|
ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 14, 2000
A Special Meeting of the Enfield Town Council was held in the Enfield Room of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut. The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Strom at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL-CALL Present were Councilmen Falk, Fiore, Hall, Mangini, Strom, and Vayda.
Councilman Egan entered at 6:32 p.m. and Councilman Kaupin entered at 6:34 p.m. Councilmen Dodd, McGuire, and Surapine were absent. Also present were Town Manager, Scott A. Shanley; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne F. Olechnicki; Director of Finance, Gregory Simmons; Director of Information Technology, Charlene Bond; IT Systems Analyst, Cynthia Murphy and Network Administrator, Greg Fielding.
Present from the Enfield Board of Education were Superintendent of Schools, Dr. John Gallacher; Finance Operations Manager, Patricia Brooks; Information Technology Coordinator, Joanne Kneiss; JFK Principal, Timothy Neville; Board of Education Members, Theresa Clavette, Joyce Hall, Kenneth Hilinski, Roger Jones, Thomas Osborn, Lynn Scull, Nicholas Sinsigalli, William Thomson. Mary Heidi Tibbetts was absent.
GARTNER GROUP PRESENTATION
Present for the presentation of their final report were Frank Hagey and Tom Babington from the Gartner Group.
Mr. Hagey stated Gartner Group did an organizational assessment to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the IT organization.
Strengths
· establishment of the Joint Technology Committee
· Town and School Systems supported by committed and competent information technology staff
· Town and School Systems are led by committed and respected information technology leaders
· Town and School Systems are supportive of Information Technology initiatives
· Network infrastructure supporting the Town and Schools are well designed
· Town and School Systems are actively deploying current technologies
Weaknesses
· there is significant mistrust between the Town and Schools IT functions
· there is no actual single IT authority over both the Town and Schools IT functions
· the method of funding mandated by the State fosters mistrust and misunderstanding
· communications between the Town and School Systems on IT issues is guarded at best
· theres a lack of a good, current strategic plan for the Town
Opportunities
· the climate is right for change
· theres an opportunity to improve the relationship between the Town and School Systems
Threats
· if the climate of mistrust is not dealt with, it will lead to more and more inefficiencies, which can result in a lack of funding and will definitely create a problem in the retention of IT personnel
Mr. Hagey stated they looked at three possible organizational models to improve the situation:
· Management by a single technology organization
· Management by two separate technology organizations
· Management responsibilities shared by two technology organizations (aka hybrid)
He displayed and explained organizational charts for each type of organization.
He spoke about the strengths of a single technology organization:
· creates opportunities to manage economies of scale
· no duplication of efforts
· one infrastructure
· a consistency in standards
· positive control of the technology infrastructure so that security can be locked down tightly
· IT assets are controlled from a single point
He listed some challenges of a single technology organization:
· there is a danger that the IT department can become isolated to both the Town and School Systems, and set priorities and accomplish tasks based upon its own agenda rather than business unit needs
· users may become frustrated and not be able to get priority when they feel they need it is needed because of enterprise needs as opposed to the individual needs of the town or school.
Mr. Hagey then spoke about two separate technology organizations and explained the strengths of such an arrangement:
· more flexibility for the Town and Schools to respond to individual business needs with IT solutions
· Town and Schools are fully aware of the cost of IT for their respective operations and must plan, budget and justify expenditures
· Priorities are controlled separately for the Town and the Schools
· Applications development for high-priority projects can be more rapidly accomplished based upon needs and priorities of the Town and Schools
He reviewed challenges of two separate organizations:
· the IT infrastructure and architecture can become diffused as the Town and Schools set their own standards, therefore, losing economies of scale
· there can be redundant and unnecessary costs associated with additional servers, network equipment, and software procured specifically to ensure separation between the School and Town
He spoke about critical success factors:
· the ability to work together to leverage procurements of common services to reduce overall enterprise costs
· contingencies on the part of each business unit for resolving infrastructure failures
· establishment of an enterprise review of strategic plans and budgets to minimize redundant cost in staffing and procurements, etc.
