Board of Supervisors - Special Meeting

Normally, we don't do an invocation of pledge of allegiance for the specials, but it is on the agenda. So, Diane is offered to do the prayer, and then we'll just do that with pledge of allegiance.

Stand if you wish, and I'll do the prayer. Heavenly Father, we thank you for letting us live here. We thank you for all the riches that you have given to us and what a great nation we live in. Fill this room with the Holy Spirit and fill our hearts with your love. Lord, we thank you for loving us so much. You give us your Son and we ask that you help us honor them and remember how blessed we are. Thank you for all that you give us and help us to be appreciative and gracious. In Jesus' name, Amen. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thanks for attending, Diane. All right, so we'll go ahead and call to order. Can I get a call, please?

Supervisor Hobbs. Here. Supervisor Finch. Here. Supervisor Stanton.

Here. All right, review of the Senate Disclosure Conflict of Interest. The only thing that I would require the board to change is we're opening bids, discussing through resolution. I'm wondering if we should just move that to be under resolution. Yes. So we're all doing it at the same time. As you can see, we have split by public comment, so it makes sense that we put that together as a resolution.

But can't you, you're gonna open the bids. I want Mike to really review each one.

I don't want him to read all of them. OK. Well, we can discuss that later. I think Mike's point is we want to make sure that the public has a comment. And then we can open the bids and do that. And Mitch was kind of talk at night because some of these bids are very well sealed. So anyway, so if the board is okay with adjusting the agenda to kind of open the bids during the time of the resolution, I'll entertain a motion to approve agenda with that amendment. So moved to move on opening the bids under the resolution. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? motion carries okay so um we have the agenda approved that brings us immediately to public comment just a reminder this is a special meeting so the only thing you can comment on is what is on the agenda um so uh we'll do folks in the room first and then we'll move to the phone if there's anyone on the phone that wishes to comment please be patient and we'll come to you if you are interested in public comment please come ahead and give your name and where you're from and you have three minutes Once again, I will ask for your resignation as you do not have the integrity that it takes and it becomes more obvious every day. Taxpayers do not trust either of you and many don't even want you in their towns. This mess about the camera and security is another attempt of you to cut, cover, and control the information that you don't want out there that needs to be out there.

Sheriff and county attorney have had and should have the access that already exists on the previous resolution.

This is a safety concern. We see you. We know what you are up to. Not sure why your outside counsel needs to be present audio during a Board of Supervisors meeting. What goes on in Madison County really isn't their business. I think that was it. Have your friends show up. We need numbers to show up.

This is beyond ridiculous.

This is a safety issue.

I'm still talking about the climate.

I understand, but your comments have to be directed at the board, not the public, per policy.

Per time. We use the same witnesses.

Sir, please stop interrupting. Stop interrupting her.

Please quit interrupting me. I have my three minutes and you will not intimidate me. This is ridiculous. You do not own Madison County and you will not own Madison County.

Okay, moving on. Is anyone else wish to comment? Otherwise, we'll move to the folks on the phone.

I guess with this, the cameras, this policy, I just ask that before really anything gets set in stone, that maybe you talk a little bit. Because as I was looking into this, the Iowa DOT has some standards that maybe we are not following actually right now. So we need to actually update where our cameras are at currently. Because we are not following the rules.

So you're required to have cameras at certain areas?

Yes. Per DOT, because DOT can't govern the rest of the county, but they can govern your area. Right.

I'm not talking about any other offices. I'm talking about the treasurer's office, the DOT offices, and we are actually not in compliance right now.

Can you send us a copy of the DOT requirements for your office? And then we can send that to whomever the new vendor is and maybe get that adjusted. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

And I guess I just need, there's just one of the other, in that resolution, I just, there's that line about, it says surveillance equipment that records, sorry, capture, stores, transients. or monitors, audio, video, or both names, indicate blah, blah, blah. The surveillance is what I just, I need clarification on what that is. I mean, I know that most of us think like, oh, it's the cameras, but there's so much more to that, you know, and especially when it comes to like the DOT office and that sort of thing. People will come in with their cell phones. So are we talking Are we talking body cans? Are we talking cell phones? Are we talking, and then also what about when we are on our Teams calls, our Zoom calls? All of that is all, camera recording that kind of thing I mean even nowadays yeah or even nowadays people have like those like handy dandy glasses you know like the Ray-Ban glasses that have the cameras in it I mean I think it's super creepy but I mean they're there you know I mean it's just I just need a little bit more like there it really there is so much to that to that word and so i just i just want to make sure that we're really defining that and just you know or even when they're we're doing projects you know a lot of like um construction places will put up like cameras you know cameras on there on their projects i talked to you if you want a few extra minutes is your concern um how far this might go yeah i just i just want to put it out there because you know I just want to make sure that I'm not against anything. I'll be honest, I have a camera in my office just because there's not a camera anywhere like that directs towards my office, so I have one in my office. I mean, you can likely see it is my desk, and then there's a certain part of the door, but it is my desk. It sits on top of my seat so that if someone comes in, you can see it. But it's for protection of that site because there's nothing else. Right. But that's either here or there. I'm going to submit a thing to ask that I have it there when it's that time. But there's just so many different surveillance things that I just want to make sure that we are

aware of and if they are in there or aren't in there or well right now the resolution only applies to county owned equipment and so so and no other equipment installed that's not approved we can't stop the public I mean if they want to wear AI glasses I've seen those they're kind of creepy but they want to do that we can't stop them from doing that this is only to govern county policy and county owned equipment but I want to make sure that We get that information soon because once we choose a vendor, that's going to be part of the discussion if we need to add an additional camera for you to apply to the DOT and all that kind of stuff.

So if you want to send that to the board. Yeah. And we just have to be careful about the audio, too. That's another thing. Right. Yeah. I was like, oh. Yeah. What type of camera do you have in there now in your office? I'm not going to let it come achieve a one. It's just the, it's a TAPO, it's T-A-P-O. So you just did it to protect yourself and put it up there? Yes, I did.

And it records audio or just visually?

Yeah, it's both. And I turn it on when I leave at night. And then when we go, when whoever comes in first, they hit the button and it turns off.

So were you aware that Iowa code requires posting when we record audio? That's something I've learned. well then we should have that on the outside of our building sure correct so so um because a lot of people didn't know a lot of employees didn't even know that we have audio i've known that we've had audio but a lot of employees didn't know that we've had audio so the courthouse that the courthouse might check last summer did at least the cameras that installed the time did not have any audio and that's probably because of the court system but here It's a different story apparently, but there's still required postings. Right. So we're going to have to work on that with whoever the new vendor is. Yeah. To make sure we get that taken care of. No, I agree. I thought it was kind of wrong. So the audio? Yeah. Yeah, that's the issue. So if you could send us the DOT requirements, we'll go over it with whomever the new vendor is, and then we can sit down with you and get you a proper camera.

Yeah, and the DOT even said that they could, you know, come in and help, you know.

Make sure it's set up right. I think that would be great. So thank you for that. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anyone else? Otherwise, we'll go to the phone.

