DISCUSSION: JAIL OVERCROWDING STUDY COMMITTEE
Stutsman: Item C. Continuation of Discussion Regarding the Jail Overcrowding Study Committee. We had a report that was presented to the Board last week that talked about recommendations concerning the Committees findings. The citizens committee was appointed. They have met since October and they did come up with a report and recommendations to the Board and that was presented last week. We didn’t discuss it at that time, so we put it back on the agenda this morning so that we can continue discussion and come to some agreement about where we want to go from here. Does anybody want to add to that or Pat I think you had some ideas about what the Board needs to consider at this point in our planning for the Jail and what we need to do.
White: I did. I was a little presumptuous, but I’ve done that before. I sent you a memo, trying to identify things that I think you need to focus on deciding in order to keep this moving forward. One of them is retaining a financial consultant. I’m talking both to Tom Kriz and Tom Slockett. I think we have agreement that we need to find somebody who knows the market and knows financial options more than anybody we have in house. I knew we had used one on the old Jail Bond issue. I dug out our old file and verified my recollection and attached to the memo an illustration of the sort of work that they did in helping prepare the bond issue. I think we need, whether it’s a bond issue or some other form, I think we need to retain that sort of expertise again. The recommendation I made at the Space Needs Committee was that Carol as the Committee Chair, Tom Kriz as the Treasurer, Tom Slockett as the Auditor, and the Sheriff constitute themselves as an informal work group to try to design a request for proposals that we could then submit to potential financial consultants. Second item is just a reminder. Eventually, if we’re going to use bonds, we’ll also need a bonding firm. In the Rudi’s Bakery industrial revenue bond case you saw some of the role of a bond attorney. In that particular case they were using a bond attorney from Des Moines. Public bonds is a very specialized field and if bonding is the route we end up needing to go, we’ll eventually have to retain a bond firm as well. That one is not as imminent a need I think as the financial consultant. I think the hardest one is trying to determine the ongoing role of the Jail Study Committee. My sense is everybody is very pleased with the work effort, the confidence and dedication of that committee and the role they played so far. You heard from them in their report that they’re interested in a continuing role. But, I think it gets a little fuzzier to define what that role is on what items and one of my thoughts is that a joint Board Space Needs Jail Study Committee meeting might be a vehicle to try to define that a little bit. I wasn’t sure whether they were coming to this discussion today or not.
Stutsman: I thought Pete was coming.
White: It seems to me it’s important. Right from the start you heard, and the Space Needs Committee did from Bob, and I continue to think he’s right about this that the Citizens Committee be truly that. A separate committee that is critiquing, giving constructive criticism and eventually can share it’s views with not only you, but the public. I think there’s a fine line to walk in involving them with implementation of a project. But, continuing their advice, constructive criticism and input, I think that’s actually the hardest thing to do. One that I mentioned that the sooner we do also I think the better and that is what I label a project manager. This is the sort of project that can be difficult for County government. As you guys know I believe very strongly in the merit of County government structure. I think it works awfully well. But, it’s decentralization, by definition, means doing something occasionally can be more difficult. This is an area where I just think you need to identify who it is that’s going to manage this project and whatever needs doing. Collecting information, deciding when it needs to get on your agenda, deciding how to go about gathering information for the study committee. Just the day to day logistics, which you can’t do in meeting. I’ve mentioned this to Bob, and I’ve shared with him a copy of my memo. I think he gulped a little bit when I said I assumed candidates for that were the Sheriff himself or the Chief Deputy. It certainly is not limited to them. We used, 20 some years ago, the person who was then the first deputy is who I would characterize as having been the project manager. At this point I’m not clear on… I think maybe Charlie would’ve been involved when this building was built, but pretty clearly Pat Langenberg served as a project manager. He was then your Physical Plant Director. I just think the sooner you can come to a decision with that, in