· establishment of an enterprise review and approval process for Service Level Agreements between the Town and Schools IT organizations
Mr. Hagey spoke about management responsibilities shared by two technology organizations. He reviewed the strengths:
· economies of scale at the enterprise can be achieved through the shared responsibilities
· there is a good link between the functioning units and the IT organization
He then reviewed the challenges from a shared organization perspective:
· maintaining IT standards
· security becomes an issue
· challenges associated with matrix management
· redundant costs
· training and retention of personnel
He listed critical success factors:
· formal agreements between Town and Schools on governance issues
· funding model has to establish a clear responsibility and have positive control over the standards
· open communications and trust
Mr. Hagey stated after Gartner Groups review, it was their recommendation to go with a single IT organization for the following reasons:
· given the size of Enfield, there are definite economies of scale to be realized by a single IT organization
· there would be uniform standards
· positive control of the infrastructure
· centralized asset management will improve protection of the assets, can provide opportunities for effective asset reuse and effective planning for refreshment
He reviewed the critical success factors for this recommendation:
· there has to be an agreement between the Town and the Schools, especially with budget situation
· a single or joint committee to approve the strategic plan
· a single IT manager that manages the day-to-day operations
· a single funding source thats being controlled by the IT manager
Mr. Hagey stated if the Town and the Schools cannot come to an agreement on a centralized organization, then Gartner suggests separate IT organizations be created. He pointed out the current hybrid organization will not work in the long term, and they dont recommend staying with this current structure. He noted mainly theres a control issue that needs to be resolved.
He stated a compensating control to make separate organizations as cost effective and efficient as possible would be to retain the Joint Committee on Information Technology.
He spoke about the importance of Service Level Agreements, including a charge back system.
Mr. Hagey stated the remaining portion of this presentation is premised on this separation that the Joint Technology Committee decided on May 25th.
Councilman Falk questioned what gave Gartner Group the impression there was a mistrust between the two organizations. Mr. Hagey stated the mistrust issue came out from both the Town and Schools perspective during interviews that were conducted. He noted it also came out in several situations that actually had occurred. He pointed out people are trying to do the best job they can do for either the Town or School System.
Councilman Falk questioned if there were any discussions about how they might make one organization work. Mr. Hagey stated the Joint Technology Committee explored all alternatives thoroughly.
Councilman Falk stated hes disappointed theyre going with two organizations since it was the intent in the beginning to streamline this organization and save money.
Councilman Mangini questioned how the mistrust factor can be eliminated. Mr. Hagey stated Joint Technology Committees work very well from a strategic planning point, not as well from a tactical point. He noted the day-to-day tactical management of the organization through a single authority, i.e., an IT Director, is a critical success factor. He stated his belief they should keep a Joint Technology Committee regardless of which organization is chosen.
Chairwoman Strom questioned why the Joint Technology Committee felt a single entity would not work. Mr. Hilinski stated there were numerous discussions, and it became clear that the goals of each of the organizations are strategically very different. He explained the School System is totally focused on getting the technology out to the students and maximizing the benefit. He noted in that context, theres a lot to do with selecting a particular software for the students. He stated on the Towns side, a lot of the infrastructure and strategy planning is based around traditionalized financial management, public safety management, etc. He stated from that standpoint, it appears these organizations are strategically very different, and it would be virtually impossible to tie the two together.
Councilman Vayda stated his belief the real defining point is the fact that they have two independent organizations with no single point of authority and no effective way to resolve problems. He stated his belief its a better idea to have two separate organizations.
Mr. Hilinski stated the goals are very different between the Town and School System, in that the Town is more concerned with global issues, and the School Department is more worried about student issues. He added his belief the cost to separate isnt as high as suspected. He added his belief in the long run, separating may end up saving some money because they wont have a lot of these coordination issues between the two organizations.
