Those are five-second delay.

Okay.

Good morning.

It's Tuesday, May 26th, 2026.

It's approximately 10:05 a.m.

This is a disciplinary appeal hearing in the matter of Milwaukee Fire Department member Todd Christensen addressing the Milwaukee Fire Department complaint dated February 4th, 2026.

My name is David Feiss.

I'm the hearing examiner presiding over this matter.

The fire and police commissioners who are serving on the hearing panel are on this uh hearing panel are Commissioner Chrissy Fung, Ruben Burgos, and Breeze Spencer.

I think what I'd like to do is I'm going to take appearances and then we'll go to the stipulation.

So if I could have appearances, please.

Good morning, here in Examiner Commissioner's Assistant City Attorney Catherine Hudley appearing on behalf of the fire chief lipski.

Good morning.

Prior to the initiation of the hearing today, we did have two pretrial hearings in this matter.

At the last of which, at the first of which, Mr.

Christensen indicated that he did intend to uh or wish to enter a stipulation with regards to phase one of this matter.

He subsequently attained attorney retko and a stipulation has been reached with regard to phase one of this matter at the final pretrial hearing.

I did address uh Captain Christensen to determine that his decision to enter into the stipulation with regard to phase one was made freely voluntarily and intelligently, and we did accept that, and that uh has been entered.

And so at this point, I am going to read the stipulation into the record that uh will satisfy the requirements of phase one.

After that, we'll commence the hearing with regards to phase two only.

So the stipulation reads as follows.

One, Todd A.

Christensen began employment with the department in 1999 as a firefighter and was promoted to captain on January 10th, 2024.

As a captain, appellant was in part responsible for supervising and coordinating company personnel in fire medical emergency and other emergency incidents, as well as supervising company personnel in quarters, ensuring that all members are performing their duties appropriately.

At all times relevant, he was assigned to Station 31 Blue Shift.

3.

On September 18th, 2025, Battalion Chief Jeffrey Lang was making rounds and was on his way to station 31 when he heard a call coming across the radio indicating that engine 31 and MED 15 were dispatched to a quote trouble breathing, trouble breathing unquote run.

Battalion Chief Lang decided to stop by station 31 to drop off mail, and when he arrived at station one, he discovered that engine 31 crew, including appellant, was still at quarters.

Five, later in the shift, when MED 15 was back at quarters.

Lang documented the incident in a form 105 memoranda to his superior officers.

From that report, assistant chief of administration Joshua Parrish and fire compliance officer Deanna Perez conducted an investigation to determine if the September 18th, 2025 incident was a one-time occurrence, or if it had been more frequent.

The investigation included that while appellant was captain, engine 31 failed to respond to a total of seven medical runs.

A.

At 11 44 a.m.

on March 22nd, 2025 for a sexual assault slash stun gun injury.

B.

At 6.41 p.m.

on June 8th, 2025 for an advanced life support call.

C.

At 1031 a.m.

on June 17th, 2025 for a trouble breathing call.

D, at 1125 a.m.

on July 8th, 2025 for a sick person call.

E.

At 5.09 p.m.

on August 7th, 2025 for an abdominal pain call.

F.

At 1042 a.m.

on August 16th, 2025 for a sick person under two years old call.

And G, at 10.50 a.m.

on September 18, 2025 for a trouble breathing call.

7.

During the investigation, appellant recognized that there was no reason for engine 31 or appellant should have not responded to the enumerated calls, and he admitted that he was not fulfilling his job duties as captain by allowing members under his command to not go on dispatched calls.

8.

The party stipulates that due to his actions, appellant violated MFD rules, code of contact, code of conduct, core values, guiding principles, and numbered notices, specifically a rule 1, general job distriction.

B.

Rule 6, fire captain.

Rule C Rule 6.1 command.

D.

Rule 6.2 duties.

E.

Rule 16.2 emergency responses operations at alarms.

F.

17.2 company journal.

G.

Rule 20.1 laws, ordinances, Milwaukee Fire Department Code of Conduct, Rules, Regulations, Notices, Orders, etc.

H.

Rule 20.2 General Conduct.

I, Rule 20.3, conduct of officers and supervisors.

J.

Rule 20.4 orders.

K.

Rule 20.6 Private Business.

L.

Rule 22.7, hours of duty duty assignment.

M.

Rule 23.2, failure to perform duties.

N.

Rule 23.3.

Personal work business on department time.

O.

Rule 23.5, doubt of rules.

P.

Rule 25.3, unexcused absence from duty, less than two hours.

Q.

Code of Conduct Mission Statement.

R.

Core Value Courage 1, 2, and 3.

S.

Core Value Integrity 123 6, 9, and 10.

T.

Core Value Honor 1 and 2.

U.

Guiding Principle Competence 1, 2, 3, and 4.

V.

Guiding Principle Accountability 1, 2, and 3.

W.

Guiding Principal Leadership 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

X.

Expectations of the Milwaukee Fire Department Company Officer revised May 2015.

9.

The parties agree that the chief of fire can, by preponderance of evidence, establish the first five just cause factors as indicated in Wisconsin Statute 62.50 per end 17 pren B.

1.

Whether the subordinate could reasonably expect it to have had knowledge of the probable consequences of the alleged conduct.

2.

Whether the rule or order that the subordinate allegedly violated is reasonable.

3.

Whether the chief before filing the charge against the subordinate made a reasonable effort to discover whether the subordinate did in fact violate a rule or order.

4.

Whether the effort described under sub 3 was fair and objective.

And 5.

Whether the chiefs discovered substantial evidence that the subordinate violated the rule or order as described in the charges filed against the support.

10.

Parties agree that the only issue before the fire and police commission is whether the good of the service requires the appellant remain permanently discharged from the department in accordance with Wisconsin statute 62.50 per end 17 print A and will limit testimony to the 6th and 7th just factors, just cause factor in Wisconsin statute section 62.50 per end 17 PREN B.

6.

Six, whether the chief is applying the rule or order fairly and without discrimination against the subordinate.

And seven, whether the proposed discipline reasonably relates to the seriousness of the alleged violation and to the subordinate's record of service with the chief's department.

We'll now begin addressing phase two issues only in these proceedings.

We've already taken appearances.

Are there any additional matters that the parties wish to address before we move to opening statements?

No.

All right.

Um I'll give the both sides an opportunity to present opening statements.

Um, you have the option of making an open statement.

It's not required, but if you'd like to do so, you may proceed.

Good morning.

Thank you, hearing examiner.

I'll make this brief.

Good morning, commissioners and hearing examiner.

I appreciate everyone's time being here.

Essentially, what this case comes down to is trust.

And that is a theme that I want you to keep in your heads as you hear testimony today from Assistant Chief Parrish, from the appellant Mr.

Christensen, and from the other witnesses on Mr.

Christensen's behalf.

What you are tasked with doing is determining whether the good of the service for the good of the service, the uh appellant remain discharged from the department.

And I submit to you the evidence that you will hear today establishes that the trust that the department in the city had put into Mr.