Chris Jordan, Peru. I'm going to speak to this. because I'm not currently mayor, but as a former mayor, we did put up cameras to solve some issues in our community. And they were put up by elected county officials. And I've not read through this in a way that I completely understand what this all involves. But for instance, we had some roaming dogs. And a number of people in our community were having large numbers of their chickens killed. In some cases, an entire flock. And there was a lot of people one way, another way in the community about whose dogs are these. And we could never quite see them there at the moment. We could see them coming near the property. You know, people would have seen them or in the vicinity and on the day. So Sheriff Barnes came down, he had a camera, he set it up and there was no doubt because it was set up actually at my own chicken house in Peru whose dogs came out with chickens in their house and the number who were killed. I want you to be really careful about being ambiguous or restrictive in a way that it might some of our county employees that might too much restrict their ability to do their work you understand what i'm saying it solved a lot of tension in our community i mean nobody was charged or anything but it just put the issue to rest it took care of a lot of rumor a lot of hard feelings and it ended the problem In another instance, there is graffiti on some of our public property. And I'm not gonna say exactly where, I don't know where, very offensive. And we have discussed, and I might say there could be cameras in place now to try to catch those involved. And they are public owned. in the Peru community. And we've had assistance with that from two different departments. So I just want to caution you that it might be the easiest way to solve a problem without a lot of conflict, just to see actually what's going on. I hope that you wouldn't restrict it too much in that way. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to comment? Otherwise, we'll move the phone. Are you commenting Doug?

Doug Jurgens, Winterset. First off, again, I'd like to thank you, Diane, for all you've done for the county and your efforts that you've done. For you two, I see this as another knee-jerk reaction to further your vindictive ways against employees of the county. Anyone that you don't like, you want to get rid of. We know now from Kylie's comments that you obviously didn't do your due diligence on this because you're worried about Swanson's camera when you didn't even know she had a camera. So that alone shows that you did no due diligence I'm looking up this resolution. This is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to try to help your stalker friend Nick get the information that he has no right to know. You know, that's exactly what's going on here. This is more than vindictive stuff that's listed in Michelle's suit yesterday that you chickened out of with your bullshit motion. You talk about how bad Swanson is for months and months, but then when you have a chance to face him, you don't want to face him. Because you're scared to death to get on that standing line, because then you know to perjure yourself. There's consequences in there when you perjure yourself, and perjure yourselves in here all day long. I know you think it's funny, Jessica. You like to laugh in constituents' faces because you have no cooth whatsoever. You don't give a shit about what anybody thinks. You're here to lead and represent people, and that's not what you're doing. You're doing your own vindictive work to do as much damage as you can to this county before you leave. And you're creating a worse situation for the ones that follow you that have to come in and undo all these messes that you're making. There's absolutely no proof that getting rid of the custodial system will save the county any money. There's nothing that this is gonna fix either. This was all done simply to be vindictive to Swanson the same way you are vindictive against Michelle and anyone else in this county that dares to speak out against you. i've known many of these county workers for most of my lives and they can't come up and speak out so i come up to speak out for them the way you have done this to people is despicable your resignation should be tendered immediately.

So yet again, we've proven today that you've done no due diligence on this camera system. You don't know what the rules and regulations are. You've never figured it out. You're not doing

any of that, this was a knee-jerk reaction to help your buddy Nick try to get his information and try to remove the cameras that the county attorney needs to feel safe in his own office, the same way that Kylie felt the need to have a camera in her office to feel safe in her office. If you're doing these things without going through the proper steps ahead of time, just knee-jerk reactions to attack and use your vindictive ways against anybody that speaks out and doesn't kiss your ass. They're not here to kiss your ass. They're here to do their jobs. It's too bad neither of you two can do yours. Is that your fault? That is my fault.

Okay. Anyone else have good time? I thought I heard a reminder. There was. Anyone else wish to comment? Otherwise we'll go to the phone. Alright. Folks on the phone, if there's anyone on the phone that wishes to comment, please hit star six to unmute your phone and state your name and where you're from. You have three minutes.

I have an unknown user who's unmuted themselves.

Okay.

Heather, can you hear me?

Yes, I can hear you. Please state that. Heather, can you hear me? Yes, please state your name.

Nick Starr, Earlham, Iowa. Nick Starr, Earlham, Iowa. and members of the board. Over the past two weeks, I have contacted each member of this board regarding what I believe to be an unauthorized installation and use of ring cameras outside the Madison County Attorney's Office. My concerns involve transparency, governance, public trust, and the potential liabilities these devices create for Madison County. When I submitted public records requests, I was repeatedly told records relating to these cameras could not be released because they were allegedly privileged or otherwise protected. However, on July 15, Mr. Swanson acknowledged to both me and this board that the ring cameras are his personal property. That admission raises serious questions about why records were withheld and whether the public was given complete and accurate information. This issue is also personal. During a public meeting, I was called a stalker and a weirdo. Which again, per Doug's comments, means many people believe that now. Yet that person making those accusations maintained personal surveillance equipment inside the courthouse that monitored members and recorded the audio of the public. That should be very concerning to every citizen of Madison County. These cameras were installed in a public area where attorneys, defendants, victims, witnesses, county employees, and citizens regularly conduct expensive business. If audio was recorded or conversations were captured, significant legal and ethical questions arise. I ask this Board to remove any remaining unauthorized surveillance equipment in any department, preserve all recordings and related records, obtain an independent legal and ethical review, and ensure my outstanding public records requests are fully and truthfully answered immediately. these concerns are substantiated madison county could face necessary unnecessary legal exposure and a loss of public trust this the citizens of this country deserve a courthouse that operates with transparency accountability and respect for the rule of the law and should be followed accordingly thank you all right anyone else on the phone that wishes to view public comment

extra seconds because the lag. Is anyone else unmuted?

Hello?

All right. There's somebody else that unmuted. Hello? Yes. Go ahead.

Hi. Hi. My name is Jaylee. I'm from St. Charles. My concern here is I did reach out after hearing some conversations in regards to the cameras and everything. The three cameras that are in this courthouse set back clarify. to County Attorney Schultz. My concern is that we are now bringing all this information up, that why was this not addressed prior to? Why is it now a concern? It looks a little vindictive on our part, for one. If these cases are removed, they are then the personal liability of County Attorney Schultz. with the information that reaching out finding out both prior county attorney stated that these cameras were placed for their safety As there is no other way to exit their office, to leave, whatever. There's only one officer at the time. Business building, windows, court hearings and things going on. We've already had an incident with a gun in the courthouse prior to. Understanding, again, Kylie, as Jeff Dunn has mentioned, Kylie has a camera in court office for the same reason. Things have not been looked into as well. And so my concern too with these requests, these people being able to request footage and video from the courthouse, I understand these are rights that can happen. My issue being The juvenile court, I have been a part of a juvenile court case as to where their attorney has walked out into the hallway with the juvenile court, whatever, the officer, the child, and had a conversation with them. On the juvenile court floor, outside the stairway, in other areas. So if this audio recorded and everything, we are going to allow someone who is not entitled to that information to have that, to see that child, to hear those conversations and everything else. juries are on the second floor they're not having any conversation leaving their the jury room to the box so that conversation is not being recorded seeing any attorney coming out seeing a ringed camera is not going to have a conversation in front of a ringed camera for one they're going to move their client anywhere else However, again, my concern is not the ring camera for their safety. My concern is allowing requests and people to see and hear audio and video of a courthouse area where attorneys and guardian ad litems and such have conversations with these young children or attorneys are having conversations with their clients in stairways and hallways that other people are not speaking to and should not have any type of privilege to hear. And that is where my concern lies about what's happening with audio, video, and everything.

I am so sorry, Angela, but your time is up.

I have a question for Jaylee. This is Supervisor Fitch, Jaylee. Can you hear me? So your concern is not with the green doorbell. You're thinking that's a safety issue. You just don't want people to be able to view it when it comes to court system information. Is that, as I understand you, correct?

That and also when we're allowing people to make FOIA requests to certain things or certain people to have video access to the courthouse, Like, if we can allow them to have audio or video of minor children, why is that allowed? Nobody but the county attorney, the sheriff, and their attorney should be allowed to know that they are having those conversations. Some of those children are in that situation not because of their doing.