Chairwoman Strom questioned whether there would be a need to add a lot of staff with two separate organizations. Mr. Hagey stated his belief they wouldnt have to add a lot of staff, but he believes they will have to add some staff.
Mr. Osborn stated his belief it seems separate organizations would be more efficient. He suggested perhaps they could manage their costs through the Joint Technology Committee.
Mr. Babington of Gartner Group continued the presentation.
He spoke about the organizational transition for two separate organizations. He stated the Town IT organization will own and maintain the following:
· business related systems (applications owned by the business unit, i.e., financial accounting systems, HR/Payroll, etc.
· equipment in non-school facilities
· firewall protecting the town operations
· ISP relationship and associated connections
· maintain extranet for school access
· serve all Town business units
Mr. Babington displayed a chart showing the enterprise architecture; a chart showing the Town of Enfield/School Board network architecture; a chart entitled "Technology Maturity Model (Complexity vs Systemic Value)".
Mr. Babington spoke about the budgeting level for the Town and School Systems and noted its less than what they see for the average IT organization.
He referred to Page 22 of their presentation report and stated the staffing chart shows current and proposed staffing for separate organizations.
He spoke about the Towns mission and vision for IT and reviewed critical initiatives for the Town as follows:
1. Understand customer service needs
2. Streamline internal processes
3. Expand customer service opportunities
4. Establish performance values and measures
5. Optimize technologies for information storage and retrieval
He then spoke about understanding customer service needs, streamlining internal processes, expanding customer service opportunities, establishing performance values and measures, optimizing technologies for information storage and retrieval, potential barriers and control.
Mr. Babington reviewed the vision of IT for the schools:
1. Improve scheduling
2. Predictive model for student performance
3. Administrative data base warehousing
4. Increased internet usage and information dissemination
5. Communications technology for teachers
6. Establish a formal IT organization
Councilman Vayda voiced concern about the risk factor of dropping down a level when going to two organizations. He referred to the financial system as an example and the possibility of purchasing something that will run on a standalone environment. Mr. Babington stated if they go to two distinct organizations, things will back up a little. He stated his feeling a financial system is a good example. He noted despite the fact the School System is using the financial enterprise system, it really doesnt meet their needs. He stated his understanding theres a high probability the Board of Education will seek to get its own financial system, therefore, both organizations would have their own financial systems. He noted theres then the question of whether theyve duplicated systems. He went on to note there may not be a reason or a need for those systems to be integrated since theyre very different in how they conduct their business.
Councilman Fiore voiced his regret about the IT organizations separating.
Mr. Hagey concluded stating IT is the responsibility of the functional managers, not the IT organization. He emphasized the IT organization is a service organization. He noted when funding for projects is given, it should be given to the functional manager, not the IT Director. He stated they should insist on annual three-year IT strategic plans, and they should be updated annually and reflect whats going to happen in the next three years. He pointed out this should come from both organizations. He noted the strategic plan should come to a Joint Committee and perhaps the entire Council. He stated this will help show where both organizations are going so that where it makes sense to join forces, they join forces to reduce the amount of inefficiencies that occur. He urged the Town and School Systems to keep talking, and the Joint Committee is key to this. He pointed out its the informal discussions that resolve many problems because everything is dedicated to doing whats right for the citizens. He urged everyone to use the entrepreneurial spirit.
Chairwoman Strom commended the Gartner Group for doing an excellent job.
TOWN OF ENFIELD NETWORK UPDATE
Ms. Bond gave an update on the Town of Enfield network. She explained handouts distributed to the Council and Board of Education a summary of the current network, the proposed network, equipment inventory, and network maps.
