9-1-1 and public safety communication systems

OAG 99-017 Attorney General 2-126 OPINION NO. 99-017 Syllabus: 1. A board of county commissioners is not required to establish a county­ wide public safety communications system, as defined by R.C. 307.63(A). 2. A county that operates or proposes to operate a countywide 9-1-1 system pursuant to R.C. 4931.40-.53 is not required to establish a countywide public safety communications system, as defined by R.C. 307.63(A). To: Kenneth Egbert, Jr., Seneca County Prosecuting Attorney, Tiffin, Ohio By: Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, February 17, 1999 Your predecessor requested an opinion regarding the establishment of a countywide public safety communications system whenever a county operates or proposes to operate a countywide 9-1-1 system. Currently, Seneca County does not operate a countywide public safety communications system. The county, however, has established a countywide 9-1-1 system pursuant to R.C. 4931.40-.53 that has one public safety answering point at the office of the county sheriff.l In order to better serve the public, the county has proposed the 1 As used in R.C. 4931.40-.53, the terms "9-1-1 system" and "public safety answer­ ing point" are defined as follows: (A) "9-1-1 system" means a system through which individuals can request emergency service using the telephone number 9-1-1. (G) "Public safety answering point" means a facility to which 9-1-1 system calls for a specific territory are initially routed for response and where subdivision personnel respond to specific requests for emergency 2-127 1999 Opinions OAG 99-017 establishment of a new countywide 9-1-1 system with public safety answering points at the office of the county sheriff and the police department of the City of Tiffin. In light of these facts, your predecessor asked us to address the following questions: 1. Is a board of county commissioners required to establish a countywide public safety communications system? 2. If a county operates or proposes to operate a countywide 9-\-1 system, is a board of county commissioners required to establish a countywide public safety communications system? Provisions concerning the creation and operation of a countywide public safety communications system are set forth in RC. 307.63. See also R.C. 5705.19(KK) (a county may levy a tax "[£]or a countywide public safety communications system under section 307.63 of the Revised Code"). Pursuant to this section, "[a] board of county commissioners may establish a countywide public safety communications system."2 R.C. 307.63(B) (emphasis added). See 1995 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 95-004 at 2-15 and 2-16. It is a fundamental rule of statutory interpretation that the use of the word "may" in a statute should be given its ordinary meaning, unless a contrary intention is clearly indi­ cated by the context of the statute. State ex rel. City ofNiles v. Bernard, 53 Ohio St. 2d 31, 34, 372 N.E.2d 339,341 (1978); Don'ian v. Scioto Conservcll1cy Dist., 27 Ohio St. 2d 102, 107, 271 N.E.2d 834, 837 (1971); State ex ref. Dworken v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, 131 Ohio Sl. 23, 25, 1 N.E.2d 138, 139 (1936). See generally RC. 1.42 (words and phrases shall be construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage). As explained in Dorrian v. Scioto Conservm1cy Dis!., 27 Ohio Sl. 2d at 107-08, 271 N.E.2d at 837-38 (1971): The statutory use of the word "may" is generally construed to make the provision in which it is contained optional, permissive, or discretionary, at least where there is nothing in the language or in the sense or policy of the provision to require an unusual interpretation. The word "shall" is usually interpreted to make the provIsIOn in which it is contained mandatory, especially if frequently repeated. service by directly dispatching the appropriate emergency service provider, relaying a message to the appropriate provider, or transferring the call to the appropriate provider. RC. 4931.40. 2 As used in R.C. 307.63, "countywide public safety communications system" means a system of communications facilities, equipment, and services that helps to provide immediate field exchange of police, fire, and emergency medical services information between the county and participating states, political subdivisions, and other public entities, without regard to which jurisdiction holds title to real or personal property used in the system or employs the persons responsible to dispatch emergency personnel using the system. R.C. 307.63(A). March 1999 OAG 99-017 Attorney General 2-128 Ordinarily, the words "shall" and "may," when used in statutes, are not used interchangeably or synonymously. However, in order to serve the basic aim of construction of a statute to arrive at and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly it is some­ times necessary to give to the words "may" and "shall" as used in a statute, meanings different from those given them in ordinary usage, and one may be construed to have the meaning of the other. But when this construction is necessary, the intention of the General Assembly that they shall be so construed must clearly appear from a general view of the statute under consideration, as where the manifest sense and intent of the statute require the one to be substituted for the other. (Citations omitted.) Nothing in the language of RC. 307.63 or elsewhere in the Revised Code evidences a legislative intent to impose a mandatory duty upon a board of county commissioners to establish a countywide public safety communications system. Absent such legislative intent, the term "may," as used in R.C. 307.63(B), must be accorded its common meaning. See State ex reI. City of Niles v. Bernard; Dorricm v. Scioto Conselvancy Dist.; State ex reI. Dworken v. Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County. Because the word "may," as used in RC. 307.63(B), is to be understood in its ordinary sense, it must be concluded that RC. 307.63(B) does not require a board of county commissioners to establish a countywide public safety communications system. Instead, the power conferred upon the board of county commissioners pursuant to R.C. 307.63(B) is permissive or discretionary. In other words, pursuant to R.C. 307.63(B), a board of county commissioners is authorized, but not required, to establish a countywide public safety communications system. Your predecessor's second question asks whether a board of county commissioners is required to establish a countywide public safety communications system when the county operates or proposes to operate a countywide 9-1-1 system. A review of R.C. 4931.40-.53, which provide for the creation and operation of countywide 9-1-1 systems, discloses no provision requiring a board of county commissioners to establish a countywide public safety communications system when the county operates or proposes to operate a countywide 9-1-1 system. In fact, countywide public safety communications systems and countywide 9-1-1 systems serve distinctly different purposes. As stated in 1998 Op. ALtOy Gen. No. 98-032 at 2-180, which concluded that a countywide 9-1-1 system is not a countywide public safety communications system: Pursuant to the definitions of "9-1-1 service," "basic 9-1-1," and "enhanced 9-1-1," as used in R.C. 4931.40-.53, it is readily apparent that a countywide 9-1-1 system is a communications system whereby the public can request emergency service. The primary purpose of a countywide 9-1-1 sys­ tem is to dispatch the appropriate emergency service provider to a location. A countywide 9-1-1 system is not used to provide immediate field exchange of police, fire, and emergency medical services information between the county and other political subdivisions. Accordingly, because a countywide 9-1-1 system is not used to provide immediate field exchange of police, fire, and emergency medical services information between the county and other subdivisions, a countywide 9-1-1 system created and operated pursuant to 2-129 1999 Opinions OAG 99-018 RC. 4931.40-.53 is not a countywide public safety communications system, as defined by R.C. 307.63(A). The operation of a countywide 9-1-1 system thus is not dependent upon the simultaneous operation of a countywide public safety communications system. In addition, as determined above, R.C. 307.63 does not impose a mandatory duty upon a board of county commissioners to establish a countywide public safety communica­ tions system. Accordingly, a county that operates or proposes to operate a countywide 9-1-1 system is not required to establish a countywide public safety communications system. In conclusion, it is my opinion, and you are hereby advised as follows: 1. A board of county commissioners is not required to establish a county­ wide public safety communications system, as defined by R.C. 307.63(A). 2. A county that operates or proposes to operate a countywide 9-1-1 system pursuant to RC. 4931.40-.53 is not required to establish a countywide public safety communications system, as defined by RC. 307.63(A). March 1999