Porter County E911 will begin dispatching all 911 calls from the towns of Chesterton and Porter on April 1.
The standard operating procedure was unanimously adopted by the Porter County Board of Commissioners at its meeting Tuesday morning, despite officials from the two towns having been promised an additional meeting before its adoption.
Porter County E911 has been dispatching fire and medical for the entire county for some time, but the towns of Chesterton and Porter have maintained their own police dispatch to the consternation of the county. An officer-involved shooting in Chesterton in June reopened the debate over whether the towns should be part of the county dispatching consortium for their police calls.
Porter County E911 has status as a public safety answering point (PSAP). At Tuesday’s meeting, Porter County Central Communications Executive Director Debby Gunn explained the county’s stance that it is currently not in compliance with state statute that governs the state’s PSAPs because of the historical approach to Chesterton and Porter’s police calls.
In March 2008, Indiana statute restricted counties from adopting additional PSAPs once one already existed in an effort to consolidate emergency services. By 2012, efforts were underway at the state level to consolidate existing PSAPs.
The two-page SOP adopted by Porter County states its primary goal is to “ensure prompt emergency response, mitigate county liability by maintaining custody of the 911 call, and provide continuity of care until the arrival of an emergency unit.”
Commissioner Barb Regnitz, R-Center, asked for clarification on what the SOP would be changing. “This standard operating procedure just makes Chesterton and Porter like everyone else in Porter County?” she asked.
“Yes,” Gunn replied.
“And so the towns of Chesterton and Porter will be treated exactly the same as every other in Porter County?” Regnitz reiterated, to a second assurance from Gunn.
“We hope to help them make a better dispatching system,” added Commission Vice President Jim Biggs, R-North, whose district includes the two towns.
The towns, according to their respective town council presidents, are taking a wait-and-see approach.
“The town’s position, there’s some questions on how it’s going to work,” said Porter Town Council President Bill Lopez, D-3rd. “Our main concern is for the safety of our residents and the safety of our first responders. We’ll have to see how it goes. Will the officers be getting all the information they need as it’s (an event requiring dispatch) happening?”
His counterpart, Chesterton Town Council President Erin Collins, D-2nd, echoed Lopez that the towns had been given assurances at a meeting last month that the proposed, new SOP would not be implemented until a revised version was completed and a follow-up meeting held between the towns and the county.
Instead, she said the towns received the revised version and were told it was being implemented.
The towns had reviewed the proposed SOP with their police chiefs and were in the midst of submitting proposed revisions when they learned the SOP had been adopted by the county.
“As for the substance of the SOP itself, we are very concerned that it creates more problems than it solves by adding an additional layer of communication between the responding officer and the 911 caller,” Collins said via text.
“The call should be transferred to the Chesterton/Porter dispatcher as soon as an officer is dispatched to the scene. However, in the SOP, instead of transferring the call to the Chesterton/Porter dispatcher after an officer has been dispatched to the scene, the county dispatcher will retain the call, meaning that there will be no direct communication between the dispatcher and the responding officer.”
“Transparency and collaboration between the county and local public safety agencies is essential, and that is what we expected when those assurances were given,” Collins added. “We are disappointed, but we will continue to push for an SOP that will improve efficiencies and enhance public safety.”
Gunn provided a timeline of the E911 management activity in Porter County that states initial overtures to the towns were made Nov. 12 to form an oversight committee and begin meeting, but were initially ignored by the towns. By Jan. 5, Porter confirmed it would attend, while Chesterton declined participation through its attorney on Jan. 15, according to Gunn.
Her timeline states the first meeting was held January 16, and representatives from the Chesterton Police and Fire departments were not in attendance. On Feb. 3, the towns’ attorneys requested a meeting and one was held Feb. 9, with the county issuing a letter titled “911 Operational Changes” on Feb. 25.
Shelley Jones is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.
