"It is irrelevant, if it  is a hand written copy of the meeting, then transferred to a ’typewriter’ copy, than china marker crossing off the names, than the ’Thermo-Fax’ copy of that made, which is sent on."

 I didn't think it needed to be this way but since it can be done it doesn't hurt to ask.  I sent your request as a copy/paste quote so the question came about.  I've never needed this information so I wasn't aware of how the transcripts are made.

"It is the Point, I want to see with my own eyes, employees, agreeing to limit their, freedom, in defending themselves, while at work, or in the, ‘work’, parking lot."

 They can defend themselves.  There is no policy that states they must allow crimes to be committed against them no matter how many times you say it, it is not true.  

 It is intentionally misleading to say people do not have the freedom to defend themselves.  Some might call that Spin.  There are limitations for instance they can not carry grenades, knives or skateboards on their person on company property.  They have the freedom to defend themselves, they also have the freedom to work elsewhere, they also have the freedom to try to change law, they have the freedom to try to change company policy.

 Employees didn't agree.  It is company policy, always has been, or at least has been documented in writing since 1939 that weapons can not be on company property.  The meeting is about the signage being put up which then prohibits by state law the concealed carry on company property.

 Other people are not responding to this forum, I am.  Only I am, other people are not formulating responses.  I indicated in another post that "In most cases" I do not read them myself.  As in with my eyes, but I do have them read to me, so I gain the information by hearing.

 I do not usually use another person to read or dictate, only occasionally.  They do not formulate a response on my behalf, they would type what I say.  They type my words, not theirs.

 My intention was to convey I do not follow people who post as I do not read the posts.  I listen to them.

Here's your problem with any dickhead being able to carry a gun...

https://tinyurl.com/florida-stand-your-ground-law

Here a known provocateur, that is someone who has taken it upon himself to police handicapped parking spots in the past, is mouthing off at a woman with a small child. He has a gun in his pocket.

A man comes out of the supermarket see some douché intimidating his wife, and pushes him to the ground. He's backing away and the man down pulls out a gun and kills him.

This is perfectly acceptable under the stand your ground law. Guns encourage anyone to be a Wild West hero, looking for outrages to defend. In this case the brave murderer was simply standing up for the rights of the handicapped.

 This is the transcript amended to remove names and it appears one section where the audio was not clear.  9 people were present, 7 were providing input on the topic.

:alright so we can move along
ur next issue is signs and I’m not sure why we have this on our agenda
:its an EIC (amended/corrected from “each eye see”) issue
:that’s right we had two or three activations last month?
:three in the past thirty days all related to guns pistols on staff and one visitor
:I didn’t know about a visitor
:me either
:security can you give us some in for on that?
:yeah PBX (amended/corrected from “pee be next”) initiated an EIC protocol after receiving a call from PD (amended/corrected from “peavey”) dispatch that they received a phone call from visitors in the surgical waiting area that there was a man with a gun under his jacket wandering around the area. He was verified to be a visitor and informed that his weapon was visible to the public and causing concern. He indicated he was within his right to carry and became moderately confrontational even though security staff was not asking him to leave or or put the gun in his car etcetera he demanded the names of the people who called security on him and at that time we initiated a safety response and began removing visitors to another area police arrived and talked to him he then agreed to leave his weapon in his vehicle [REDACTED] staff did not ask him to remove or further conceal the weapon it must have been done by PD
:this I assume isn’t the norm
:no
:how often is EIC activated for this type of thing
:a few times a year I have exact numbers available
:still its not
:we don’t I’m sorry go ahead
:I was just going to say its not the type of thing we should have to deal with regularly
:agreed we don’t need to be evacuating areas of the building because of this type of thing
:alright yeah so that’s one of the reasons why signage is in this meeting and not facilities slash safety
:the other about [REDACTED] right
:lets all be on the same page security or HR (amended/corrected from “acre”) want to cover that
k um mister [REDACTED] is the ex employee that had a gun in his um I guess what you day call a fanny pack or one of those belt pack things and he didn’t zip it up so patients and family would see it when he was treating them he was given a verbal counseling the first time without an issues or comments but then when it happened again he said it’s his second amendment right and that management cant infringe I think the word was on um
:we have the report available here, he stated management can not infringe on his second amendment rights and that he will be in contact with his lawyer we are an open carry state so his interpretation was we were violating his rights not allowing him to have his pack unzipped in the workplace
:right that sounds right um so after that he was terminated this was after extensive conversation about how many calls were made after people saw his gun and that one patient even transferred to [REDACTED]
:exactly the real issue isn’t the gun on property per see even though technically its violating the [REDACTED] safety in the workplace policy regarding weapons on sight the issue is that when people see the weapon on a credentialed caretaker taking care of their family member they request a change of facility and begin to file suit against us this has happened in the past it creates a lot of negative impact
:so what we are looking at is if our nursing or see //inaudible// (CNA assumed) staff are brandishing or whatever weapons then transfer to another provider and sue us
:yes
:looks like it
:also from a care side the patients often are dealing with dysphoria or dementia and think someone with a gun is in their house things like that
:right and we have the reports compiled from PBX and in [REDACTED] that shows the calls from scared patients to the main board that get transferred to security the numbers aren’t high but in all actuality that number should be zero
:well that’s an issue for sure we uh well we can’t do anything about visitors but we definitely can mitigate most of this with proper staff management.
:why are our employees carrying guns in here anyway
:uh you want to address that
:protection or exercising rights there’s a plethora of reasons
k but we have rules policy that’s not being followed
:that’s true but if someone is carrying a pocketknife here and it stays in their pocket then they may be in violation of policy but nobody knows it’s like sleeping on the job that’s against policy but it only applies if you get caught
:we also have discretion so each event does not require the exact same discipline procedure it’s not a zero tolerance policy
:alright alright we don’t need to get into motivations and the like let’s just stick to the signage issue and make a decision the proposal is to place no weapons allowed signs on each public access doorway to the main and satellite buildings and one on the ambulance bay doors
:that wont stop anyone
:nope
:that’s not the idea you are right these will have the same impact as say our no smoking signs that people stand under to smoke this is a mitigation step for legal actions against the hospital
:legal isn’t here we should have made sure they were brought in but we have some info from central office
:we can conference someone maybe
:no its ok we know we are being sued by two families the specifics aren’t important for a decision about putting up signs
:is this a fluke or have we had this before
:its happened before and not just a legal problem for us but the ah general response process is costly and we respond to this type of thing about six or seven times a year
:I have numbers here on the second page they are almost exclusively visitors or patients
k so we put up signs to say we did as part of our legal defense that’s the positive what are the negatives uh besides cost that’s incredibly low in contrast to legal cost even if nothing goes to trial we could put probably seven or eight thousand signs up for the cost of one lawyer on one case review
:I need to transfer to legal
:yeah me two
:so once we place signs nobody can conceal carry on property including parking lots and the lake hangar this includes employees
:how many employees are carrying guns to work?
:we don’t frisk people hear
:its not relevant to this topic so let’s just stick to the positive and negatives on the signage alone
:yeah so um nobody would be allowed to carry a weapon concealed on property according to state law the see are us is on the last page there
:so with the incident up at surge with the man carrying on with his gun visible we would then be in the right to ask him to leave or at least remove the weapon from the property
:yeah instead of having to move twenty visitors away from him and watching that explode on face book
:this is private property just to be clear we have the ability to ask people to remove weapons or anything else including themselves from the property
:well uh yeah yeah it’s just easier to have the signs and sight the law and a lot less likely to be sued that way
:agreed
:well how does that work exactly since we under suit be patients due to staff having a pistol but we already have the no weapons policy
:in both of the current lawsuits and if I remember right two in the past the lack of signage was present in the complainants case and as legal said that argument held a lot of ground it makes us look negligent or complacent to a jury
:look it’s not like we have metal detectors or actively search employees for weapons and we have no obligation to do that some people are going to carry weapons to work but if they expose that weapon there’s going to be consequences and now with signs on the doors part of [REDACTED] action or justification will include the state law directives
:so we are currently and historically dealing with a cost margin related to legal defense and a patient standard of care reduction due to forearms in the building and no incidents of a needed lethal level of force on the property by staff it seems clear to me that we should take steps to resolve the reoccurring problem then examine options for mitigating issues that well may never happen
:I don’t know how I feel about employees bringing guns to work
:well we can address that as a separate issue I don’t really care as long as they have the correct permit
:yeah if they have the license
:it’s a permit
:sure permit whatever it’s called then I’m fine with it
:I am too even though discharging a weapon in the building would be an absolute nightmare but whatever let’s just get the signs up
:state law removes our discretionary process so we can no longer allow carrying guns concealed or not once signs are up
:so it becomes zero tolerance
:no we still have certain levels of discretion but we can not just look the other way so to speak we must inform staff of the law and request they stop carrying instead of asking them to conceal better
:yeah yeah I sea
k so we have some impact on our staff and we might have some issue with an active shooter or similar but in contrast we have lost and may continue to lose court case if we don’t put up the signage does that some it up
:looks like it
:yeah
:definitely more imminence on the legal front
:are there any further comments or questions
:any further reports or documentation submitted for review
:no
:lets finish this up then so for the immediate implementation of no weapons allowed signage to be placed on all public doorways the ambulance bay and the hangar yay or knee
:yes
:yes
:I concur
:yes
:yeah
:lets do it
:yes
:yes
:you have to say yes or no for the thing
:yes
:alright so we go through who on this do we just let facilities know
:there’s an implementation process through the city
:the city
:yes there’s only so many square feet of signage allowed but this falls under public information so it won’t be an issue
:I will take care of it
:lets move on

