Dear Communications Stakeholders,
 
With the passage of Act 59 in September 2017, the Legislature directed the Department of Military Affairs to submit a report by January 1, 2019 that addressed the following questions:
  • Recommended changes to statutory authority of the Interoperability Council
  • Progress toward creating a statewide public safety interoperable communication system
  • Obstacles hindering progress toward interoperability
  • Recommendations for the legislative/executive action to promote interoperability
In order to provide a comprehensive report to the Legislature, the DMA's Office of Emergency Communications is seeking your responses to the following questions:

Question Title

* 1. What do you believe should be the role of the Interoperability Council?

Question Title

* 2. Would you be best served if the Interoperability Council is:

Question Title

* 3. The Interoperability Council is currently made up of the following representatives:
  • Attorney General (or designee)
  • Adjutant General (or designee)
  • Secretary of Natural Resources (or designee)
  • Secretary of Transportation (or designee)
  • A representative from the Department of Administration with knowledge of information technology
  • A Chief of Police
  • A Sheriff
  • A Chief of a Fire Department
  • A Director of Emergency Medical Services
  • A local government elected official
  • A Local Emergency Management Director
  • A representative of a federal recognized American Indian Tribe or band in Wisconsin
  • A Hospital representative
  • A local Health Department representative
  • One other person with relevant experience or expertise in interoperable communications

Keeping in mind that the Interoperability Council is meant to represent public safety communications stakeholders, do you feel that the current IC membership structure properly reflects the public safety stakeholder community?  If not, what would you change? (E.g. adding or eliminating representatives, changing statutory language to represent an association instead of a discipline, etc.)

Question Title

* 4. What changes should be implemented to ensure the Interoperability Council is informed of the concerns, needs and priorities that impact the various regions of the state as well as those of a statewide perspective?

Question Title

* 5. What actions need to be taken at the regional and statewide levels to remove any obstacles that hinder public safety interoperable communications during a major critical incident?

Question Title

* 6. What do you see as the appropriate funding mechanism(s) for statewide public safety communications systems such as 911/NG911 capable public safety answering points (PSAPs), emergency services IP-based network (ESInet) and a statewide public safety interoperable communications system?

Question Title

* 7. Do you have any additional comments or recommendations for legislative/executive action to promote public safety interoperability?

Question Title

* 8. Additional comments, if applicable

Question Title

* 9. Contact Information (optional)

T