That's not happening now, Jaylee. I just want to make sure that you understand that. That is not happening right now.

Right.

Thank you.

Thank you for answering. So that was just my thing. So I just want to make sure that like if any FOIA requests are made that the minor information or videos of them are not being released. Right.

No, that is not being released. And that is not, that's only happened once in the past when video, audio video was released. And that has not happened again since then. So, but your concern is well noted, thank you. Anyone else that wishes to speak on the phone? All right. Excuse me, I don't have a public comment prepared. I do have a question, Vicki Brenner of Winterset. i'm trying to understand and so if you could address this at some point as you look at the surveillance situation we are living in a pretty volatile time period especially with everything that's happening right now i'm just curious as to what kind of safeguards are in place for our county employees um whether it's kylie or whether it's county attorney swanson i know we have security cameras but how how is county attorney swanson

or Kylie access that before they open the door?

Do they have to go to the server room? I mean, are they able to actually go, boom, I can see who's outside my door and they're brandishing a weapon? Both county attorney and the sheriff have access to our security cameras. But how does Kylie, for example, look and see on the county security system, there's someone outside my door and they're brandishing a gun? well that is a question that that that would be great because i do think that we you have a responsibility to protect every employee and actually in this room every person so it's it's well taken we may need to have more people have access to cameras so um anything else otherwise we'll go ahead

I'd like to make a comment. Regardless of what you guys are doing with this, I do think that it would be helpful for you guys to define explicitly like what currently is approved because I think that it renders the resolution are a bit broad. So I think that it would be helpful for you to define, okay, this is what is currently approved so that everyone in their offices can

go through and see that if there is any any systems that may not be on that list that would be covered under that i think section five that defines that but we but point well taken we can discuss that as a board um anything else otherwise we'll go ahead and move right into our agenda Okay, so we'll go ahead and move into our agenda. The first one is the new surveillance equipment policy. Just to folks know, you may not be aware, there are already cameras, county approved cameras, outside the county attorney's office. There's also county cameras outside the county attorney's staff office. They've been there for as long as I've been here. So he is, since the county attorney and the county sheriff already have access to those cameras via their login, they can already see what's happening outside their door. And the county attorney staff office has the additional extra security of having a window and a key code lock entry that only their staff have access to. And I think there's an open office in there right now, I don't know. But, and Diane, maybe you can speak to this because this pertains to me, but I think former county... That is incorrect information. Excuse me.

That is incorrect information.

Excuse me. Excuse me, Steve.

That is incorrect information. There is no access to the camera outside of my office from my office. I'm just clarifying because you make up stuff all the time. I am not able to see what's going on outside of my office from the installed cameras in the building. Neither one of us has access.

So, Steve, so you're saying that that camera is not operational and you cannot access it? Is that what I'm hearing? His ring doorbell, I'm not talking about the ring one. I'm talking about the 360 camera.

No, I cannot access that camera. I've never been able to access that camera without going to physically go to the server. Okay, so if you... Which means I would have to leave my store. So, Steve... To go look at the server.

Steve, you were supposed to be set up with an app. to have access to all the cameras in the courthouse?

No, not until we get a new server. No, they only access the annex, and you know that.

No, no, I'm talking about the Johnson Controls.

The courthouse cameras do not, the courthouse cameras, until we get a new server, which we've been asking for for at least five months, until we get a new server, we cannot have remote access to the courthouse cameras. We've never had it.

Okay, I was informed by Johnson Controls that that was taken care of, so you're saying that's not accurate.

You were not informed that that was taken care of because there's never been a new server, and that has been what they've been saying that they would do when we get a new server for this entire time.

Jess, I thought last time when you met as a security team that that was taken care of, that you sat down and walked through all that to have access, because that was one of the things that was important.

Even before you were on board.

They had access, but that's why we're doing an RFP to get a new server and a new system that they can access from their phones. Okay, so how do they access it right now on their computers?

Also on computers, we can't access it from anywhere unless we're physically at the server.

You can't log into... So right now, if there's an incident in the courthouse, you're saying that neither you nor the county sheriff can remote in on your laptop...

I don't really want to get into security things, but that's one of the things that the new server was supposed to solve. And that's been the way it's always been, and you've known that for over a year.

No, actually, Steve, that is not the case, because prior to you being appointed as county attorney, this was discussions we had at length with former chair Clifton and Diane because we wanted to make sure both the county attorney and the county sheriff had access to the courthouse remotely in case there was an event that they needed to look at so they knew what they were walking into. So this is the first I'm hearing that that is not working. Because that has been the intent.

At our state courthouse safety meeting with Jeff was there. I know that. We've discussed it multiple times that we can't have that until there's a new server. There's not enough bandwidth. That has been mentioned 100% for a year. Okay, so. I did not see. we cut out cameras from my office which is why me and every county attorney prior to me all four of them had access to ring cameras outside the office so we can see what's going on outside the office without having to walk to a different room to look okay so that's why the server was moved to your offices so it was easier for you to access No, the server was moved to our offices because it was unsure where it was and you know that. Well, that was one of the reasons. And you were getting rid of IT, and you were getting rid of IT so it was just an open office.

So, that was one of the reasons. So, the reason why we're getting a new server. That was the reason. The reason why we were getting a new server is because new cameras were ordered and installed Um, by the auditor's office. We did an answer before that. Okay. This is, again, Steve, this is the first I'm hearing of this.

I'm not talking to you. I'm just telling you, I want you to be factually accurate when you're making these rules and put my safety at risk. And you have put zero effort into that. You're listening to your person. You don't know anything. He claims he's never been up to my office, but that picture, he's blown up on it, which is a security concern of himself. Steve. Steve. Steve. Steve. Steve. Who knows who she's sharing that with. They don't worry about safety, so I'm done talking, don't worry about it. It's not going anywhere anyway.

Anyway, so the reason why we needed a new server, this is what I was told, is because the new cameras that were installed taxed our existing server. The vendor Johnson Controls failed to use a sales engineer to determine whether or not we had enough bandwidth to handle those new cameras. We found out after the fact that that was the issue. So had we known it ahead of time, we would have gone to an RFP before those cameras would have been installed and affected them as a benefit. So we put their heart before the horse, and this is one of the reasons why I want to have a vendor that understands the proper procedures on installing security systems, and also allows the county attorney or the county sheriff to access the camera system from their phone. So one of the things that we talked about before you were even on the board, Jess, was it was very important to me because we did have an event in the courthouse that our county attorney and our county sheriff had access to those cameras remotely. So if there was an event, they were talking into something. I was under the impression that that was taken care of and done. So this is the first time I'm hearing no previous county attorney has ever come to the board and said, hey, We're installing a ring camera because the other cameras can't do what you said you told us that you were going to do. This is the first I'm hearing of it. We needed a server for years. No, we haven't needed a server. We needed the server once we installed those cameras. Because the more pieces of equipment you add to something, Diane, it taxes it. So that makes sense. And I wanted to give the auditor what she wanted because she had a valid reason of why she wanted cameras. So what I assumed, incorrectly, was that the company did an evaluation of our existing server. We didn't find out about that until the cameras were purchased and or installed. Well, then it's a little too late. Now we're playing catch up. So I don't like being in a position of playing catch up. So right now, hopefully one of these vendors will give us what we request and can do, and can give that, we'll have a unified system, so our county sheriff and our county attorney have a single login to all cameras, So they can look and if there's an issue, they know I don't want them walking into something. So that was the purpose and this predates you, this predates our current county attorney. This has been an issue that has been something I've wanted for a long time. So hopefully we can get there right now. But right now we're talking about the surveillance equipment policy. What this is, the purpose of this is to make sure that going forward, We have the right oversight so this doesn't happen again. Any new equipment that's purchased, it goes to the proper sales engineer review, make sure the current system can accommodate, the current board of supervisors is aware of it, they know what's being installed. Because obviously now we found out that we have another camera with audio and visual that's recording people and there's no postings. So obviously that's concerning. and how would we know that this is being done unless an employee or elected official tells us i don't know how the board will there's a lot of things that have not been told to the board in the past so i'm hoping this policy will correct that going forward it is a security system we want to make sure it's done correctly and that we're following the law we do not want to be recording things that we shouldn't the current cameras in the courthouse do not record audio that's what i'm told last year. Um, I'm hoping the new ones don't record audio. But we can't have, yes. So, so anyway, so at this point, that's what this is. It also solidifies that, that uh, The board still retains their authority and oversight on that. We are not delegating our authority on that, and we just need to have more oversight. So all sorts of employees know the policy, so if they do have a concern like Kylie did, and they have feedback, they can come and the board can accommodate that. Well, my biggest concern is regarding the preservation of data on these privately provided cameras and who has access and who could potentially have them. And the responses from the county attorney were less than satisfactory in regard to addressing any of those concerns. So that's why we need policies to ensure everybody is on the same page with that. So from a security perspective, and this may not be something that you guys are aware of, but the rain camera system is in half once a day. The Federal Trade Commission actually sued them.

