Chairman Schwarze advised that a few months ago this was a part of his strategic plan for
discussion. It was not specific to Des Plaines, but it was specific to the consolidation policy. He
said, that is still on his agenda.
Ms. Zerwin advised, just to be clear, that at the State level, DuPage has not advocated anything.
The question came up with Member Tillman asked if a referendum was required to allow Des
Plaines. The State’s Attorney’s Office, in reviewing the matter felt there was a gap in the
legislation that effected all 101 non-home rule counties. The State’s Attorney’s Office spoke
with the attorney for the Illinois State Police (ISP) She agreed the legislation affects all counties
except Cook County. The ISP are looking at the language because it affects the entire state. Any
language that is proposed would be a statewide change, not specific for DuPage. Ms. Zerwin
stated she wanted to be clear because there have been some misconceptions that DuPage is not
and Director Zerwin has not advocated for anything at this point. Any language that comes
forward either at the veto session or later will be on the State level to correct or make that
consolidation allowable throughout the state. Ms. Zerwin said she is aware that the State 9-1-1
Administrator would like to have additional consolidation and downstate regionalization. Ms.
Zerwin said there could be those types of occurrences here, too, but unfortunately with statues,
once you touch one piece of it there is a domino effect. It is complex and not as simple as just
adding a sentence to the statue.
Ms. Zerwin continued saying that as the representative of the eight largest counties (on the State
Advisory Board), she meets with those representatives to get the consensus of where they want
legislation to go. Therefore, even if DuPage was not in the majority, she would vote for what the
majority of the group recommended even though she can on the record say that DuPage does not
(or does) support the issue. She said there are a whole lot of layers on future growth discussion.
Member Schar questioned, with the caveat that he was making some major assumptions, that if
the State makes the change, it could still be a policy of the Board to not accept. Ms. Zerwin
replied to the affirmative. Member Rauter interjected that it depended on what the legislation
says that the State could mandate consolidation. Member Schar replied, but short of a mandate
the ETSB could still elect to not seek those connections. Ms. Zerwin replied, yes.
Vice Chair Franz responded to Ms. Zerwin that he did not assume Ms. Zerwin did anything on
this. But he did believe it might be a good strategic planning conversation to advise what
lobbying positions to take on an annual basis. Vice Chair Franz continued saying that Ms.
Zerwin does that all the time because she has a mission and she knows what the ETS Board is
seeking but in times like this, Vice Chair Franz thought having that discussion and having the
executive direction would be helpful for Ms. Zerwin to tie in with the strategic plan.
Member Rauter asked Chairman Schwarze where this stands with Des Plaines. He questioned,
has Des Plaines sent communication directly to ETSB? Vice Chair Franz responded, no, that the
Board has been advised and looking at it for months. Member Rauter asked if it was just a paper
exchange at the staff level. Member Maranowicz replied that he did not think there was a paper
exchange. Member Rauter clarified, saying but there was data coming out of Des Plaines and
paper coming out with staff time. Ms. Zerwin clarified that it was more at the PSAP level. Des
Plaines approached both PSAPs and DU-COMM said no thank you. ACDC is still pursuing the
inquiry. ETSB assembled a review of what a consolidation would mean to the 9-1-1 System and
provided it to the Board. Member Rauter replied that he appreciated the clarification, but