consultation with the Sheriff and I think it’s as much his decision as it is yours, it certainly would need to be a mutually agreeable person. The sooner we can get that done the better. One that I raise, that I think needs some discussion, that I knew was potentially controversial and I decided that I would be the one to make that suggestion so that anyone else who wanted to could reject it quickly as the not automatically to rule out condemnation. The committee’s recommendation is that the existing site won’t work. I’m disappointed to hear that, not because I disagree with the committee, but it will come as not surprise to anybody, I have long hoped that we would be able to acquire land from the University and produce a viable expansion plan. The fact that that’s not realistic doesn’t automatically mean that we should move all the way out to Melrose and Chatham Oaks and Secondary Roads. Although that’s a very strong site option given that the County owns land that would clearly meet the goal of having a project that can be expanded on 20 or 30 or 40 years into the future. So, from that standpoint it’s a very attractive option. But, there may well be others. Cedar Rapids Police Department was built on a site that required a considerable amount of condemnation. Iowa City, albeit not without considerable controversy, used condemnation for their Senior Center retail parking project at Linn and Iowa Avenue. They’re doing it again on the project bounded by Clinton, Court, Dubuque and Burlington. The most painful illustration of that for us is our Juvenile Court Office having to move. The reason is because Iowa City is condemning the facility, or acquiring the facility that a bunch of businesses are now in, including the Planter’s Bank. Then they’re looking for space and one of those tenants has bought the site we’re now in and is going to require us to move. In any event, it’s not impossible that a sufficiently large parcel could be assembled closer to the courthouse, which obviously I have a strong personal preference for it, maybe that it’s not possible. But, a site as distant as Melrose, Chatham Oaks, Secondary Roads would be, is going to bring some indirect costs that just have to be factored in. It’s a long ways to transport, so my recommendation is we ought to do a specific site selection process of some form where your project manager would do the work, would consult with the Jail Study Committee. They’d make recommendations, consult with Bob, consult with the Space Needs Committee, identify 2 or 3 options and try to give you some cost analysis. That probably needs to move fairly quickly as well. I also think, and again I expected there’d be some apprehension, at least on a couple people’s part to raise this. So, I decided I would be the one to do it first. This is a time to reassess jail consultant. We hired a Jail Consultant through the contract we have with Neumann Monson. We’re not wedded to that consultant and I just think it’s important that we assess whether that’s the firm we want to continue with. Dwight has been very clear. In fact, in his most recent letter to you he reiterated the need for a jail consultant. They have been careful to say all along they can design a building but they need somebody who knows jails to give them professional guidance as they go along. So, I think we ought to discuss, you should or the Space Needs Committee should or the Jail Study Committee should, with Neumann Monson, how to decide who the Jail Consultant is going to be. Obviously there may well be other things that haven’t occurred to me, but that was just a list of 6 things that I think that need decision. Some very soon, some not so soon.
Stutsman: Pat, I thank you for that letter and organizing the Board in which directions we need to go. There’s lots of things to consider and I appreciate you putting all of these things down so that we can consider each one. I don’t know if the Board has other things they want to add to this list? In order to begin this discussion about where we want to go I think we need to have a deliberate and orderly process because there’s lots of things to consider. I think Pat has a good starting list and I would like to go through these one by one, unless Board Members have other things that they would like to add. We’re not going to reach decision on all of these things today, but at least it’ll get us focused on where we want the discussion to go.
Jordahl: There is one thing that will come up as we go through these one by one. I see the jail consultant and the financial consultant as potentially linked, potentially the same entity, where a person that would have expertise about jail would have expertise about funding specific to jails.
White: Does Bob know this is on the agenda today?
Peters: Bob Carpenter? I did not contact the Sheriff. They do always pick up a copy of the agenda, plus it is always faxed to them.