Our ring camera has been hacked.

The ring camera cloud, because all the ring camera stuff, it's not unlike our private surveillance.

Not ours specifically has not been hacked.

I can't confirm that. Well, that's a broad statement. How would we know? We don't have access to that system. We don't have access. So my point is that this is being stored on a third-party cloud system. that we have no oversight, no control over or anything like that. We have a closed circuit video surveillance system here for the very reason is from the security standpoint. When you go to a third party like Ring, which runs on Amazon servers, you have an additional area of potential security problems. So in 2023, the Federal Trade Commission sued Ring because there was a breach. Employees were watching video. They shouldn't be watching video. And they opened it up to potential hacking. They paid a $5.8 million fine, Diane. So this is why we do closed circuit. We do not do third-party cloud services for stuff like this. And had the board been aware that if it is true, I'm not assuming, but if it is true that previous county attorneys used this, then that's an issue. So if that's the case, Diane, We could have been part of that breach in 2023. We weren't. So how do you know that? We don't know. But even if we weren't, it doesn't matter. The potential is there. It's already been proven. This is why we have code surface. This is why we do it that way. It's because we do not want to open it up to where ring camera employees or whoever they want to have access can monitor our systems or any other hacker. Again, I don't want our sheriff, Our counter attorney walking into something they don't know anything about, and that is the purpose of it. It's not, our cameras are not to be personal doorbell devices, okay? They are there to provide surveillance if there's an event or there's a concern. So currently right now, our county attorney and our county sheriff are the only ones that can access all of them our emergent our ambulance director can only access the cameras for the ambulance so so maybe this is to kylie's point maybe this is a conversation we need to have to where we discuss maybe in a future meeting allowing Department heads have access to the cameras that point at their offices. So if there's an after hours thing or there's something going on, that they know what's going on. And the board of supervisors have also had death threats. So that's something that we need to talk about.

Did you call the police with all your data? You keep bringing it up in every meeting you've had. Did you call the police?

It was right at the podium, Diane. And nothing was done. Nothing was done. And it's also been done online. So the point is that we clearly have folks that have concerns.

and i'm opening i'm open to adding um department heads but again that is a board decision do you want authority do you realize that we have um gear cameras everywhere because we lose so many roads those are those i can't speak to that but this is just about the public buildings

This is about a public field.

Oh, okay.

So what we put outside, you're okay with? Well, we can have that discussion, but right now we are dealing with the cameras in the building where the public is interacting. And we have members of the public that express concern that their audio is being recorded in a courthouse situation without any knowledge or oversight by anybody else in In the county.

But you have members of the public that are coming into the courthouse and recording everything in the state also. They have a right to do that. Yeah. But these guys don't have a right to protect themselves.

We don't have a right to record audio that we don't have oversight. The ring cameras right now, it's not attached to our network. We don't know who's logging in. We don't know who has permissions. We don't know what they're recording. We don't know if any of those audio is being used in court cases, Diane. I don't think you understand the liability here. We have a huge amount of liability. All right, let's move on.

I just wanted to say just a few things. A few things that are super important to me and one of the reasons why, I'll be really honest, I've had that camera for years.

I thought it was plural because I remember you discussing it with me last year and then the county attorney suggested that it wasn't a good idea because there's employees working in the space.

Yes, so it's been years. I mean, so. That was last year. Okay, well. Well, you were there before, right? Yeah.

So I think what we need, Kylie, is a legal opinion on this because we're having people recording audio. Right. And that's a concern.

No, okay, okay. But listen, listen, listen. Okay. But. So, but the reason why, and one of the reasons why I remember saying this was because I was very concerned. And this was one of the things, even when Amanda was there, when her and I were there, and don't put this on me, but there were so many times that we would come in there, and I would be the first one there, and there was a light on me. there was a door unlocked. There was this door unlocked, and it was locked before. I mean, I can't even count how many times that there was something different from the way that I left it. And I remember having that conversation, and that's why I asked him, and I talked to him about it, because it freaks me out.

I mean... Did you go back and look at the footage? Because you don't have audio for that.

Right. But here's the thing, is that I remember so many times that Amanda and I would ask for footage and nothing. We would ask and ask and ask and ask forever. Who would you ask? Um, well, she's not here anymore, so.

Okay.

So you asked the former employee. But, but, the thing is, is that at that point in time that, and it wasn't her. I'm not going to put that later, but the thing was is that the, I don't know how everything works, but there was like a monitor thing that was not working on the server. However, it was connected. I don't know how things were back then. But, and also, maybe things were working and things just didn't want to be shared with Amanda at that point in time. I don't know. You know, things could have been said to me For a certain reason that I didn't know at that point in time.

So, so I wish the board was made aware of this. Yeah, I mean, and this is a conversation. Right.

Right. And then I have been told so many different things of like, well, hey, the security footage is only good for six months. And then I've been told, no, it's in the cloud. It's there forever. And so I, it's one of those things like, I've just been told so many different things about security footage. I mean, at one point in time, I was told that for this building, it was, it was only Summit. And then I was told it was Johnson. And then I was told, I mean, I've never been told. You were told incorrectly that it was Johnson because it never was Johnson. I know, and that's what I'm saying. Personally, for me, like, That's another reason why I have that camera. I feel like I've never been told the truth about the camera system here. So I wish you would have come to the board center.

But I'm glad you are now. I'm glad you are now.

Here's the thing is that I don't know who to trust and who not to trust.

because anybody is not really telling me 100% all you had to do was ask the question because this whole camera thing predates her I mean this is something that this board had information on it you could have come to the board and they could provide you information the past auditor could provide you the you know the resolution so you would know obviously that's not something the details we don't discuss in an open meeting But you could have come to any member of this board, this board and previous boards, and asked that question. And I'm sure they would have figured out an answer for you and gotten you that answer. And I'm sorry you felt the need to take it upon yourself. The purpose of this resolution is to make sure that the outline is clear, who has authority, who doesn't have authority. So going forward, people know exactly who to go to to fix it. So I'm glad you're coming to us now with your concerns. And I'm glad that you told us that you have this camera. I'm hoping other people, if they have cameras, are honest about that too. Because if there is concerns, we want to address them and figure out a way to fix it.