Christianson has been irrevocably damaged by his conduct, as you have just heard from the hearing examiner, and as you will likely hear from the uh the appellant himself as to his admittance to violating of these series uh rules.

With this, what I anticipate you hearing is you hearing uh evidence from Chief Parrish as to what the evidence uh shook out during the investigation, the determination and the weighing of that evidence in terms of what best caught what best way forward for the department we should go, and the outcome from that determination, which was that the chief just cannot trust uh Mr.

Christensen to fulfill the job duties of captain or quite frankly any role within his department, and as a result of that, the chief made the ultimate determination, not lightly, under very serious circumstances, made the ultimate determination that Mr.

Christensen is no longer fit for duty because he cannot be trusted to perform essential functions of the role of captain, lieutenant, HEO, or quite frankly, firefighter, and at that um the determination as I indicated was the only way forward was to discharge this particular individual.

The chief recognizes that Mr.

Christianson has a long history with the department and did not again take this discrimination lightly, but weighed that appropriately against the seriousness of the charges that he was facing that he ultimately admitted to, and uh in so doing determined that the best cause forward would be to discharge this particular officer or this particular fire um member.

At that, um, I like I indicated to you, trust is the key here.

Um, trust year was broken, and with that, I will um end my opening statement and turn over the floor to um counsel.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Retco, do you stop for an opening statement?

Yes, thank you.

Good morning.

You're gonna learn today that Captain Christianson has had a long history with the Milwaukee Fire Department.

You're also gonna learn that he has saved multiple citizen lives over the years by going into fire, or unkeep a lot of fire, saving people and shooting incidents, being shot at himself, actually.

Uh, you're gonna learn that Mr.

Christianson has gone above and beyond his role in his 27 years as a firefighter as a lieutenant and captain with the fire department, above and beyond what people normally do.

You're also gonna learn that as part of his family that his father was a member of the Milwaukee fire department for years, also.

You're gonna learn that Captain Christians also teach us multiple people in the explorer program to become firefighters, is contributed greatly to this department.

You're gonna find out that his disciplinary record with the department is hardly anything in it.

The only thing in it that you'll see is that he was late to work once.

He wrote himself up for being late, seven minutes late, and that was something that after six months went away, and it's not something that is part of his disciplinary process.

So he has no part of discipline per se.

This is it, and you're gonna find out that uh the circumstances about how this arose are incredible, that he was able to work the entire time the investigation was going on, and you're gonna find out that there's some other events toward the end of his investigate part of the time on with the fire department that are suspect.

So he has PTSD, and you're gonna find out that that plays a part of this role.

So the main thing that you need to consider is this ruling fair and without discrimination.

Number one.

Number two, does the discipline reasonably relate to the seriousness of the alleged violations?

And the subordinate's record of service with this department.

And that there was no prior discipline, and that even though the chiefs claim he has lost trust, that does not mean that Christians could not perform some position in the parking department.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um at this point, we're ready to begin calling witnesses.

Thank you.

Thank you, hearing examiner.

At this time, the chief would call assistant fire chief Josh Parrish.

Joshua Parrish.

Raise your right hand.

Sir, if you solemnly swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you God are under the pain and penalty of perjury.

We please have a seat, adjust the microphone, um, tell us your name and spell your first and last name for the record.

Sure.

Joshua Parrish, J-O-S-H-U-A, P-A-R-I-S-H.

Go ahead, Ms.

Hidley.

Thank you, hearing examiner.

Good morning, Assistant Chief Parrish.

And I know the hearing examiner did tell you this, but I will tell you to speak clearly and loudly into the microphone because we are being recorded and we don't want Channel 25 to ring us saying that we weren't being loud enough.

Message received.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

I'm a hand talker, I don't want to.

Okay.

Uh I know you already said your name and how to spell it.

Can you go ahead and identify for me how you are employed?

Absolutely.

I am the assistant chief of the support bureau for the Milwaukee Fire Department.

And how long have you been as uh in that current rank?

I've been in this current rank as an assistant chief for the past three years.

Okay.

Prior to that, can I safely presume that you were a member of the Milwaukee Fire Department?

Yes, I've been a member of the Milwaukee Fire Department for the past 26 years.

Can you outline for me your history with the department?

Absolutely.

I started my career as a fire cadet in 1999, graduated the cadet program, spent uh about two years on a truck company.

Following that, I went to uh back to school to become a paramedic.

I promoted through the ranks as a lieutenant, uh, a captain as a battalion chief, and then as a deputy chief before making assistant chief.

I've been the assistant chief of uh two bureaus prior to this.

I was the assistant chief in charge of the Betty, which is the Bureau of EMS training education, and then I currently uh serve as the assistant chief of the support bureau.

Okay, um, as a as the rather assistant chief for the support bureau.

Um, can you identify me for me?

Can you identify for me generally what your duties are?

Absolutely.

Um I oversee the uh technical services division.

Sorry, the technical services division, uh, the construction and maintenance division, um, human resources, budget and finance.

I also do intergovernmental operations.

I am the records custodian for the department, and then I also oversee the uh discipline uh as well as the interactions with the union.

Okay.

With respect to your handling of disciplines generally speaking, can you identify for me what that looks like?

Absolutely.

Um, so when items come to our attention, be it through an internal process, uh, community complaints, whatever that may be.

Um, we then evaluate those situations, we'll uh review the evidence uh or the complaint that was received, review the evidence, um, interview subjects, witnesses, um, gather whatever relevant information that may be appropriate to the particular incident.

Um, then we decide if it's appropriate to uh drop charges and then what our next step should be.

Generally, when I look at um items that may result in discipline or complaints, uh I review kind of three items.

I will readily admit I stole this from a chief in uh in Oakland, California.

Um he, you know, he essentially said you need to look at and understand our people, were the people able to do what you ask them to do, were they do they know what to do?

And then after that, you're kind of left with you know, were they willing to do what should have been done?

And then in that crux of uh of three items, then we move forward with whatever the next step would be, whether that's charges or remediation.

Okay, and if the determination is to present charges, can you define or describe for me generally what that process looks like?

Absolutely.

So in presenting charges, uh, I'll review the rule book, the job description, um, our code of conduct, the relevant documents that provide guidance to our members to do whatever the thing is that we're reviewing.

Um sometimes it'll also include um emergency medical services SOGs, so it may even be items that fall outside of the department um authorship because our medical direction comes from uh a county physician and so on and so forth.

So we review all those items um and then we identify the items that uh were violated or you know weren't gone through for whatever reason.

Uh after we do that, we normally will um present that along with a summary to the individual, and then uh if discipline is warranted, then we present that discipline to those individuals as well as the fire chief.

Okay.

Um can you describe for me, Jenna?

Basically, I want to break that down a little bit.

When you provide the charges to the member, can you describe for me what that process looks like?

Absolutely.

So when we're providing the charges to the member, it is as collaborative of a process that it could possibly be.

We'll sit down with the individual in a room, we review all the items that were violated, as well as a summary of uh the situation that occurred.