END OF REPORT

"“…three in the past thirty days all related to guns pistols on staff and one visitor…”
A number of 7, vs 36, is quite the disparity."

 Three in the past thirty days does not mean three every thirty days.

 The notice of firearms in a semi-public building are not on a typical schedule as the public access is not limited or otherwise directed based on if they are carrying a weapon.  If 7 firearm related events happen in one day then there are 7 events in one year and 7 in one month, one week and one day.  

 If seven firearm specific events happen in 6 months there is still seven events in one year.  

"Sounds like, ‘anti-gun’, people are making the decisions."

 That is one person which in this amended transcript you could not tell, but even if we added the anti-gun questioning there are two.

 If we used the above calculation of a different person per response then there are 4 people that are ok with employees carrying firearms on property:

":well we can address that as a separate issue I don’t really care as long as they have the correct permit
:yeah if they have the license
:it’s a permit
:sure permit whatever it’s called then I’m fine with it
:I am too even though discharging a weapon in the building would be an absolute nightmare but whatever let’s just get the signs up"

 Why was the pro-gun section left out of the evaluation?

Eegore wrote on 07/26/18 at 14:59:08:

[ No.  I have never stated I had, would have, or could obtain this information.  To my knowledge nobody even spoke up about the signs that carried.

Your right, you never said you 'would send', you said: "... There is also a transcript of a brief section of a longer meeting with FEMA that touches on the subject for Joint Commission review, names would be redacted and only the section addressing facility signage would be made available. ..."

 Excerpt from the FEMA report:

Additional signage is to be considered "Public Notice" and not "Public Safety"
The aforementioned addition of weapon prohibition signs on REDACTED property consisting primarily of adhesive signage on doors or within 24 inches of doorways accessible to the public and facing the exterior are for public notification of REDACTED policy only.
There is to be no consideration of this change in any drill activity, including tabletop games due to the nature of the intent and applicability of the signage.

 This was approved, and furthermore shows what was stated in the original post.  The signs are not intended to reduce firearm presence on the property.  They never were considered a safety feature.

 The following selected quotes from this thread may indicate the same, even though they were not acknowledged:

1: The signs were not put up to discourage criminals but to mitigate future lawsuits.

2: I was aiming to indicate that no gun signs are most likely not intended to stop guns, or increase safety, or to physically protect anything, even though there seems to be that argument.

3: I was attempting to indicate that nobody has stated that they believe a sign will stop threats, guns or anything of that sort.  Nobody has stated thus far that they think a sign will stop crime.

4: That factual data being that zero firearm signs at this particular facility were put in place to deter crime, or increase safety in any capacity.

5: The signs were not put up to prevent crime or increase safety.

6: The capacity for a sign to assist in any way with the safety of staff or people onboard is 0% and this is the perception of staff who approved the signage to be placed on property.

7: In no way are no-firearm signs expected to work.  The signs ability to be effective in the directive posted on them is 0%.

8: Even if the position of staff was to use signage to force staff members to leave it would still not change the fact that the signs were never meant to reduce crime or increase safety.

9: What I have is information stating that the decision to implement signs was due to lawsuit mitigation and not safety concerns.

10: Zero percent of the assessment process is directed towards safety.