And I will tell you, there's nothing that's saved. It's deleted. Like, it doesn't say there's nothing that I pay for for it to say it's deleted. Like, um...

So if there's nothing on it, it's just painted. Right, yeah.

It doesn't save. Like, it is only like a 24-hour thing. What happens if someone enters your office? Then I can choose to save it. I can choose to buy it and save it. But I don't. And I'm going to be really honest. The other day, I was freaked out because there was a spider that came down from the ceiling. And I was like, no, I don't even have the camera right there.

You basically deleted your freak out.

Yeah, it was absolutely horrible. But I would definitely, I mean, I can unplug it. I'm fine with that. That's not, I'm not going to go against. But it's just, I just want you to know that that's what, that's how it is for that time.

So if there is... If we need to move cameras around their position to see your office. So you have it. I know when we added it to the author's office. They have one now on that where they didn't have it prior I think it makes sense to have it in the public area where the interaction with the public. The concern we have is that is the audio portion. Yeah, especially if it's a third party. And the county takes on a huge amount of liability when we can't control something. So I don't know if you understand there.

No, I do. And the thing is that that camera is off during the day.

Oh, you just turn it on when you leave?

Yes.

Oh, OK. But it still provides a liability because members of the public can claim it's on. Or employees can claim the time. And if we have control of the system, then we have an actual audit log we can show, yes, there's no audio, this is when it's on, who logged in when, what they looked at. We can't do that with your system, we can't do that with the ring system, and it adds in a huge liability. So the reason, and this surveillance policy was reviewed by legal, this is why we put it in place. kind of hopefully going forward we eliminate that liability yeah and i don't i'm all about that i don't want to put any i don't want to jeopardize or put anything on the county but at the same time you know this has generated some good conversations on where there's concern i didn't know you had a concern and i don't know if she knew and i'm sure phil didn't know so now we know so we can we can maybe maybe there's a camera position we can put in a better position to capture more yeah um so you feel safe and then it's up to the board if we want to add you know say recorder have access you have access whatever because there's a public facing camera down here too in the hallway because it's only um so so yeah so we can have those conversations but first we had to have a policy right so we know exactly who stood where because we really need to lock it down at this point so if you can give your feedback and i encourage other department heads to give their feedback on how to how to approve where the cameras are right now because where they're at right now was the recommendation at the time right for installation and at the whoever was the elected official at the time wanted them right well the only i only know i don't know what they look

I don't know what they look like on the driver's license side. I only know the view from the motor vehicle side. So, I mean, I would have to look at it. Right.

So, right now, though, the only ones approved is the sheriff, the county attorney, and the vendor. Right. So, and Brady for his building. So, until we do that, I would encourage you to maybe sit down with one of them so they can show you.

Mm-hmm.

what it looks like, and maybe you can give a suggestion of a better position, either move an existing one to a better position so it captures everything, or an additional camera, so then you don't feel obligated to do what you've done. So I just wish more people would communicate when they have concerns so we can act on that, because that's what we're here for. But yeah, I look forward to your feedback on that. Thank you. Okay, so back to the surveillance policy. I know Mikayla had a recommendation as well. I believe Artic the Section 5 addressed that, but I don't know. What are you guys' thoughts?

I think this is way too broad. I think there's so much of it like Smartwatches, everything. This is so detailed and I feel like they're taking away, maximizing information systems, management, reporting. On that one, Go to the first page, whereas the Madison County Board, if I'm reading your resolution, finds that centralized operation surveillance equipment is necessary to ensure appropriate oversight. On that, I feel that that gives, I don't think the board should have all of this I think that these, you need to sit down with these department heads and ask them, and legal, and the sheriff, what we do need before we go forward and pass this. Then you go surveillance equipment that records, captures, stores, transmits, and monitors audio, video. That's cell phones, smart phones, body cams, glass. Insulation and operation. We cannot control what the public has. But Jeff, you allowed somebody to take pictures and show everybody where a camera was upstairs. You put those people, there is no protection on that third floor.

That's, that's, okay, Diane, that's not true. What protection do they have?

Excuse me?

What protection do they want? Diane, the current... Okay, I'm not going to argue. I'm not going to argue.

No, I want your feedback.

No, you don't want my feedback. Doug? Doug? Okay, I ask that he be removed. Doug?

Doug?

Can you please leave? Because you keep interrupting. You keep interrupting against the point of order.

Let's move on and let's vote on this resolution. This is futile. Move on. Okay.

So, um, you know, you need to leave, Mr. Jurgens.

Okay. So we can call a recess while we call the sheriff. What a circus.

All right.

These interruptions have to stop.

Yes. We're interrupting her. That's the point. But the thing is, this is a conversation with us. It's not.

This is not a conversation with the public.

You had your chance. It should be. It needs to be. Ma'am, please. This is a public hearing. You guys have a right to be here. And she has a right to speak her case.

This is not a conversation. This is a conversation we are having. This is not a conversation we're having with the public. Point of order. I ask that you move on.

This is for a resolution that's moving forward on it.

So you've discussed it for a half a minute.

I'm not moving on, Diane, just because you're shutting down and you won't define specifically what your concerns are and what your recommended changes are. I just told you I think this is a point of order.

You didn't blather around. Point of order.

Act in a manner of humility. Point of order. You're warning. You're warning on the order.

This is ridiculous. Justice. Justice. Please act with some decorum.

You do not have the authority to call for a recess. All right, I call for a recess. I would second that. I'll make a motion for a recess. Do I have a second? I will second that. All in favor of a recess, please vote aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We are in recess.

You didn't let me vote. I vote nay, but I'd like to record your show. Just move this meeting to next week, the regular meeting.

Your point is taken, but we are in recess now. So, Jess, since you are on the Safety and Security Committee, would you reach out to the sheriff and have him bring the deputy here? Yes. Ms. Decor. We are in recess. We are in recess. You are such an embarrassment to our county. Such an embarrassment.

If I want to hear the truth and you won't say the truth, you won't answer the questions.

We'll save you some trouble. Have the county sheriff shut up.

You are such an embarrassment.

Exactly.

I want the whole, I want, I want everything to go to the next meeting.

Is it a next regular meeting? Because it's a constant thing. Well, I'm not going to speak.

That's what I'm going to say. Oh, be quiet.

Heather, your personal agenda is just absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. You continue to belittle the community. You continue to belittle your own Board of Supervisors. Parker, this is ridiculous. You do not have a Board of Supervisors. You have those two trying to own the company.

i did take a look at five what i was referring to is um yeah you're right it does say that in surveillance equipment it's all their operative as well without permission um i would just i think that it would be helpful to define like

what specifically the current system but um maybe it's the or operated but and operated i'm talking about in section five yeah just define like what systems are already approved well it just says installing or operated by county so maybe put an and in there without prior authorization so i'm talking about things that are already in existence

What's in existence is already been approved because we approved it by the installation. And that was on former boards. So it's already been approved. Everything that's installed was approved by former boards. But your point is well taken.

I think that this would potentially cover things that fall outside of this building. Things that may have been normally in two-sided.

Well, it shouldn't. It shouldn't. Is he sending somebody? Mitch said that he had somebody on the line. Mitch Johnson. But the two probably in the middle ones left. So they are free to come back.

Hopefully we get through the next few things and it'll be quick. We want to make sure everybody's safe.

Thank you.

That's weird.

No, I don't have a degree in that part. I go for students. My driveway from the store is going to be replanted now. All the water ran down there. I'm sorry, I wanted to bring you there. I'm sorry.