Stutsman: I was just going to say it seems like there is a lot of key people that aren’t here this morning for this discussion. I think we were anxious to keep the momentum going and keep our discussion continuing about this, and in our enthusiasm might have neglected to contact people that probably should have been here for this meeting. So, I kind of caution the Board before maybe we get in too detailed of a discussion. Maybe we should set up a separate work session and invite all of these people in and just have that discussion. I’m sorry Carol. What were you going to say?
Thompson: I was thinking the Jail Committee worked long hours and did a very nice report, which they presented to us last week and we’ve all had a chance to read it now. So, maybe the first thing to do is put on our agenda, our formal agenda, to approve that report and either accept or moderate the recommendations.
Jordahl: Or send them some sort of formal letter of thanks.
Stutsman: Definitely.
Thompson: Yes. Definitely that.
Jordahl: State that we interested in taking them up on their offer to be involved if we want a work session about the specifics of that in the very near future. We’d be giving them that data at that time. The reason it’s on the agenda, I think, is that the item isn’t the jail or the overcrowding study report. The item is the Committee and our response to them.
Stutsman: What I wanted is where do we go from here? We’ve accepted or had this report, now what do we do. I just didn’t want it to sit there and collect dust. At least now we can make some recommendation about where we want to go from here and I would hope that that’s where what we come with away with today is, what’s the next step.
Thompson: I think that’s well spelled out in Pat’s letter and also in the recommendations.
Stutsman: I agree with you, too. We need to formally respond to that committee to acknowledge their work and our efforts to continue to work with them in some capacity. We do need to put that on for next Thursday for formal action for that. Hopefully Carol, you could even have a letter drafted so that we could have that ready to go.
Thompson: I think the other things I’d like to see on next week’s agenda, which would be moot if we decided not to adopt or accept their report.
Stutsman: We can accept their report without saying we’re going to do everything it says.
Thompson: Let’s put on a discussion of how to select a location and a discussion of how to select a financial consultant. (Inaudible) too soon.
Stutsman: I’m ready to almost suggest that we put that subcommittee that was suggested in place to begin work on drafting an RFP for our financial consultant. I think that’s a decision the Board can make at this point today.
Lehman: I was thinking if we kept this committee on, they’re pretty well educated now, if we assign or give them tasks to proceed with.
Stutsman: Right. That I would like to have the committee here to talk with the Board about that with the Sheriff so that they have a clear direction what we want so that they’re not wasting or feeling like they’re wasting their time. I think the only way we come up with that is we all sit down and just work it out.
Lehman: Right. They’ve answered a lot of our questions and gave us more direction, too.
Jordahl: That’s what Pat was talking about is a joint meeting, then joint Board, Jail Study Committee and Space Needs Committee meeting to hash this out and come up with a charge and plan of action. I like the idea that you’ve outlined the steps that need to be taken and we should just firm this up into a resolution of the Board to proceed and get a calendar.
Stutsman: I don’t think we need to be so formal as to do it in a resolution.
Jordahl: We can do whatever we like. We can write certificates, paint pictures.
Stutsman: Create towns.
Jordahl: Towns out of nothing.
Stutsman: OK. Well, getting back to the first item that Pat outlined, the financial consultant. Are we ready?
Thompson: I’m willing to do it.
Stutsman: OK.
Thompson: We had some discussion about whether a member of the committee should be also appointed to work with that group.
White: I think that raises immediately the question that I tried to identify in #3, is whether either you think or the committee thinks participating in that committee that’s going to design an RFP is a role that the Jail Study, the Citizens Committee should or wants to participate in. I'd actually raised that question in a telephone conversation with Pete, probably about a week before they delivered their report to you. I copied him with this. I don’t know that they know at this point.
Stutsman: My response from people on that committee is that they really are ready and available to work with us wherever we can. They’re really committed to this project and I think it’s been an excellent working committee that they’ve felt that they’ve worked well together and that they’ve been real productive and that they want to continue.
Jordahl: I hear Pat’s concern being the independence of the committee. This is citizen, this is government over here. I wonder if that distinction can’t continue to be made even though they might have input to the RFP process and then they could continue to meet independently where there wouldn’t be representatives of government to bend their thinking in any particular direction.