That individual is normally there with their union representative as well, and we'll actually ask them if there are any mistakes or omissions.

So uh that process is actually um taken into account to make sure that we've gotten all the facts straight.

We do occasionally get corrections, word, grammars, will amend those prior to having the individual sign them, so that the document that the individual is signing with the charges and the summary is something that both the administration and the individual have conceded to be accurate.

Okay.

After the individual is presented with charges, what happens next?

After they're presented with charges, there is a term to appeal those charges to the fire chief.

Um individuals have seven days in which to do so.

If they once again believe there's an omission or an you know an error, the chief will entertain those discussions.

Um after that term is over, then we prefer a penalty.

Okay.

And can you describe for me how you prefer a penalty?

So looking at what was done, um, once again, those three factors that I'm thinking of.

Um, did they know?

Were they able to, were there was there willingness and the ability to perform?

Um, we then review what would be appropriate for that individual in terms of a penalty and remediation, or sometimes both.

Um those items are then once again preferred to the individual, review them, they sign and concede to it, um, and then penalties that are in excess of three days, individuals have the ability to appeal that to the fire and police commission as well.

And I hear a lot of we's in your testimony.

Can you describe for me who we is with that?

So normally it's myself, our fire compliance officer, a representative from the union, and then the member that is being charged.

Do you present these in how do you present this information?

Or as I'll say, back, do you present this information to the chief?

Yes, the chief normally receives a or always receives a copy of uh both the charges and the discipline.

Um normally it's a summary because uh investigations can be very long and very broad.

So we're presenting a written summary to the chief for his review.

And after the chief reviews it, what happens next?

So after the chief uh reviews charges, as I mentioned, uh we then prefer that penalty.

Um after the penalty appeal term has expired, then we'll also prefer a copy of that penalty to the chief as well.

Um, and then those are assigned and then present it back to the member.

Okay.

Do you know in taking into account um you indicated the is the main member able to?

Does the member know what to do?

Is the member willing to do what they're supposed to be doing in rendering a decision or in taking into account uh making a uh an offer to or making a suggestion to the chief.

Do you take into account at all the members' history with the department?

Yes, the history is definitely taken care of taken into account um in both phases.

The history can be a direct reflection of uh those first two if they in fact knew what they were supposed to do.

We're looking to see how you've done that in the past.

Have you successfully uh complied with the rule in whatever situation is most appropriate?

Understanding some of our situations are highly stressful, highly dynamic.

So we're looking at that as well.

Um, if you are, you know, able, once again, um, you know, we've balanced those two out, um, just not wanting to do something, and you know it's the right thing to do, and you've performed that uh, you know, at that level in the past, is probably the most egregious of the you know of the three items.

Do you take into account uh individuals' discipline history and uh determining discipline generally?

Yes.

Um I will say that I don't get many repeat customers um when it comes to discipline, but we're absolutely reviewing to see has a member violated the same thing um in a previous time, and then understand that discipline is also progressive, so a second uh discipline for the same item would be more severe than the first.

Can you describe for me generally why that's the process you follow?

So I think it comes to a few different things.

Um one, it's something that I've been trained in doing.

Uh I have uh I've definitely reviewed different ways to apply discipline.

Um I have a background in human behavior, so I'm always looking to see you know, can we modify behaviors not just for the individual but also for the agency to produce positive outcomes?

The three-step process that I got from the other chief, I find to be really, really appropriate and equitable, to be perfectly honest with you.

There do uh there do happen upon me times where somebody just didn't know a thing, or there hasn't been the appropriate uh cultural inject for a given behavior.

So we're always mindful of that as well, especially as a member of administration.

We do want our members to be successful, and we want them to provide service that our customers feel is exceptional and extraordinary.

Um, and then the last item is uh I've actually been trained in restorative justice.

I think it's a fascinating concept and practice.

So we do want to make sure that um, you know, when I can bring those concepts in, I am, and I think that goes a lot to also talking about um, you know, the degree of harm and then individuals that either were or could have been harmed for an action.

So I'm always looking to figure out what the balance of that is um before we you know prefected discipline on an individual.

Can you describe for me, please, how this particular attention came to the attention of the uh MFD administration?

So as was previously mentioned in the summary, uh there was a battalion chief who was doing rounds.

He was uh doing rounds is part of the morning dues for every battalion chief.

So essentially you drive around to the five or six houses in your battalion, you deliver mail, check in with individuals, see if there's any items that you need to relate or so on and so forth.

It's a daily check-in that the managerial staff has with the crews that does not involve an emergency response.

So uh battalion chief Lane Lang had heard the companies go out on a call, so the radio every time there's a call, it's called a car 300, and then a car 300.

So what happens on a car 300 is the dispatcher says who's going, where they're going, and generally what they're going for.

So you can hear on the radio the crews going out.

That's not our primary method of dispatch, it's a cultural thing that we do for the radio system.

So he heard engine 31 and the med unit going out for a call.

Um, he was gonna skip the firehouse, but it's because nobody was there, to his belief, but decided to drop off the mail anyway.

So he opens the front door, and then he discovered Engine 31 uh was still in the firehouse with the crew.

Um, and he then you know did his uh and it really initiated an investigation per his um per his understanding, he was just shocked.

It took him a second to wrap his brain around what was actually happening.

Talked to one of his uh peers about, you know, what his next step should be uh later on that day, gathered the crew, told them that this was unacceptable, and then initiated documentation and kicked that we call up the chain of command, which ultimately ended at my office.

And when you received you wanna go ahead, you should have a stack of exhibits in front of you.

Um can you turn please to exhibit number two, which should be in the upper right hand corner color, I think it's blue.

Um for the record, that's gonna be Bates labeled pages uh Christian FPC Christensen 52 and 53.

Um for our commissioners, it is a double sided document.

We do try to preserve paper when possible.

So and just for purposes of the record, this uh can you identify for me what this is?

This is a Form 105 from Battalion Chief Jeffrey Lang.

Is this the the document that you were referring to of him kicking it up the chain?

Yes.

Okay.

And when you received this document, um, can you describe for me your next steps?

Absolutely.

Um this was I'd never heard of anything like this before.

So this was a it was shocking to me as well.

Uh following receiving this, we initiated our investigation.

We began uh speaking to members who were at the station to figure out what the frequency and severity of this uh specific violation was, which then led to a pretty extensive uh data research project um to identify how many times it occurred per the um per Captain Christians and Lieutenant Bushman's account, um, they were giving different numbers to the frequency at which they had done this.

So we had to do some investigation to uh identify what that exact number was and then uh how often this had occurred.

Now I don't want you to get into the specifics because I recall just how complicated your math skills were to get there.

Um can you identify for me how long it took you to conduct the investigation?

It was months.

Um, so for context, the average vehicle every time they go on a response because we had to review the actual response data from the vehicle.

So it's about 30 or 40,000 rows of data for every vehicle during the time frame that we were looking at.

We also conducted interviews with everybody that was there at the time, and then everybody that we believed to have been a part of any response that was willfully not attended to.