Yeah, I can't. I don't know what I did. I just used the door to stop her. I don't know what I did.

I don't know what I did.

I didn't do too much.

I just rubbed this guy right out. How long are you guys doing this for? Yeah, she's good. She was, oh, yeah, I had to go back up, and she came around and said, that's my house. And we really, you know, so she wanted to get back in. And we had a first-aid red cross over there last night. I never used that word.

I hate that word. I wouldn't say that.

Thank you, Sarah, for coming.

Thank you. All right. Oh, we need to wait for McKayla. Kylie, would you mind chasing down McKayla, please? Thank you. Thank you.

We will let her finish.

I know. I know.

I know. I know.

Okay, we are going to go out of recess right now. Do I have a motion to come out of recess? So moved. Do I have a second? Second. There is a second. All in favor of coming out of recess, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right, so we'll go ahead and continue our discussion regarding the surveillance policy. Michaela did make a good point about Section 5. I think for clarity purposes right now it says any surveillance equipment installed or operated. I think it should say and operated to make it clear that it's only applying to county equipment and we are not putting these same restrictions on shared body cam or members of the public, that kind of stuff. to make it clear that it's for county-owned and county-controlled property and nothing else. So if the board is okay with making that change, I think I have clarity. So thank you, Michaela, for bringing that up. Anyone else have feedback on that? Diane? Diane, I know you said you had some feedback. I see you have some highlighted portions. Did you want to address those? No, we just want to honor people. I don't want to address them.

You'll just get it apart.

Do you want to put a record of what your concerns are?

I think I already tried to state my concerns.

Would you like to just...

If you try again, other things are calmer and... Please, please. Yes. I think this is too broad. I think it gives way too much power to the Board of Supervisors. None of this was ever brought, discussed with any other in-depth department heads on what they truly need. I also worry that if we take that ring doorbell away from the third floor, There is no way for him to know what's on the outside of his office door. That concerns me. If something happens and he's injured or killed, that would be terrible. There is no protection and they must have felt that they needed that they couldn't for some reason come to us and they put cameras in their own offices. I think this is an overreach. There's no discussion with other department heads. We should sit down and and really discuss it somehow, maybe one supervisor without all the people here so we know what direction to go. That's my comments.

So the safety concerns are one of the reasons why we're talking about this now. And this is the first I'm hearing that they are not able to log in, share. Sorry. Can you confirm, are you not able to courthouse cameras at all? I was under the impression that was taken care of a couple years ago.

Courthouse, are you talking about like on my laptop?

Either on your laptop or on your phone.

No, but it can be done. I just haven't set it up yet. So if I ever have to go up there, I just go into the server room and watch it.

Okay, but you have the ability to set it up? I have the ability, yes. Okay, so can you set that up? I can. Okay, can UNC work with Johnson Controls to set that up? Yes. Because there's a camera. already right outside his office. It's a 360 camera.

I know there's a camera up there that Matt Schultz put there.

No, not the one on the window area. It's actually right in the corner where the door is to the old gallery. I have a picture of it. Turn that on? Yeah, if you can do that, I think that will address any of the concerns and it would be a county controlled camera. And it would be, it literally catches his whole area in front of his doorway. And then you guys can remote in and look at it. So if there is an issue, he can just remote in and you can remote in on your laptop. Yes. So if you can make that a priority, I think that will address the concern. And then we can remove the third party cameras and address the other concern. Got it. I wouldn't remove it until they have some form of protection. Thank you. So he's committed to doing that, and I've already emailed Johnson.

I don't think it'll take long to turn on.

No, it's just don't remove it.

I'll make a call today, and we'll get it moving.

Okay. So I have also emailed Johnson Controls, too, so they have a heads up. So if you need any kind of pushing on that, just let the board know. But I want to make sure you guys get that. Okay. Okay. Now, obviously, that's probably going to change depending on what we do here, but I want to make sure you have that. Yep. Okay.

Thank you.

uh all right so uh so yeah we have the matter of the existing ring camera and no reassurances from county attorney swanson that he's preserving that data and given that there's potential litigation as mentioned by a citizen we need some reassurances that data is going to be preserved i'm not asking for the data i'm not asking to have it in my possession but i we've gotten nothing for reassurances that that data will be preserved.

So how do we tackle that? Let the sheriff go up and download it and preserve it.

So the issue with the ring is because it's not county controlled, we have no access for audit logs, video, audio, anything like that, and there's already been a potential litigation threat. So we want to make sure that's preserved. So because it's out of our control right now, so I need to make sure that that's preserved. So if we do, if something does move forward, we're not behind the eight ball on that. So would you be willing to work with the county attorney?

This is also untrue. you you guys keep making up things and it's kind of just off-putting how much you do that so like there's not going to be medications right your friend wrote an email saying he wanted to preserve things there's not been any contact by a lawyer there's been no contact about lawsuits or anything so steve are you saying are you saying you are willing to preserve that for county records purposes I'm saying that it's my personal camera that is going to knock out the counting anything and I can do what I want with it. That's what I'm saying. And if you want to take it away, good luck with that. But it's not moving anywhere. And also, again, the adjacent interact, they can't give us remote access until they update the server. They've told us that for over a year. Steve, this is Diane.

Would you be willing to take the information on your ring doorbell and give it to the sheriff so it's preserved? Would you be willing to do that?

Anything that I feel needs to be preserved, I can preserve, but there's nothing that I think needs to be preserved. Nick Scar is not an attorney, and I'm not going to take demands from him. But, Nick, but just... He's not, there's no law to, I'm not from a room of attorney. Just because he's your friend, Heather, doesn't mean I take orders from him, just like I don't take orders from you. The whole thing is, we demand that no elected officials, you don't tell elected officials what to do. Haven't you figured that out yet? So... You can't make resolutions demanding elected officials do anything.

So, Stephen, let's move on. Would it be okay if you just don't, if there's anything... To preserve it, just to make peace, could you give it to the sheriff? What's on that ring doorbell? Could you just give it to him and then he can preserve it? Would that be all right?

Well, I can give him whatever's on there if I want to.

Well, can you just give it?

If I want to, I can. Well, can you? I mean, I don't preserve anything on there that needs to be preserved if there's any lost.

Could you share that? Oh, well, here's the thing is that, Steve, you do not have authority over the courthouse. So that falls to the board per code. So this was installed without board approval.

It falls to the auditor.

No, actually, no. Per resolution and per Iowa code, it falls at the direction of the board. You need to finish the rest of that sentence, Steve. I'm really getting frustrated that you failed to You and the auditor failed to talk about that last sentence that's absolutely in I.R.

3. You like to keep talking about how you spoke to legal counsel, but you guys have never actually talked to me on my camera. You just make up shit and say what I said. So it's clear that he's not willing to do that. I'm sorry. Just move.

We're going to move on. It's clear that he is. And our course circuit got hacked.

So just to confirm, Swanson, you have declined to preserve data on that camera. No, he said he wouldn't.

Can I say that?

I don't think I can say that at all.

You said you'll do what you want when you want, sounded like to me. Okay, everything on here is being recorded.

I said I will preserve any data that needs to be preserved. Determined by whom?

well since i'm in charge of all litigation for the county to be determined by me i guess all right so um take a vote so okay so so basically if are you guys okay with that that one small correction changing the board yes Installed and operated in Section 5. So, yes, Michaela, if you could make that slight tweak when you sign it so you remember to initial that portion of Section 5. And then I will, we will confirm, the sheriff will confirm to make sure that they can get remote access on the courthouse cameras.

Which may not be, if Swanson's correct, which.