White: I think it can be Jonathan. As you’ll recall, Bob particularly felt strongly about the importance of committee independence. I don’t disagree with his view on that and so, my personal feeling is I think we ought to be pretty deferential to what the committee, what role it wants. I had actually suggested to Pete in his phone conversation that a next step might well be a joint meeting with all the players. The Board, the Space Needs Committee, the Citizens, the Jail Study Committee to just try to talk about some of these with everybody in the same room at the same time.
Stutsman: Yes. Yes.
Thompson: I agree because they have clearly completed the original charge, which was to study the matter of overcrowding and make a recommendation to the Board. So, they’ve done that and if they’re willing to continue, I think what they’ve learned in the process of looking at overcrowding would really help us in the design of another jail.
Jordahl: So, we lay out these steps as Pat had modified them somewhat. We could have that joint meeting and the committee then has the opportunity. We can say, where do you want to fit into this.
White: A variation on my language in number 3 would be exactly that, is to draft an updated or revised charge to the committee, defining what their role is at this stage.
Thompson: If you wanted to go ahead with the RFP for the financial consultant, we could make it the first task of the subcommittee to contact Pete Hayek and invite him to participate as he sees fit.
Stutsman: I’m comfortable with that because that will take some time to do that, to draft the RFP and to get responses back. So, I’m comfortable with moving ahead with that.
Jordahl: Is there something else that the Study Committee could be doing at that stage?
Stutsman: What I’m hearing is that I think we have to have a joint meeting for the Study Committee to decide, rather than us saying, we want you to do this. But, I think this subcommittee has a person of the Study Committee and I think we can go ahead with that. That’s something that goes without saying.
Jordahl: So, when’s this joint meeting?
Stutsman: OK.
Thompson: We might want to get it set a couple of dates and then contact them to see when most of them can come.
Stutsman: Of course Bob Carpenter, and do we want to include members of the Space Committee, too, in that meeting?
Thompson: I think it would be a good thing to do.
Jordahl: That was Pat’s original suggestion.
Stutsman: My thoughts would be late afternoon because I know a number of these people have jobs.
Jordahl: That makes sense.
Thompson: When do the Jail Committee usually meet? Does anybody know?
Peters: 7 a.m. I think.
Thompson: 7 a.m.?
White: 7 a.m.?
Jordahl: All right. We can do that.
Thompson: We could.
Jordahl: Andy up for it?
Stutsman: That’s right up Charlie’s alley. He jumped right up.
Thompson: Yes. Charlie will be there.
Jordahl: He’ll have breakfast ready.
Stutsman: Well, we haven’t made a decision whether we’re going to televise these meetings.
Jordahl: I was just looking at Andy’s response to 7 a.m.
Thompson: I was just going to suggest that though, because I think it’s an important decision for the community and more of what we televise, the better chance they have to give input.
Jordahl: Yes. This is a pretty important meeting.
Stutsman: At this point I think this is more of a work session. It seems like there’s lots of issues that we have to get focused on and organized on before we can move on.
Jordahl: Of course, we were just this morning bragging about televising our informal meetings.
Video Center Owner/Operator Andy Small: We still need to consider airing where to play these tapes back. It’s pretty easy to get me to televise anything. I’ll videotape anything you want, but playback, I’m going to have to go now and negotiate last night’s meeting with the City. Just say this is a really interesting meeting, there was a lot of conflict.
Thompson: It was.
Jordahl: Drama.
Small: People will want to see this.
Stutsman: People are lining up to see it.
Small: They’ll do it. I’ve done a lot of meetings, a lot of additional meetings, just to document certain things. That might be tough, too.
Lehman: Isn’t there a theatre downtown they can have a showing at?
Jordahl: If the City had a theatre, that would be just the thing. Yes.
Lehman: It’s just a thought.
Stutsman: Let’s get back on track here. When do we want to set up a meeting?
Thompson: Because we have to notify so many people it probably should be like the week after next. Maybe the 16th or 14th?
Duffy: The 16th we have a road meeting.
Stutsman: No, that’s a Conference Board’s Meeting.
Duffy: I should be gone to Des Moines on the 14th and 15th.
Stutsman: Well, how about the 16th?
Thompson: In the morning?
Stutsman: I was going to say late afternoon, like 4.
Thompson: Oh. OK.
Duffy: The roads meeting is what, at 5:30?
Stutsman: Bob, do you have a comment?
Reverend Bob Welsh: I agree with one thing I’ve heard from Carol and Jonathan suggest. If you want to do this, I would set the time in your informal meeting 2 weeks from today, so that it would be at this time, so it could be televised and it would be something that Andy wouldn’t have to negotiate trying to plan another time. I think I agree with what I heard Carol and Jonathan say. This is an important educational process into development and I think that if I heard right, those 6 items, you’ve taken care of one already, that if the persons came realizing that these are the 5 things we’re going to discuss, plus any others other people want to lay on the table, you could do that within an hour’s time and it would (inaudible).
Stutsman: To me that’s part of the problem, within an hour’s time. I don’t want to limit discussion because we’ve got a bunch of other stuff on the agenda and that’s where I’m coming from, coming up with a different time.
Jordahl: Maybe we could limit the rest of the agenda.
Stutsman: Well, but we have one meeting a week now and we do have other business before the Board. That’s my own personal thoughts. I just would like to have a more, a time set aside where we weren’t worried about the clock and respectful of other people that have other commitments during the day. But, that’s my own personal feeling. Carol, you look like you had something to say.
Peters: I was just going to suggest if you’re in for an all day and partially evening, you could set it for the 17th. You’d have your regular meetings in the morning and then maybe meet with the Jail Committee a little later, like later in the afternoon. At 6:00 you’d have your Secondary Road 5 Year Construction Program Meeting. It would make for a very long day.
Stutsman: Yes, it would.
Thompson: Do we televise all of that?
Peters: Oh, no, no, no.
Jordahl: Just keep Andy here?
Thompson: Yes. Andy could meet the day (inaudible). He’s so excited. Look at him.
Peters: When I was suggesting that, I was envisioning the regular meetings and then like a special work session for the Committee, just like you will have for your Secondary Road 5 Year Construction Program.
Thompson: Like say at 3:30 or 4?
Duffy: There goes the 7:00. It didn’t last very long.
Stutsman: 7:00? Oh, in the morning.
Jordahl: Well, I’ll still go with 7 if you want to.
Stutsman: Yes. I don’t have a problem with that either.
Duffy: I really think the Board of Supervisors and the Study Committee and Space Committee should meet. Bob, there will be a lot of input from the public before we’re through with this. But, we don’t even know. We still have a lot of work to do and I think that’s what we should do first.
Welsh: I was thinking, with discussing those items that Pat called to your attention is something that I think would be good part of an educational process.
Jordahl: I agree with Bob.
Thompson: I agree, too.
Duffy: We’ll be talking about it I’m sure.
Jordahl: I think Bob has an excellent strong point here. We’ve talked a lot about how hard it’s going to be to take a community that really, I think, is philosophically pretty opposed to the idea of jail in general and persuade them to spend a lot of money on this project and to open up the process, as Bob said, to an educational process of why we need it at each phase. The more people that hear why we need it and how we’re addressing those needs and how we’re trying to save money.
Stutsman: So, are you saying that we should have all these meetings then during our regular informal meetings on Thursdays?
Jordahl: All of what meetings? There were how many meetings.
Stutsman: Well, I don’t know. There might be a number of them.
Jordahl: Basically, we’re taking something that has been kind of in these committees and subcommittees and we took them on the Board’s plate now and we’re saying OK, we’re going, this is happening.
Stutsman: Let’s come up with a date then and decide which, what do we want to do. Carol’s made a suggestion. I’ve made a suggestion.
Jordahl: I think the morning of the 17th is a good one.
Thompson: I could agree with that and just like put a half hour on our agenda for this topic.
Stutsman: It’s going to take a lot longer than a half hour, Carol. I think we’re unrealistic if we think we can do it in even an hour.
Jordahl: Let’s put an hour on it.
Thompson: But, Sally, we’ve already set up the committee to look into the financial consultant, so that will be on at a future time. We’ve already put on the motion to accept the report next week. So, the question of determining the ongoing role of the committee and the dialog about that shouldn’t take.
Stutsman: I think that’ll take a lot of time.
Jordahl: You could take these topics and talk about them all day. But, if the main thing on the agenda is to establish what the things are that we need to do, and to agree on the agenda for the future and to agree on a role for the Jail Study Committee and to appoint the subcommittee to work on the RFP we’d sort of get the ball rolling from that point and that set a next meeting date, which we will have maybe a subset of these topics or something or work session that would go into more detail as appropriate.
Thompson: If we can break these down into short topics and get them on at a time that’s televised, I think that would be invaluable.
Jordahl: I agree. This is the ultimate test of this is the public’s business because we’re talking about millions and millions of dollars here.
Stutsman: At this point I see this as just a lot of putting the infrastructure in place. I know that they’ll be lots of other issues that will come up and I just want to make sure that we have a thorough discussion and that we’re not constrained by that we’ve got a number of other things on the agenda. That this should be the only thing on the agenda and I just think it warrants a separate meeting at a separate time when we aren’t confused with anything else.
Jordahl: What are the other? Do we have any idea what’s on the agenda that day?
Stutsman: No. But, we have business from the Board of Supervisors and this is our one time a week when we conduct that business and I just don’t think that we can deny other business for the sake of the Jail Study Committee.
Jordahl: Either we can put this on in one of our regular meetings and have it televised that way or I would suggest that we televise the work session and figure out how to deal with the scheduling problem. There’s just 2 different ways of resolving the same question. But, I think the idea of televising the discussions of this are going to be invaluable in ultimately having a project succeed.
Small: Isn’t this the very, very initial phase? It doesn’t even sound like there’s a framework yet to analyze all the different aspects of it. Televising that is just going to be sort of a confused fuming. Unless there’s a game plan or at least broken into it’s subsets, then there will be some continuity and it’ll make sense for video. But, televising how we’re going to get our game plan together, it’s like televising how to write the script for the show. The script for the show is off the camera. Once you’ve got how you’re going to look at this, then that is worth documenting. It’s not about just documenting everything, it’s about documenting some sort of continuity that would make sense to a viewer and unless it’s simply for documentation purposes for down the road so you can look back and say we documented every single phase of it. That’s my 2 cents worth. But, just from sort of the video production aspect, until there’s a structure in place, the video is just, it’s a waste of time almost.
Jordahl: Well, you make a point, too, Andy.
Thompson: I don’t think that government is a TV show. I think it’s the preliminary planning that people often feel they were left out of.
Duffy: A lot of them are still left out though because they don’t have cable in the rural area.
Stutsman: This isn’t a public hearing, though.
Thompson: That’s true.
Duffy: What are we going to do here?
Stutsman: That’s a good question, Charlie.
Duffy: I, Sally, first suggest the 2 study committees and Board of Supervisors first, because this thing is, I just can’t at this point see it at this point on a regular meeting. It’s just going to go on and on and on.
Stutsman: Mike, do you have any thoughts?
Lehman: Unless we chop this up, I don’t see how you’re going to get different aspects at different televised meetings. I think it’s just going, unless we keep focused, stay to long and do it in a regular meeting.
Thompson: So, what do you think about 4:00 on the 17th?
Lehman: I’m fine with that.
