrillator, or an accessory for an automated external defibrillator, under the provisions of ORS 30.900 to 30.920 or any other applicable state or federal law. [2005 c.551 §1]



30.803 Liability of certified emergency medical technician acting as volunteer. No person shall maintain a cause of action for injury, death or loss against any certified emergency medical technician who acts as a volunteer without expectation of compensation, based on a claim of negligence unless the person shows that the injury, death or loss resulted from willful and wanton misconduct or intentional act or omission of the emergency medical technician. [1987 c.915 §11]



30.805 Liability for emergency medical assistance by government personnel. (1) No person may maintain an action for damages for injury, death or loss that results from acts or omissions in rendering emergency medical assistance unless it is alleged and proved by the complaining party that the acts or omissions violate the standards of reasonable care under the circumstances in which the emergency medical assistance was rendered, if the action is against:

(a) The staff person of a governmental agency or other entity if the staff person and the agency or entity are authorized within the scope of their official duties or licenses to provide emergency medical care; or

( A governmental agency or other entity that employs, trains, supervises or sponsors the staff person.

(2) As used in this section, “emergency medical care” means medical care to an injured or ill person who is in need of immediate medical care:

(a) Under emergency circumstances that suggest that the giving of assistance is the only alternative to serious physical aftereffects or death;

( In a place where emergency medical care is not regularly available;

© In the absence of a personal refusal of such medical care by the injured or ill person or the responsible relative of such person; and

(d) Which may include medical care provided through means of radio or telecommunication by a medically trained person, who practices in a hospital as defined in ORS 442.015 and licensed under ORS 441.015 to 441.087, and who is not at the location of the injured or ill person. [1979 c.782 §8; 1981 c.693 §27; 1985 c.747 §48]



30.807 Liability for emergency transportation assistance. (1) No person shall maintain an action for damages for injury, death or loss that results from acts or omissions in rendering emergency transportation assistance unless it is alleged and proved by the complaining party that the person rendering emergency transportation assistance was grossly negligent. The provisions of this section apply only to a person who provides emergency transportation assistance without compensation.

(2) As used in this section, “emergency transportation assistance” means transportation provided to an injured or ill person who is in need of immediate medical care:

(a) Under emergency circumstances that suggest that the giving of assistance is the only alternative to serious physical after-effect or death;

( From a place where emergency medical care is not regularly available;

© In the absence of a personal refusal of such assistance by the injured or ill person or the responsible relative of the person; and

(d) Which may include directions on the transportation provided through means of radio or telecommunications by a medically trained person who practices in a hospital, as defined in ORS 442.015 and who is not at the location of the injured or ill person. [1987 c.915 §10; 1997 c.242 §2]



30.810 [1969 c.387 §1; 1973 c.823 §89; renumbered 31.700 in 2003]