Um, and then we also had to separate those from the responses that were appropriate for a unit not to go on.

So uh case in point, if you're sent to a response and there's a closer unit, then you a closer unit.

Yeah.

So we have GPS on the vehicles.

Sometimes somebody's out shopping, the GPS isn't working for whatever reason.

So there are also responses that you cancel that you don't respond to that's appropriate.

So we had to separate all of that out to figure out what was um pursuant to this particular violation.

Okay.

Um, can you describe for me during those months as you indicated, um, was uh any member of how of 31 uh blue shift um put on any kind of suspension or admin leave pending the investigation?

No, we uh decided to have all the members remain in their positions at the time.

Okay, and can you tell me why you decided to do that?

So it was a kind of a twofold decision.

Um, one, we realized that once we identified the inappropriate behavior, um, that the likelihood of them continuing this was slim to none.

Um it also allowed us to complete our investigation without um I would say further disrupting that you know particular system, and then since they were all the members that we discovered who were all there at the time, since they were all still there together, we enabled us to bring them in as necessary to do initial and follow-up interviews.

Can you turn now for me in your exhibit pile to exhibit number one?

Again, that should be the first one, obviously.

Uh, basically both pages, uh, FPC Christensen 30 through FPC Christianson 550.

Let me know when that's in front of you.

Um, sure, it's certainly one.

First one, okay.

Is this a part of your investigation that um you uh conducted?

Yes.

Okay, can you describe for me what this document specifically is?

This is a summary of the investigation that myself and fire compliance officer uh Perez completed.

Um it has a uh summation of the allegation, the items that we examined as a part of our investigation, um, and then also summaries of the interviews with each individual that we interviewed as a part of the investigation.

Um this includes individuals who were stationed at station 31.

It includes everybody who was in the chain of command for all of those individuals at station 31.

It also includes a few individuals who were working on off days that we also identified hadn't responded to responses but were unknowing of um that they had violated a rule in not responding to those response.

Once again, like I said, sometimes it's appropriate to not respond to a response.

Um so if you're given a direction that dispatches called you off by a superior officer, that's not something anybody would ever doubt.

Um it also has a brief synopsis of every response that every person that was charged didn't go to, and then what the what the context was or the situation was around that particular response, and then also follow-up interviews and then the details thereof if we had questions or follow up with anybody is all contained in this document.

Okay, ultimately, um, how many times did you interview Mr.

Christensen with respect to these charges?

Go ahead.

And then there were a few follow-up communications by way of his unique representative.

So there was the initial interview uh where we took his initial statement.

There was a follow-up interview where we identified all of the runs that we believed him to have not attended.

We then began that iterative process to say if there are any mistakes here, um, if I should put on a different path, but I must let us know.

Uh, there was some concerns from Captain Christians at the time.

So then we went back and looked and reviewed at or reviewed whatever data that we had to support those.

Um none of those when we did a now third review, none of those appeared to be an error.

We communicated back with the union that we didn't believe any of these to be an error.

If he'd like to come in again, um, we would happy to happily do that.

Um he said no thank you, conceded to those, and then that was that.

So at least two, but there was some back and forth in the union.

Understood.

And and both of those interviews, did Mr.

Christensen have a union representative present?

Yes.

Always.

Okay.

Ultimately, um, can you tell me what uh discipline was imposed upon the members of Blue Shift on 31?

You don't have to get into specifics, but can you identify generally for me what happened with that?

Absolutely.

There were there was a combination of terminations, suspensions, and reprimands for all of the members that were directly involved.

And how did you and the chief come up with how discipline should be imposed?

So on the this was a very complicated thing because you had different members with different levels of seniority and experience and different levels of awareness of the cultural nuance of what isn't isn't acceptable on the job.

So I actually made a table because I am that big of a nerd.

So the table in the very back has every rule that everybody uh could have violated, and then which individuals violated which rules, and then the table actually is ascending, descending by rank as well.

So then we I charted it all out and then you know went through the severity of the infractions, keeping in mind the level of responsibility of each individual involved, and then also the duration of time they've spent with the department, which is a direct quantitative reflection of how often they've done the right thing, referring now specifically to the charges imposed by the chief onto Mr.

Christensen here.

Can you describe for me?

And if I'll I'll turn your attention to exhibits three, which is basically both pages uh FPC Christensen 22 through FPC Christianson 29.

Get that in front of you.

Walking through those enumerated list of rule or uh code of conduct infractions, can you describe for me what these rules are supposed to be for?

The rules that are laid out here and really all of our rules are guidance with which to go forward to perform your duties, whether that's on emergency response in the firehouse or interacting generally with the public.

Uh the rules range from the general job description, which is to you know respond to responses and render aid or provide emergency services to the citizens of Milwaukee, onto the actual job description of a fire captain, which is generally means you're responsible for that firehouse and all the members they're in, and then it proceeds through there uh to go to what the duties are when you're responding to alarms, keeping records in the firehouse, um, general conduct, the responsibility of officers and supervisors, how to give appropriate orders, doing private business.

Um, of note when Chief Lang walked into the firehouse, he saw HEO Hart changing the oil on his car, and then H.E.O.

Hart indicated that he was going to also change the oil on Captain Christensen's car.

So while he was for that specific instance, while they were not in a response, um, the driver of the apparatus was in the firehouse change or not in the viral changing oil, he was doing it, I believe, on the side alley.

Um, the hours in duty of assignment, I believe we also have in here the unexcused absence from duty uh less than two hours, which seems kind of nuanced, but that's actually the rule that says that you have to go to responses, so not going to a response is considered being a wall.

Um, and then it goes into our code of our code of conduct, um, which has sections courage, integrity, honor, confidence.

These are general guidelines that say like do the right thing when nobody's watching, be responsible, you know, act appropriately in the firehouse in the public on responses and so on and so forth.

Um, it sounds to me that these are critical functions of the fire department.

Is that a fair assessment?

More than fair, yes, after you reviewed the data, determined how many runs Mr.

Christensen did not go on willingly, had the ability to, and did not go knowingly in violation of rules.

What did you do next?

So after we reviewed the data, uh that well, we did a few things on the back end.

We then reviewed our computer systems to make sure that um we had a way to identify this.

Functionally, what happens is there's a we discover there's a way to basically cheat the computer system uh to make the computer think you're going on calls when you're not.

So we addressed that and then we went to the uh to the step of prefecting the appropriate penalties for these violations.

And just to be clear, um, the fix that you were just referring to means that no other member of the department in the future can get away with activities like this?

We would be able to identify it much much sooner.

Um excuse me.

At any point in time, did you take a look after you perfected the charges to the chief uh as to what Mr.

Christensen's record of service was?

Uh yes, we did a quick pace through his personnel file to see if there's anything similar like this.

Okay.

Um, did you note in his personnel file any kind of meritorious awards or anything like that?

Not specifically that I recall, no.

Okay.

Um if you had seen them, would that have changed your calculus?

No, it wouldn't have.

Okay.

Um, can you describe for me or can you identify for me specifically what Mr.

Christensen's uh level of discipline was?

Termination.

Okay.

Can you describe for me why discharge was the appropriate case here?

So for this specific act, we terminated three people.

We uh identify that that was appropriate for anybody that was in a command capacity.

Uh, this so basically your your fundamental decision makers that are doing the work, and then we also terminated the HEO, the heavy equipment operator, whose responsibility it was to drive the engine to the calls.

That was deemed appropriate looking at the severity and the frequency of what occurred here, understanding that the subordinates in a firehouse do what their company officers tell them to do.

They do whatever that cultural nuances in the firehouse as that is shown to them to be appropriate.

They will then follow suit.

And ultimately, the a lieutenant or a captain both function as company officers.

Uh, they have the ability to order their members to do or to do the right thing.

And in this case, their members were told to do the wrong thing.

Uh Captain Christensen uh specifically told his company that they did not have to go on the responses indicated.

Um we also identified that for the junior most member of that um of that crew, he thought this was a normal and acceptable thing.

So uh the captain was definitely setting a culture that this was appropriate in some way, shape, or form, um, which is why we elected discharge for him.

Okay.

Does the fact that Mr.

Christensen uh does the fact that Mr.

Christensen previously saved people while on the job matter with respect to his discharge here?

Not for this scenario, no.

Can you tell me why?

The frequency at which this occurred and the duration at which this occurred does not show that um does not show that there was I didn't even want to say bravery, I would say the the level of competence and the appropriateness to do these fundamental parts of the job while it is, while it's a really cool and like nuanced thing to be able to go into a burning building and like drag somebody out, and that is awesome, and there's a lot of respect for doing that work.

There's also a requirement to do the things that are less glitzy and glammy.

There's a requirement to go out on every response all the time and treat every citizen with respect, um, and then to function with that exact same amount of bravery and commitment that you wouldn't pull somebody out from a building to use that exact same energy on a trouble breathing call to use that exact same energy for allergic reaction um that is the standard expectation of all of our members so one does not balance out or offset the other um they are all a part of the job and I would expect all 800 people in our ploy to do both with the exact same amount of intensity and um and integrity and that didn't occur.

Was the fact that Mr Christensen has family members who also engaged in fire service a factor that you weighed into here no why not the the legacy of anyone really isn't a uh a part of the consideration of what we'd expect for them to do the job quite the contrary uh if you know if you have that family expectation of service that service should be universal for all several thousand responses that people go on for the duration of the career um it is not a routine practice that we're taking people's you know familial connections into account when it comes to discipline especially if it's not relevant to the discipline uh those things are all separate and distinct from the items that we're judging.

And the fact that uh Mr.

Christensen you know participated in the junior cadet program or did uh myriad other things to help promote MFD was that taken into consideration when rendering discipline here no I was also a fire cadet um it's how I started out my career as a fire department or my career in the fire department um and once again the expectation was you respond on calls and you do so um with the amount of respect and dig dignity that all of our you know all of our callers you know require um the other things that we participate in are a additional reflection on what we should be showing the community but they're not a replacement for doing the core central functions of the job.

At this time is there anything else that you'd like to add um for the commissioners to take into consideration.

I think in weighing this situation it really comes down to one of the core essentials of our job and that is the tones come off you go to the call it is pretty simple what that responsibility is.

And barring a reason not to that is what is generally expected of everybody in the fire service um the other component here is that you know normally if there's something awry we have a system that defaults to figuring out what's wrong and that you know minute or two ish when we're trying to figure things out the fact that um you know somebody was pushing buttons in the in the vehicle to make the uh computer think that that vehicle's responding um adds an extra level of you know of inappropriateness to this wasn't I forgot to go on a call this wasn't the radio didn't work um this was willful omission of somebody's responsibilities to respond when the public calls us thank you at this point in time no further questions cross examination yes thank you so much can you go back to each other one yes this is the beginning of the engine 31 collision investigation summary based on battalion key playing the middle of documentation of protocol negro just about on September 24 2025 for step on September 18th 2025 right yes and turning to page 49 exhibit one very top, it lists several members of the Milwaukee fire department with recommended disciplines because of the investigation and the events of September 18th, right?

Yes.

And it identifies that Captain Christensen was the was not the only one who was recommended for termination, correct?

Correct, or considered, I would say.

In fact, there were four other or three other peers.

Well, four other persons that have termination extra name, correct?

Besides Captain Christensen?

That is accurate.

To degree no one else has been terminated, correct?

Other than Captain Christiansen.

That is not correct.

Who else was terminated, sir?

Lieutenant Justin Bushman was terminated and H.E.O.

Brandon Hart was terminated.

And the other two people you have reduced termination to what exactly?

Uh firefighter Correa received suspension, and Firefighter Mazir also received several suspension days.

Lieutenant Bushman entered into a uh appeal agreement with the MFDS.

He did receive his job back after being terminated.

He did the C, yes.

In fact, uh HEO Brandon Hart also received this job back, correct?

Yes.

Through the uh same process, they uh the union reached out to us through their attorney to initiate a appeal following their terminations.

They didn't have to go through an FDC hearing to get their job back, did they?

No, they did not.

The uh the appeal was initiated by their uh by the union's attorney.

And the department just agreed to give them their jobs back short of having to go through a hearing, correct?

I wouldn't say just agreed.

I would say that uh there was an iterative process as a part of that appeal that uh that led to some additional pretty severe discipline as well as them receiving their positions back.

And what was the discipline that Lieutenant Bushman actually received?

I would have to look that up.

It was dozens of suspension days and a demotion and a last chance agreement.

I'd have to refer to the records, but it was substantial.

And what was uh HEO Brandon Hart's actual discipline that he actually received that?

Similar.

To motions plus a suspension, plus a last chance agreement.

Um, plus I'm recalling correctly, there is a prohibition on overtime, there's a prohibition on um special duty mandates, there's a prohibition on I mean it's it was a pretty dense document, but yes, it is not, it was not just suspension, um both of them are firefighters now.

So it was also demotion back to the base rank.

And none of that was ever offered to Captain Christensen, although it was offered to Lieutenant Kushma and HEO Brandon Hart.

Um so there the union attorney bought some of those items to us, so I don't know what conversation Captain Christensen had with the Union attorney.

None the less the city, the fire department has not offered those same terms to Captain Christensen, correct?

Objection S and answered.

Overall, you can answer.

Um we didn't offer any of the the items that were spoken to for the suspension.

We didn't offer those to either the individuals that came.

I believe those were on the first volley from uh from the union's attorney.

That we didn't offer those to Captain Christensen?

No.

No, no, no suspension days were offered to Captain Christensen.

And didn't even offer him a chance for promotion, correct?

No, we offered the three individuals that we mentioned.

Those individuals were terminated when we brought them in as a part of their charges.

In fact, Captain Christensen has contributed 27 years of hard work for the Milwaukee Fire Department, correct?

Uh he was employee for the duration that you see.

I'd have to look to his actual uh date of appointment.

Uh like we returned to exhibit three now.

In particular, you agree that three is basically the charges that you would have issued on Captain Christensen and turning to the last page, page 29.

Looks like that uh that was received by actually you signed it on December 5th, 2025?

Yes.

And that was uh even though the uh original investigation began on September 24th, 2025, right?

The date of Mr.

Lang's.

Yes, it was either that day or the very next day that we initiated our investigation.

And at no time between September 24th through December 5th was Captain Christensen removed from his normal duties as captain, correct?

No, we did not suspend him during the investigation.

That is accurate.

Then in fact, Captain Christensen did not have any of his duties removed at any time before you actually terminated him in February 2026, correct?

That would be accurate.

So you'd agree Captain Christensen was needed for the contribution, he provided doing his job as a captain, correct?

Could you repeat the question?

I'm sorry.

You would agree that Captain Christensen was needed by the Milwaukee Fire Department for his contributions as a fire captain during that time period from September 24th up to February 3rd of 2026, correct?

I would agree that we allowed him to remain employed for that period of time uh during the investigation to be perfectly honest when we remove somebody, we promote another person.

So it's not like as a captain he's working every day at the station.

He's there every third day.

So I would say that I did elect to not suspend him during the investigation, but upon termination he was replaced.

And you'd also agree that uh no other issues arose from Captain Christensen's performance after September 18th, 2024, when these allegations of what took place on that date took place, right?

To the best of our understanding, there were no more responses that um Mr.

Christensen, you know, pushed the buttons and overtly not went to during the term of our investigation.

You'd also agree that Captain Christians was originally notified on February 2nd, 2026 by Diana Perez that he was to report to administration in his personal vehicle at the end of his shift on February 3rd, 7 30 or February 5th at 7 30 a.m.

Correct.

That's uh I don't know February 5th, it might be the fourth.

I would have to double check my records.

We're gonna show you uh something maybe this will.

Ah, okay.

So the this is when we were going to bring somebody in for termination.

He actually signed the papers on the fourth.

Uh, if I were to council, can we make a record as to what you're showing him and generally lawyers ask for permission to approach witnesses before they do so and show them documents?

Sure, I won't do that.

Okay, yeah.

I just want to make sure there's a record as to what he's being shown.

Yeah.

At this point in time, I would just like to register an objection.

If counsel wanted to have this in the record, I would have preferred to have had this um be part of the stipulation as we've had multiple prehearings in advance.

Um if it helps refresh the recollection of um assistant chief parish, which I was which is what I'm presuming attorney Retco was doing with us.

Uh, I don't think it's necessary to be a part of the record.

And at this point, there's a document that I don't know what it is.

I presume it's being shown to the witness solely for the purposes of refreshing his recollection.

If we can identify it and it does, in fact, refresh his recollection, fine.

If it doesn't, and then in terms of whether it should be admitted into the record, um, I don't think that Mr.

Redco is required to fully anticipate every answer to every question on cross-examination.

So I I don't have I think it should be appropriate just so that the record's complete.

That being said, what are we showing him and for what?

Captain Christians, I'm showing you a message that was sent with high importance from Diana Perez to Captain Christensen.

Looks like that was dated Monday, February 2nd, 2026, 12 55 p.m.

And it looked like that Captain Christiansen is to arrive at 7.30 to administration in his personal vehicle, and that looked like that was to occur on February 5th at 7.30 a.m.

And it required an RSVP from Captain Christensen.

You recall seeing this?

Uh so I didn't send this, but I'm aware of what this is for.

This came from the fire compliance officer Deanna Perez, but I know what I guess.

If I can interject, the question would be does this refresh your recollection as to whether or not um Captain Christensen was ordered to report in his personal vehicle at the close of business or at the end of his shift on February 5th.

That was the question.

Does it refresh your recollection?

Yes, this reflects my recollection.

Thank you.

Yes.

So Captain Christians' termination time was changed from the original time set forth on February 2nd to have it instead of at 7 30 a.m.

on February 5th to noon on February 4th, right?

Yes, at Captain Christiansen's request.

And you do recall that Captain Christians uh you never told Captain Christianson its termination time was being changed from the end of his ship at 7 30 a.m.

on February 5th and noon on February 4th, right?

So when we terminate somebody, it's effective when they sign it.

But you did not tell him that, did you?

So Captain Christiansen refused to come into MFD administration to sign or receive his paperwork.

We um once again we discussed that iterative process.

So um, although I can terminate somebody in abstention um per his level of comfort, he did so with his union representative at the union hall.

Uh there was a team's meeting recording, so I actually uh witnessed him doing that.

I understood that he didn't want to come in.

I was accepting of that.

So yes, when he signed that document, it was the fourth uh because he didn't come into work that day, and it was effective when he signed.

He actually called in sick on February 4th, right?

I'd have to look at our staffing records.

In fact, Captain Christensen went to the ERS office and completed an application for ordinary disability retirement at 1238 p.m.

on February 4th, right?

I don't work at the ERS office.

I approach the witness to what are we showing him in has Council?

Showing him a letter that he would have sent to Gus Petropolis, Deputy Director of the Employee Retirement System for the City of Milwaukee, stated February 5th, in which he indicates that Mr.

Christensen was discharged on February 4th at 1,200 hours.

I think this is outside the scope of what the hearing is supposed to be about.

Again, the sixth and seventh just cost factors, whether or not Mr.

Christiansen applied for disability benefits after he was terminated, is not relevant to uh again the sixth and seventh just cause factors, which we're here today for.

And as part of uh number six, it requires that the FTC consider whether or not discrimination has occurred here, and I would be uh prohibited from filing a complaint with the ERD for discrimination because state law requires that this be presented to the FPC at the time of a hearing, and that the FBC's ruling uh is essential to consider whether or not discrimination has occurred, and I have that right as uh the attorney for Mr.

Christensen.

Mr.

Christensen has that right to present this at this time.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, um you believe you need to uh present this at today's hearing to preserve a future right of action for your client?

Yes, all right.

Um for that limited purpose uh let's be clear.

This goes, this is not an area of which I can hold myself out as an expert.

Everyone should be aware this is my first appearance as the hearing examiner, but uh given what Mr.

Retco has presented, I'll allow him to present that today for that very limited purpose of preserving future uh actions.

I don't think any further line of inquiry is appropriate.

Miss Headley, you look like you're dying to say something.

I do want to say something here.

I do believe Mr.

Redko is not um uh referencing case law appropriately in this case.

Though I'm familiar with which case Mr.

Retko is uh with attorney records identifying, and I don't believe it stands for the proposition for which he has submitted.

Let me ask what's the harm if you're wrong and he's right, it seems like there's significant harm.

If he's right and you're wrong, it seems like we've now taken longer on this than we really needed to.

And I'll I I just wanted to make sure that I understand for what limited purpose it's being entered.

All right, I'm gonna accept Mr.

Retko's representation.

I'll allow him to present the document today, and then we're gonna move on.

Thank you.