Jordahl: Should we order in pizza for dinner and what do we do for lunch? Can’t have pizza twice. We’re going to be meeting all day.
Stutsman: Board Members can bring sack lunches.
Jordahl: OK. There we go.
Stutsman: Why don’t we say 3:30 then on the 17th for a joint work session. I would suggest between the Study Committee, the Board of Supervisors and the Space Needs Committee, here in this room. Do we want to set up a second day?
Thompson: If that doesn’t work you mean?
Stutsman: Yes. Or should we just say that’s the date and hope everybody can.
Duffy: We should probably check with the folks on these 3 committees.
White: Assuming you want Pete and some of his committee, you can’t just say that’s the date. Carol will have to do her usual skillful calendar negotiation checking. Let’s make an alternate time that day at 7 a.m.
Stutsman: All right.
Jordahl: So, that if they’re content to meet at that time and that’s predictable.
Stutsman: Is that clear?
Peters: Yes.
Stutsman: OK. Thank you Carol. So, we’ll have those 2 tentative times and then all right. Very good.
Small: Would you like those video taped as well?
Stutsman: I don’t know. What’s the Board want to do?
Small: The other option might be to, with the very initial meetings, don’t go for such an elaborate production. Stick with possibly just a 1 p.m. (inaudible) that would capture the whole. The one camera shows the whole Board and the tape. This camera shows your individual responses and audience responses. That everyone’s already up here, that would be a really easy, much less expensive way to get coverage of this whole phase.
Stutsman: I tell you what. Why don’t we think about that and maybe put that on next Thursday to make a decision about whether we want to have all these meetings, just separate meetings televised or whatever. OK. Thanks Andy, for your input. Holly?
Holly Berkowitz: Maybe public access to fill in the gap.
Small: They’re spread pretty thin.
Stutsman: Maybe somebody can contact them and see if there’s any possibility. So, let’s think about that and put that on the decision about if we want to videotape all of these or how we want to go from there. All right. We will have that joint meeting and we’ll talk about our roles. We are going to go ahead with RFP from your committee and get started.
Peters: (Inaudible).
Stutsman: OK, so Carol you will go ahead and take care of that. Do we want to spend any time talking about a bonding firm? Are we premature to visit on that?
White: Yes.
Stutsman: OK. Project manager. I would like to have a discussion to talk about a project manager. Begin thinking about at our joint meeting who would be an appropriate person to take over that role. There may be somebody that we’ve not even considered.
Thompson: Also, the location, that should be part of determining the ongoing role of the committee. Are they going to participate in selecting the location and what kind of a process do we want for that.
Stutsman: OK. Maybe I could ask to maybe sit down with Pat and Carol and we could frame them. I don’t want to be too structured, but I want to make sure that we utilize every minute of time that we have in our discussion so that we can be pretty well clear of what we want to go and what we want to have accomplished at this initial meeting.
Jordahl: One thing is I think Pat has set out, the agenda, I would just like to see, as with the Jail Study Committee’s report I’d like to see us accept Pat’s division of these things into a basic framework of how we’d even discuss how that works and how that ought to be scheduled. I don’t see any reason that with a Jail Committee there we shouldn’t discuss that element of County business like Pat does.
White: I’d encourage you at least to check with Bob and Pete to see if they have other things that they want to talk about or if they think any of this is premature or off base.
Stutsman: I will go ahead and do that. I will touch base with them and talk with other Board Members.
Jordahl: I want to further suggest that maybe we should make 7:00 a.m. the primary choice and 3:30 as an alternate. Because I think we got people here who are going to be hard to schedule at 3:30 in the afternoon. But, that’s just tossing it out. Anybody (inaudible) a gesture of respect to the Jail Committee.
Stutsman: Maybe when Carol does her calling, she can figure out where’s the primary choice. Find the number of people that can make 7 or which prefers 3:30. So, we’ll let her work on it. Anything else then that we need to discuss then concerning this. OK.