She went on to state the Town Council has budgeted the necessary funds in order to make this segmentation work. She explained theyll be separating the Town of Enfield from the Enfield Public Schools internet service provider and implementing an internet service provider for the Town of Enfield. She stated along with that a firewall will be installed for Enfield Public Schools so that their connection to the internet will be protected, and a switch will be moved over to Enfield Public Schools network thats currently in place as well as a proxy server. She noted on the Town side theyll be purchasing another proxy server, a layer switch, and a Virtual Private Network Gateway (VPN). She stated Enfield Public Schools will be coming into the Town of Enfield network for application purposes only through the VPN. She noted this will address any security concerns. She stated when Enfield Public Schools is ready to administer their own network, or split the network and take it outside of the Town Hall, everything will be ready to go, and it will be just a matter of unplugging it from the VPN gateway.
Councilman Fiore questioned if the maintenance for the additional ISP will still be around $11,000, and Ms. Bond responded it wont be much less than that. She noted she is still looking into this.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Councilman Vayda stated he very much appreciates the work Gartner Group did and the information they provided. He stated his personal opinion that they made a good decision in terms of having two separate networks because of the organizational structure they have today. He agreed they should continue with the Joint Technology Committee so that both bodies can continue working together in terms of identifying strategies for the future and how theyll get there.
Mr. Hilinski stated his impression the Joint Technology Committee has been able to come to some kind of consensus, and he would like to see discussions continue.
Chairwoman Strom agreed the Joint Technology Committee worked well on this issue, and she feels they should stay together to be sure this transition is successful.
Councilman Mangini agreed the Joint Technology Committee should continue to work in a direction that creates more responsible government for the people.
Councilman Falk pointed out the Joint Technology Committee was originally formed to do this study. He noted it appears that Committee will now have a different function. He feels a formalized charge needs to be established for what this new committee should be doing.
Mr. Hilinski noted the Joint Technology Committee could make some suggestions as far as what that charge might be.
Councilman Egan thanked the Joint Technology Committee for all their hard work.
MOTION #4784 by Councilman Falk, seconded by Councilman Mangini to take a brief recess.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #4784 adopted 8-0-0, and the meeting stood recessed at 8:17 p.m.
Chairwoman Strom reconvened the meeting at 8:28 p.m.
DISCUSSION RE: PRISON EXPANSION PROPOSAL WITH PRISON/TOWN LIAISON COMMITTEE
Present from the Prison/Town Liaison Committee were Michael Arnone, Jr., Giovanni Carollo, Roger LaVallee, Tophie Nowak, Chairman Roger Olsen, and Timothy Slade.
Chairman Olsen read the following statement:
"I have been invited here to share the opinions of our Liaison Committee with respect to proposed expansion of the prison facilities now located in Enfield. The Committee was formed in 1990 in accordance with state statutes, and local ordinance. The purpose of the Committee is to open lines of communication and the exchange of information between residents of Enfield, town officials, prison officials, regarding the operations of the prisons and the concerns of Enfield. The question of expansion certainly comes under the phrase "concerns of Enfield."
I decided to poll the members of the Committee to determine their attitudes and to arrive at a consensus. This was done, and almost all members were contacted and their opinions tallied. I did not include Council members Mangini and Egan in the tally. I also decided to survey the people in the Green Manorville area, as they are the closest large group of homes near to the prisons.
Of the two groups I surveyed, only one person mentioned any financial arrangements or paybacks to the town in the course of our conversation. I tried as far as possible, in my approach, to be neutral on the subject.
With respect to Green Manorville residents, the vote was nine for the expansion and 13 against. This was not a statistically valid survey because the time limitations did not allow more people to be contacted, but I think it shows the direction of thinking in that location. Those voting for the expansion thought that the prisons did not represent a threat to the area because of all the barbed wire and security measures in place, and the fact that there have not been escapes in recent times. Some said simply that they "didnt have a problem with it".
Those against expansion cited the numerous "incidents" at the prison, including the recent wounding of three corrections officers, including a warden, and a small fire started last June.
The survey of the Prison/Town Liaison Committee showed three for expansion, six against, and one abstention. Several of them made lengthy comments and gave many reasons for their decision. On the plus side were arguments that the increase would produce additional jobs in the area and bring in additional families, and the town could use the money.