Well, here's the thing is that we didn't have issues until those new cameras were installed. Right. And according to Johnson Controls, we can make tweaks to how we add the storage in order to allow the remote. The capacity. To be able to access it remotely. Right. So I think it's just a matter of having a conversation. Because we didn't have an issue prior to those cameras. And what I'm concerned is, according to the sheriff, it sounds like he never set up that remote access even before we had the new cameras installed when they should have done that. So again, I don't know why that didn't happen. I mean, the whole purpose was to make sure they had access. Because it doesn't do any good if they have to go to the server if there's an event going on for the shooter or whatever. So we want to make sure that we keep our folks safe. Okay, so any other tweaking changes that can provide further clarity, Diane, that you think would address the issues we have? Because ultimately, I know this falls to the board as an authority for surveillance. It doesn't fall to the parking heads. So what I do want, though, is input from departments on how we can improve it. We had some input from Coyote, which is very helpful. And I'm sure we'll get more feedback down the line. If we do have cameras where the audio is turned on, we definitely need to get legal advice on what we need to post. So I think that is another thing we need to do. So we do take that as a task for your safety and security. meeting the signage the signage yes making sure we have proper signage yes um because i don't want to open this up to um then the whole the dot piece of this is the dot piece of this is separate You know, it's kind of a one-off because they have their specific requirement for that area.

You would have to work directly with her on the DOT. Yeah, because that's not us.

So if you can put that as another bullet point for you guys, for your team, to make sure that that is addressed so they're compliant with what the DOT prefers and all of that. Okay. So it sounds like we need some more tweaking on this on the cameras and how they're set up. and that should probably be something maybe that's annually reviewed because if the cameras were installed by previous elected officials and they no longer function either according to current code or the new elected official needs it should be renewed because you want to make sure because what was good for a former treasurer may not be good for the current treasurer as an example so anything else otherwise i'll entertain a motion to approve this resolution and policy update for its availability do you have a second second any further discussion all in favor please vote aye with the change i'm sorry can someone rescind their motion because i want to have an agreement on that Would you rescind the initial motion?

I'll rescind it and I'll add with the correction. On section 5. Any discussion? I just rescinded the first motion so I can restate that. You're going to restate that you're rescinding to include the correction on section 5. Installed and operated.

And then I'll second the adjusted motion. Any discussion on the amended resolution? All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Motion carries. Okay. The next one is the opening of the bids for the security equipment. Who wants to pass the opening of the box? Do you want to do that or do you want to be all out of here?

We'll do that. Who's knife is this? That is Andrew's. Brand spanking new, we're breaking it in.

I like it.

I borrow your razor blade material.

I'm going to file and then get e-mail.

Yeah. Okay.

So this is for the auditor's office.

This one. Here's one for you, Jess. And then auditors are in the middle.

I'll hand the auditors over.

And then, does the auditor have one of these? Yeah. So we only have two?

No, we have four. This is one? Yeah. So, and this one here doesn't look like they gave three copies.

They just did one for each.

The rest is three.

There's three different ones.

Let's see. It looks like they may have gone through that. So this is, that's the EMF portion of this company. They did a folder for this company. You might use that for projects. This was his Andrews. Are you done with these? I'm going to return them. Thank you. It must have another folder. What's this? Is that another packet? That's another packet. I didn't open it yet. This is solutions management group. Did you already open it? Yeah. Okay. So they did provide multiple copies. So this must be my copy. That is our copy.

Did you get one?

Yes, you got one.

I've just got SMG and then . So it should be . Did you get a third one here? I have the next one. I have EMS, Annex, and NBR .

And they didn't put them in a folder, they stuck them all together.

Well, what they did is they had a folder for each building and put the copy in each one. So. Okay. Okay. All right. So, let's go ahead and proceed. You guys want to, we'll start with the easy one right now. Oh, I want to take these home and study these forever. I got it. So, I mean, we can certainly do that if you guys want a table resolution.

We need a table. I like to read every single thing.

Let's document what we got for the bids, the dollar amount. Okay.

At least today. We should probably do that when we're done.

And then, well, I think we've done it in the past where we just kind of did the total and then we dug into it. I don't care. We have to really study these. So, Kermar.

Oh.

And it's going to be a little bit complex because I noticed there's some, you know, depending on the... If it's an array system or something. You know what, let's see if I think we need to tile with all the blocks.

I think we need that now. This is too much.

We did. And did you receive any? I did. I have not received any. I don't think anyone gave us electronic copies. Because it would sure be nice if we had electronic copies as well, so we don't have to pay in all this stuff. Well, I have no problem with that. And I did it last time. Well, we each have a copy. We did not get electronic copies. Well, what you can do is I can email each of these vendors and ask them to send it electronically if the board is not opposed to that. I can read these. Because the public will probably ask for that. That's fine. So if the board is okay with that, tabling the resolution and then giving out to these vendors to get a soft copy. Okay, I will make a motion that we table the resolution to the selected NCI system provider at the courthouse and if we also request of these proposals. And you move the review and the deliberation regarding the selection of a new vendor to next Tuesday, May 28th. Second. Second that. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor of that please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. I will go ahead and I'll reach out to two new vendors and get you both a soft copy. So we're labeling SPVM 721216 or 26B? Correct. Okay, so the next item is just root con and retention requirements. This came up When we already approved it, we approved the vendor, we approved you to sign the contract, is when I had the contract reviewed by legal counsel, he had some things he brought up. So I passed it on to you to talk to the vendor. So there was a little bit of back and forth, and I sent a new version to counsel to review that actually is more specific. for the contractor so they don't have to go looking at the code. It's all defined very clearly, you know, what the retainage, the bond amount, and all that stuff are. So that was, and I have also spoken with the contractor. He's aware of what's going on. So I would hope we'll have that resolved very soon. My question would be on this amendment, once I get the contractor has okayed it and counsel, um do we need to just move it into next tuesday and to have you sign that or since we've already passed the we've already passed it i i can sign it it's just i'm not going to sign something until our new council is comfortable okay so once on next tuesday you'll have an error record that would do it well no we've already approved it i know i would just need we just what we can do in the board packet but i would like to not have to put it off another week if we can don't what we're going to do is what we can do is we put it in the receiving file So the public has the contract and they'll see the contract because we already approved it and we can sign it and then we can start getting that roof fixed. So hopefully then we can, as soon as I hear back from the council on that and get the okay from the client, then we'll be able to get that signed and not have to wait until next week to get moving on it. That's great. Okay. Thank you. So do you have a time frame when that will happen? Do you think we'll be able to sign it this weekend? I would think so. Okay. Yes. All right. Okay. Then the next one is discuss employee contractors and putting some requests and compliance update. Michelle is not here. So Jess, we discovered that we have employees that are contractors. Oh, Sheriff, I noticed the doors are closed. Can you make sure that the closed session signs are not on the doors? I don't want to have a misunderstanding that we're in closed session.

It says meeting in progress.

Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So, so basically, so under Iowa code, you know, we can have the, the owner's office can hire contractors, but there's a certain process to go through. but what what i requested is copies of the contracting requirement i did speak to ellers and cooney and we want to make sure that the folks were hired under proper employee law so we're not at risk of violation of fika and ipers and all that kind of stuff so i requested from michelle copies of the the contractor agreement the 1099 making sure it's compliant. So if we're not compliant, we need to get compliant. So otherwise, it'll become another finding on a future audit. So I'm waiting on a response from her on that. I don't know if you guys, I don't know if you guys, I can't remember if you guys were copied on that correspondence or not. But basically, that was the question I had to make sure that we're compliant. Because right now, in the past, everyone's been hired via resolution. So all past employees had to have a resolution of employment. it came before the board so we never had to do contractors before at least during a long term and i want to make sure it's we're doing it right because in the claims form it says regular employee and a regular employee needs to be approved by resolution to the board you can't just hire outside so i haven't had any information from from michelle on that yet but we probably need to talk about that further i was hoping she'd be here today so she can address that but i want to kind of give you guys an update that until we get confirmation i want to make sure we're not in violation of any employment law why don't we simply move it to the regular meeting so she has an opportunity to speak Yeah, can you make sure we have it on for Tuesday, and then she can discuss it. But yeah, I just thought it was strange that it was on the claims report, and then I saw payroll, and so thank you for following up on that, so we can ensure we've got that all accurate. Because I know in code that the auditor's office is allowed to do that in a certain time frame if there's a shortage or something like that, but it has to follow the normal contractor process. But that is not an allowment in any other department under code. So we do have another department that hired someone that way too. I don't think anyone should be hired without a reservation. I agree. We went through a lot of heartache and frustration last year over that. But, you know, again, the code does allow it, but we want to make sure we're doing it right. At least for her office. And if we're not doing it right in the other office, then we need to make sure we fix it. so um so we'll add it to the agenda for next week so and hopefully you should get copies uh if you want i can forward you the hours including email if you would like sure um so you have that information and that's basically what he said is what i asked her for you may have already said that i think you did but send it again okay All right, so then the final one is, if you guys are okay moving on to the last agenda item, the courthouse inspection. I sent you an email with all that information. It was, for whatever reason, was left off last week's agenda, so I apologize for that. But basically, we need to know the OPN came back with a response, Reintels came back with a response. In order for the inspector to respond to the response, the board would need to approve paying them to do so. And obviously, I mean, it isn't our budget, but I wanted you guys to know and read what their responses were before any decisions were made and kind of discuss how you guys want to proceed.

What if we, I think there's some, well, I did speak with Mr. Seaton, he's retired, but what if we, we know that there's probably maybe some issues with the design of the ramp and it has the wrong stone on the bottom so it's causing them it's cool it's a weeping enough and it's bringing that moisture um what we reach out to opn and by holes to ask that the corrections are made without any form of litigation without getting involved and we reach out and see what they would give us

Well, we're kind of crossing into stuff that we probably need to talk to the attorney about. Well, the reason why this is not an agenda is I want to know if the board wanted to proceed with, you know, having the inspectors look at OPM's response and basically say why what they're saying is not correct or what they're saying is correct or something like that. And then depending on that, I understand that that's why we're going down this path. None of us want litigation. And we don't even know that you need to pay the inspector.

I think they know that there are errors.

I'm not getting that when I talk, but I wonder if we could... In Danielle's response, it's basically said that. Yeah, I think we can go... We can't go by Rick because he's retired. I know. We have to go by who's there now.

We can go back to her and go through a different door, and I want to see what we can get without spending more money. I'm not so sure. They don't want to go to litigation, so let's just say fix it and let's move on.

In their response, they denied it, that there's a problem. So I'm asking the board, how should we next proceed? The option is to have the inspector review it and respond as to why they're wrong. And then if the board wants to do that, then, but right now, all we have is he said, she said. Inspector's saying it's a problem. OPN is denying it's a problem. I'm not the expert. The experts are the inspectors. You know, the inspector could rip that response apart, I'm assuming, I don't know, but they don't do it for free. So I kind of want to get the feeling of the board on how you want to proceed because right now, we are still having issues with that fluorescence that's going to degrade the limestone. If the limestone is very porous, that is going to fall apart. And a future board in five years is going to have a problem with that. So I believe that we engaged an inspector because they are a subject matter expert, and they are the professionals in this. None of us are educated, trained, and skilled in all these finite details of construction. So I want the inspector engaged in this.

So are you saying you want them... Is that a motion that you want to hire the inspector at $4,800?

That would be their... response. That's their estimate. No, that's their estimate in the response. I think that's the estimate.

To review all of their responses from?

To review all of their responses from. No, the $4,800 is for them to do an intrusive. Yeah, that was for the intrusive inspection to actually drill down. Well, I think we're confusing two different things. The first thing, I don't, I'm not ready to approve his doing a drilling and seeing if there's, where the intrusion is coming from. What I want is for them to review O'Connor's response and say, this is why they're wrong. Because the inspector in his emails are essentially saying, I don't think it's going to resolve the issue. Doing a drill down and going in there and doing an intrusive view is not going to solve the issue. All it's going to see is there's water there. They said it's a design flaw. That's what's causing it. So what I'm asking the board is would you consider paying the inspector to review OPN's claims as to why it's not a problem and come back with a response and then potentially get a closed session with Allers and Cooney to discuss what we want to do next.

Well, this says investigation of defects, discussion with possible motion for action. You're not saying your agenda doesn't say to pay an inspector.

Well, investigation of defects, discussion, and possible motion for action. So, I didn't know what the board wanted. So that's why it was kind of higher level, Diane. So I am not inclined to have them do the intrusive drilling to figure out what the water intrusion is. All I would like is for them to review Oakland's response and give their feedback on why their response is bonk. Because water is clearly coming in from somewhere. It's clearly coming in from somewhere. That whole wall is white. And that shouldn't be happening.

So we don't have a hard quote or estimate from Marc Parley, for example?

It would just be their hourly rate.

Which is, do you know what that is?

It's not referenced on this. I don't have it on there. I'll have to go back to the original quote. My experience with Mark, you know, thus far is that he works quickly and efficiently. You know, I don't think it's going to be significant, but it's great to have some sort of a rough order of magnitude. Okay. To know, even if you can give us a range of how much time do you think that would take. Okay. To review it? Mm-hmm. And you do the review. Okay.

You don't think we can... I think it's a design flaw. It was an architectural design flaw. You don't think you can reach out to them and say, let's fix this before we have to go any further? Because they might. Even though they denied it, it doesn't mean when you open it back up that they might say, this isn't worth it.

It gets to the point, Diane, where we think the lawyer needs to converse with that. That's not something we need to do. And based on precedent, I don't see them willing to do it. Because we had to fight for them to redo stuff through the whole project. Okay, so.

so is that something we can just get a rough order of magnitude from him and then we can actually and then have a resolution to pass on tuesday yes because you're going to have to have a dollar amount before you shouldn't approve at least the range i understand if he you know it may take well he can do an hourly range at a possible of not to exceed he'll know but we we shouldn't be proving expenditures without knowing exactly what we're doing So what you want to do is make a motion on paving the inspector to move forward. Is that what you're asking?

Well, I haven't asked for a motion yet. I wanted to ask if that's what you're asking.

I think you mentioned that you get a range and then have a resolution for Tuesday. So the motion would be Tuesday.

So a motion to ask the inspector for A time, quote, and cost for him to review the OPN response. Yes, putting on the regular meeting. OK. And I'll make that motion to ask the inspector. It's just asking the inspector for a cost estimate.

And to carry this on to the next 20th meeting. She will come prepared with that information. So motion to ask the inspector to generate a proposal.

Generate a proposal to review OPN support.

and have it at the review opiates response and it will have it at the regular meeting.

She wanted it by the 28th meeting. The cost to review opiates. He can probably turn it around really quickly. All right, any further discussion? Did we do a second? Did you second that, Diane? Yeah, I'll second it.

Any other discussion? Read it back a little bit.

So I'll entertain a motion.

So motion to approve.

Ask inspector to generate a proposal for the cost review of the OPM's response by the 20 days.

All right. Thank you. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. All right. If there's nothing else, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay.