E-911 QUESTIONS RAISED IN SCOTT, NEW MADRID COUNTIES

Voters in Scott and New Madrid counties apparently will be asked Nov. 8 to approve a 15 percent surcharge to establish an Enhanced-911 emergency telephone system for the two counties. The two county commissions have until Tuesday to place the measure on the ballot, and officials are confident they will do so.

For about $16 a year for a typical customer, the counties will be able to buy and install the equipment, which will enable dispatchers to instantly call up on a computer screen the telephone number and address from which the person is placing an emergency call.

The technology allows for faster response of police, fire and ambulance services, particularly when callers are unable to speak or are uncertain of their location. The system would be good for the two counties, and the county commissions are to be applauded for giving voters the opportunity to choose better emergency telephone service.

A steering committee agreed to get the issued placed on the November ballot. What the committee hasn't agreed on, though, is how to set up the two-county E-911 system. Some prefer a single center in Sikeston that would handle dispatching duties for ambulance, police, fire and sheriff's departments in both counties. Other suggestions were proposed by a consultant. One plan would set up a dispatching center in each county, with a third center in Sikeston.

If a centralized dispatching center were to be placed in Sikeston, it would be run by a separate, two-county board, and the city would finance a significant part of the cost of its operation.

Sounds reasonable. But here is the rub: Voters in Scott City, Kelso and Commerce already have an E-911 system that is up and running in those towns.

Scott City Mayor Larry Forhan has said the city intends to keep its dispatchers and doesn't want to be part of a two-county centralized dispatching system. He has a point. Certainly, telephone customers in those towns who already have agreed to a local surcharge for E-911 service shouldn't be hit for another. And if Scott City already has central dispatching, why should it now turn those duties over to a center 20 miles away in Sikeston?

County officials say residents who already have E-911 wouldn't also be charged for a two-county system. But the issue could have been avoided altogether if the counties would have pursued E-911 when it was suggested about four years ago.

When the proposal never made it past the discussion stage at the county level, Scott City, Kelso and Commerce took the initiative to get E-911. Now that the commissions are queued behind the E-911 eight-ball, will Scott City be allowed to keep its system? If so, will it cause difficulties when emergencies cross jurisdictional boundaries? County officials don't think so.

E-911 steering committee members have said that if voters in only one of the counties approve the surcharge, the system could be implemented just in that county. But what if individual towns reject the measure? Apparently, the will of county voters will prevail. Clearly, these and other issues must be resolved before the measure appears on the ballot in November. For good reason, voters tend to reject confusing issues, particularly when their money is involved.