On the opposing side, there was a long litany of reasons, including the increase in the threat to public safety. The fact that prison populations have high rates of AIDS, hepatitis and other diseases that could be transmitted to nearby populations through insect bites, contamination and other means, and that the image of Enfield to the world would be that of a prison town, and not the typical suburban New England town that it is. It was also brought out that Enfield provides the sewerage treatment facilities for all the prisons including those in Somers, and any expansion in Enfield and/or Somers would impact Enfields sewerage treatment plant. Presently, Enfield processes about 800,000 gallons of sewerage per day from the prisons for which it receives a $600,000 per year fee.
My own opinion is with the majority of the Committee. While there are many reasons I could support expansion, an analysis of what we have now shows it is not in our best long-range interests to increase prison populations here. About ten years ago, there were 10,000 inmates in the state. That number is now 17,000 and Enfield houses about 3,000 of them or about 18% at this time. There is a long history of escapes from Enfield jails in the forty years I have lived on Taylor Road. Some of them involved break-ins, kidnapping, and assault and rape on citizens who were unfortunate enough to have their houses broken into by escapees. In spite of all of the razor wire, brilliant lights and electronic devices in place and well trained and dedicated correction officers doing their jobs, there is still a good possibility that escape attempts will continue and some of them will succeed.
Enfield presently, as I understand it, receives about $1.7 million instead of tax payments from the state. Somers receives about $1.9 million. This arrangement seems unbalanced, as in the event of an emergency many of Enfields fire, police and emergency medical support services will be activated and proceed to Somers because they do not have the similar support services there in the event of a large incident, or a worst case scenario. If Enfield is tagged to provide these kinds of reserve services, then it should be compensated for it.
I should note that the Prison/Town Liaison Committee has been in operation for about 10 years, and we presently have good rapport with the wardens. We have a good dialogue at our meetings, and we discuss areas of mutual concern. Of note is the success in the reduction and elimination of gangs at the prisons and the acceleration of training programs for the inmates. I was very impressed at the ceremonies I recently attended to see 22 inmates receive their high school equivalency diplomas. The Committee looks forward to continued good relations with the wardens as we work out our mutual problems.
In conclusion, the Prison/Town Liaison Committee is not in favor of expansion in any of Enfields prison facilities for the reasons in part cited above."
Chairwoman Strom stated when she and Councilman Kaupin went to the informational meeting, it was to learn whats being discussed and to learn where Enfield fits into an expansion program. She noted they are not advocating any position, but exploring possibilities. She stated at this time, the states major priority is adding 1,600 beds. In the long term, theyre looking to convert dormitories to cells.
Mr. Shanley stated he met with the engineering group for the prisons. They indicated technically they could retrofit Willard into a higher security facility, however, their priority is to add beds.
Mr. Carollo stated there are 95 homes available in Enfield. He noted the high number has been over 400. He stated many of these available homes are located in the section of Enfield near the prison. He pointed out prospective buyers do not want to be near a prison.
Mr. Carollo stated an increased prison population will have an impact on traffic and the environment. He went on to suggest that if an expansion were approved for Enfield, perhaps correction officers positions could be assigned to Enfield residents or those towns best served by the correction facilities.
Mr. Shanley stated there is a concern that the town line delineates where the revenue goes, but it doesnt delineate where the impact will be. He added theres also the concern of missing the opportunity of converting from dormitory style to cells.
Mr. LaVallee pointed out Commissioner Armstrong has done an excellent job. He expressed concern as to what will happen should Commissioner Armstrong leave. He stated his concern if more prisoners are added, they will probably end up doubling the number. He stated his belief Enfield does not deserve more prisoners.
Chairwoman Strom stated if a proposal were put forth for 400 beds, there would be money coming back to Enfield to pay for the resources necessary for this expansion. She pointed out if the beds go to Somers, Enfield will still provide the emergency services and sewer needs but receive no compensation.