And for the record, there were 11 exhibits that were, or there were 10 exhibits that were pre-marked, so the document that was shown to refresh um chief assistant chief parishes um recollection was marked as a exhibit 11, and this will be marked as exhibit 12.

Thank you.

Correct.

Why was it that you would have sent that particular letter to Mr.

Petropolis?

I'd have to refresh my memory, but I believe they asked.

Well, at this time I can present another letter to maybe refresh your memory.

I guess what's the relevance of this?

The relevance of all this is to show that he was in touch with Mr.

Patropolis, and that uh he'd indicated that uh uh the termination was effective at noon and that the application was received at 1238.

And the bottom line is that uh originally Mr.

Christensen was given till February 5th at 7 30 a.m.

before he was supposed to be terminated.

The termination was changed so that he could no longer apply for duty disability retirement due to his PTSD.

Insofar as uh any of that is concerned, that's a claim that has to be taken up to the ERS, not before the FPC and the discipline hearing.

And moreover, and more importantly, as Assistant Chief Paris had previously testified to, he is not a part of the ERS.

He does not make ERS determinations or decisions, and I think that that uh any any evidence to DDR application or anything like that is beyond the fact that is beyond the sixth just cause factor, which again is to whether the chief is applying the rule fairly and without discrimination against Mr.

Christensen.

Again, the rule here that he's being accused and he's found guilty or he's found liable for violating, not what future refer ramifications occur thereafter, Mr.

Retco.

The decision that was made here prohibited Captain Christensen from making a claim for duty disability retirement from the city of Milwaukee, because they claim he was terminated at noon and he filled out his application at 1238, and that you can only apply while you're an employee of the city, and that these changes were discriminatory toward him in regard to his PTSD and his chance to collect a duty disability retirement.

The time was purposely changed.

I may just one if Attorney Redco wants to make that argument, he's I think the facts are now in the record sufficient to for him to be able to make that record or make that argument again.

The the point or the uh the issue before this commission is whether or not the chief applied the rules here that he was found via that Chief Christensen was found to have violated fairly and without discrimination against Mr.

Christensen.

That's that's that's what's here.

Anything that has to do with the ERS is not before this commission.

It's appropriately more appropriately before the annuity and pension board of the ERS, which is not this commission, and it's specifically not.

There's there's their stat there's case law in point, there's statutes endpoint, and there's an ordinance on point that identifies and outlines all that, none of which is under 6250, which is why we are here.

All right, and from my perspective, this has some limited relevance because in in essence it's an uh it's been presented to support an allegation that actions taken by the department were discriminatory.

I think we've made a record on that.

So, unless you want to ask him a direct question as to whether or not they intentionally did this to discriminate, that might be relevant.

Any other inquiry into this, you've you've entered it into the record, and I think we can consider it.

So uh that would be.

I I think we're we're pretty much done here, unless you wanted to ask that question.

So if you want to ask that, you can otherwise let's move on.

Okay, the bottom line is since she bearish, is that no one else has been terminated other than Captain Christensen, correct?

Not correct.

They all got their jobs back.

Correct.

You've already testified to that.

That is accurate, Lieutenant Bushman and Lieutenant Hart did appeal for their jobs back through the union attorney.

And you also agree that Captain Christensen was suffering from PTSD before you decided to terminate him, correct?

I have zero at all recollection at all of that being a component of uh of anything that you know came of this.

I will also note that we have a exceptionally robust support system in the department.

Um that as another part of my job when individuals do bring issues to me, we handle with the utmost confidence.

So historically, when people have have issues and they come on my desk, um, we handle those either through peer support, we have inpatient, we have outpatient, we have a group of specially trained counselors and psychologists that work with individuals, our department physician will work on medication management with individuals.

So if somebody has a psychological issue that is affecting their performance, um, and they bring those items to me, I do handle those as well.

That was not um something that Captain Christiansen bought to me prior to any of this coming up.

And you would agree that uh Chief Webski over the weekend was happy that his daughter Bella graduated from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, uh, and that she is going to focus her career on improving mental health and support of firefighters going forward, correct?

Objection relevance sustained.

I have no other questions.

Um do you folks want to ask questions for allow redirect or do you want to uh wait after redirect if anyone has to read to it?

Okay, redirect.

Thank you, you're in the examiner.

Um I just want to make the record clear because I think we muddied it up there a bit.

Um Captain Christensen was the individual who asked for the 12 PM meeting on February 4th to sign papers.

Yes, that is accurate.

We received a communication with uh so the original appointment was scheduled for the end of shift.

Normally, if I have to terminate somebody, I'll terminate them or they're separate at the end of a shift.

Um he did not come to work that day.

We received a communication from the union vice president um, you know, wanting him to sign those papers.

He wasn't gonna come in and do it, so um, we conceded to having him sign the papers, I believe he was at the union hall.

Um the VP came in, got the paperwork from us, took the original copy to the union hall.

We initiated a um a teams meeting, so I actually saw him sign it, and that occurred on the fourth, which is what his signature and date indicates.

Um there's also much testimony regarding two uh members of the service who I believe the questions consistently were got their jobs back.

I just want to make sure that again it's clear.

The lieutenant who is uh was re-hired or back, or I'll stop that.

Did either individual who is now who was terminated and is now a member of the fire department again come back at their original rank?

No, they both came back as firefighters.

That's one second question that I have.

Why was that determination made for the two um uh individuals to receive to uh become uh members of the service again?

So uh it was they were both entertained for individual reasons.

Uh one Mr.

Bushman, while he did take a part in this action, he actually went on the calls on the med unit.

Um, and then uh Mr.

Hart was not in that leadership position.

He was the driver of the apparatus.

Um, so in entertaining the appeals, uh, we took those two into consideration and then elected for you know demotion, some substantial suspension, um, and then the rest of that package, which was both uh financial and performance.

And to be clear, um, you did not approach the members with that offer.

That's accurate.

Okay.

Um, in fact, uh the union negotiated that on behalf of the members.

Yes, we received a proposal of I don't I don't know what the thing is called.

All right, um, and that was only after both those members appealed their discipline to this committee.

Uh I believe so I'd have to look at my records to see what the timing all at any point in time the union uh representation indicate that they wanted to do the same thing for Mr.

Christensen.

No, I did not receive any appeal documents with his name on them.

Okay.

Um what does that lead you to believe?

It would lead me to believe that the uh union wasn't in support of uh of launching an appeal.

Sustained.

Thank you.

No further questions at the time, recross.

During your investigation into this matter, you recall Lieutenant Bush might actually told Captain Christians and the engine that they did not need to go on the run, correct?

I believe that was one of the statements that Mr.

Bush made.

I'd have to reevaluate the uh the records here.

Yeah, if you were able to uh give him his position back, correct?

A position back is what I should have said.

I don't know that one has anything to do with the the I don't know the statements you made really line up.

So to for context, one of the I do remember asking uh Captain Christian one of the questions that Lieutenant Bushman really doesn't have the authority or the ability to make that judgment or suggestion, so it's it was a statement that was made that wasn't really relevant.

I agree.