Ms. Nowak pointed out Taylor Road is not made for a lot of traffic. She stated her hope that if there is an expansion, they would look at improving Taylor Road to accommodate the additional traffic or emergency vehicles. She voiced concern for the safety of school children walking on this road.
Mr. Carollo stated residents in the area of the prison deserve some consideration regarding their property values. He stated the main concern should be for the safety and welfare of the people of Enfield, not money.
Mr. Arnone stated his belief the Town should simply ask for cells. Chairwoman Strom stated the state does not have the money for cells right now, but rather theyre desperate for extra beds.
Referring to any proposal by Somers, Mr. Shanley questioned what could Enfield do for leverage or negotiations regarding any emergency services or sewerage that Enfield would have to provide. He suggested the idea of Enfield putting forth its own proposal or an addendum to Somers proposal.
Councilman Mangini stated she is not in favor of expansion, however, she agrees with Mr. Shanley in that Enfield should have a proposal ready so that Enfield would benefit in some way since they would be providing emergency services and sewerage.
Councilman Fiore stated he sees no reason why Enfield should accept any more beds or support Somers having more beds. He noted this is about safety and property value. He added his belief Enfield should not allow a prison expansion to hook up to Enfields sewers.
Councilman Vayda stated he is not in favor of expansion of the prison, however, he is concerned about preserving a good working relationship with the Department of Corrections.
Councilman Hall suggested perhaps they could hold a Public Hearing at Nathan Hale to hear the publics comments about this.
Mr. Olsen stated the Committee is having its "Meet the Wardens" meeting on September 27th.
Mr. Shanley informed the Council if there is to be any proposal, it has to be ready by September 1st.
Councilman Kaupin questioned if there are a certain amount of beds that the prison can add in Enfield per agreement. Mr. Shanley stated within that contract, they probably could accommodate some beds.
Councilman Kaupin stated his belief a lot of communities in Connecticut will be saying no to further prison expansion. He noted any expansion will increase the traffic, and the majority of complaints he receives from that area have to do with speeding. He went on to note hes uncomfortable with the time frame, in that the state is having communities make a decision during the summer when people are less apt to be paying attention. He stated at this time his answer would be "no", however, if Enfield says no, then it should also be a no for Somers. He pointed out if Somers hosts this expansion, Enfield has the burden of providing emergency services and sewerage.
Mr. Shanley voiced his concern that if Enfield put forth no proposal, then Enfield will get nothing if there is an expansion.
Councilman Mangini stated her belief Enfield needs to take a position, i.e., an addendum to a proposal by Somers.
Councilman Vayda questioned the possibility of Enfield being taken to court if it didnt approve of a prison expansion in Enfield. Mr. Shanley stated they could take Enfield to court if they believed what they were doing was in the confines of the existing contract.
Councilman Vayda questioned if the occasion came to renegotiate the contract, and the Town refused, could Enfield be taken to court. Mr. Shanley responded he did not know, but would check into this.
Councilman Egan questioned if theres a written agreement with Somers that Enfield will provide fire and police protection. Mr. Shanley stated fire and police are not in support of Somers, but rather the prison system.
Mr. Carollo stated its not a "done deal" in Somers, and he believes theres a lot of opposition in Somers to expansion. He noted hes concerned about the restraint on time.
Mr. Shanley stated he will draft a letter for the next Town Council packet. Mr. Olsen stated he would be happy to co-sign that letter.
Chairwoman Strom stated if the state goes with Somers for expansion, Enfield will definitely have to push its own needs.
Mr. Arnone requested a coy of the draft letter being prepared by the Town Manager.
There was no Executive Session this evening.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION #4785 by Councilman Falk, seconded by Councilman Mangini to adjourn.
Upon a SHOW-OF-HANDS vote being taken, the Chair declared MOTION #4785 adopted 8-0-0, and the meeting stood adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeannette Lamontagne
Secretary to the Council
By Suzanne F. Olechnicki
Suzanne F. Olechnicki
Town Clerk
Clerk of the Council
|