So the question was is it accurate that ultimately Lieutenant Bushman was offered another position with the fire department?

Uh was offered would would be different.

But yes, as part of his appeal, he was Kabunk as a firefighter.

That's all I asked.

Anything else?

Nothing.

All right.

Do any of the commissioners?

You mentioned that there's a button to push on the truck.

Uh to acknowledge the dispatch.

Yes.

So that's who would who would have pushed that button?

That is a great question.

Somebody in the building had to have pushed that button for all the occurrences.

That's one of the questions that we asked if anybody remembered who pushed the button.

Okay.

Um, so you talk culture and trust.

Is oil changes personal vehicles part of the culture of the MFT?

Doing small projects on your off time is not a big deal.

Um, on duty.

Yeah, no.

Okay.

Uh so the shift commander is the captain, right?

Runs blue ship.

He's he or she is in charge of the entire shift.

Correct.

That yeah.

Oh, yep.

So the commander of the shift would set culture.

In addition to just specific to the blue color blue shift, correct.

In the big picture, or with the fire departments.

Cultures.

That's accurate.

The captain should set the tone for all three shifts.

And has you ever heard of this happening before?

I'd never heard of anybody purposely not going to multiple calls ever in my career.

Okay, thank you.

That's all.

Yeah, I just want to clarify if I can.

So, because I I'm not sure I understood correctly, but the when BC Lane came in, it was like June 2025, I think.

That's what's the timing?

I I'm confused on the timing.

September 4th.

It was in September.

Okay.

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure uh I had the timing of the calls that weren't gone to right.

Thank you.

Um, could you I understand um there was a comment made um when VC Lang arrived about staging.

Could you clarify um what staging means in this context and what would be expected in the firehouse when someone is staging?

So staging is when you are waiting for further directives at a safe distance.

Staging is appropriate if you're responding to a shooting, and maybe the asylum is still at large, so you'll wait at the corner.

Um staging is appropriate if you show up to a greater alarm, and we don't want all the vehicles pot on top of each other, so you'll stage a block or two away.

Um those are the only, you know, some other nuances that's when it's appropriate to stage.

Um if the shooting is like at the corner of the firehouse, then yeah, it may be appropriate to just leave the doors closed and stage in the firehouse because your direction of travel is fifty feet.

Um, that was not appropriate for any of these instances.

Okay, thank you.

Actually, I had one more thing.

I just want to clarify.

My understanding of how hierarchy works in fire stations firehouses is that there's one captain per house.

And that captain sort of sets the tone for the house across the red, blue, and green shift.

And then individual ships have a either the captain themselves.

So in this case, blue shift engine thirty-one had this captain as the boss on the rig, Captain Christians.

But then on like red shift days on in house thirty-one.

Is it th is thirty-one the house number?

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, a lieutenant for that shift would be the sitting boss that day, but the the hierarchy of the house still goes to the captain across three different shifts, right?

That that's accurate.

Every engine and truck company has a captain, then the most senior captain in that house, if it has an engine and truck, is the house captain.

Then they set the house policy, the house rules, and so on and so forth.

Then uh the days that the captain is not working, there are two lieutenants who are subordinate to him or her, and then they're working on the other shifts that aren't covered by that captain, but the captain is still prefecting policy.

So I want to be clear that I understand was Captain Christianson the senior captain at the house at uh engine thirty-one how the house station that that is accurate.

He was the house captain.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Any uh additional questions as a result of the commission's questions, ACA headlight?

No.

Mr.

Edco.

All right, thank you very much.

We sat down.

Thank you.

Um, brief.

Sure.

Uh it's 11 30.

We'll put it.

All right.

Let's take a break for 10 minutes.

Just out of curiosity, are we taking a lunch?

Are we gonna go?

We are gonna take a lunch at noon.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, so my preference would be take 10, start a witness, at least get something done before noon.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

L'autre The Chief or the West SFA's two.

All right.

Um we recall Robert R.

Chunk to the stand.

Sir, you want to remain standing?

Oh, yep.

And can you please raise your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

So help you God are under the pain and penalty of perjury.

All right.

If you could have a seat, adjust that microphone, speak in in the microphone, tell us your name, and spell your first and last name for the record.

Robert Hartung, R-O-B-E-R-T, H A R T-U-N-G.

Alright.

Go ahead, Counsel.

You're employed by the Milwaukee Fire Department, correct?

That is correct.

And when did you begin your career with Milwaukee Fire Department?

918-2000, I was a cadet.

What is your current position, sir?

Deputy Chief.

When did you get the deputy chief position?

About roughly about two and a half years ago.

In the position as deputy chief, what are your responsibilities with the Milwaukee Fire Department?

I currently sit in car three, which is our on-duty shift commander.

I am in charge of all operational.

The next shift.

No, we might have been in Explorers at the same time, but uh he did not teach them.

How would you view Captain Christian's effect on others that he works with in the Milwaukee fire department?

Um I guess I could speak on my experiences with him.

I know that when we were firefighters, we both wanted to uh become lieutenants, and uh we ended up studying for the lieutenant's exam together, and I know back then uh myself and Todd wanted to be good officers and good leaders.

Um after we got promoted, we kind of stayed in contact here and there, would see each other occasionally on runs.

Um but as far as my interactions generally seeing him on a consistent basis.

I think we were on different shifts, different firehouses.

Um, but I uh I guess my recollection is is that he was performing his job uh and um he was doing it well.

So based on your experience being a deputy chief and working in the fire department alongside Captain Christensen, how would you rate his work for the Milwaukee Fire Department?

That I guess I cannot specifically answer as I was the deputy chief on the green, um, and he was on different shifts, so my interactions with him as a deputy chief were very limited unless it was overtime or something else.

How do you feel about Captain Christians' dedication to the Milwaukee fire department?

I do believe that um inherently uh Todd wants to do well, he wanted to do well, and he wanted to um be the best boss he could.

And what you face that on?

My knowing him when we were studying for lieutenant, that he took it seriously, and that he wanted to be a good boss.

Now you're aware of the fact that Captain Christiansen's been terminated, correct?

That is correct.

How'd you become aware of that?

I don't exactly remember how I was made aware, uh, but there are memos that go around when someone is terminated.

I don't recall if um it shows up in the firefighting deputy's email more than likely is how I was made aware.

Do you feel that Captain Christiansen could still be a contributor to the Milwaukee department?

Although having admitted that he violated these rules that he's being charged for termination with.

Are you asking if he comes back onto the job?

Yes.

Could he still be a contributor to the Milwaukee Party program?

Yes.

And why do you say that?

Well, I think that when you look at the situation, I think if he one second, I think that Todd has the skills and abilities through his training and past experiences to perform the job.

But him coming back on the job is something that I don't have a decision in or influence in.

But he does have the training and understands how to be a good firefighter or a leader on this job.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Cross examination.

Thank you.

DC Harton, do you agree with me?

You were not present at station 31 during the incident at question.

That is correct.

All right.

In fact, I believe you testified that you were on Green Shifts.

That is correct.

Okay.

And the last time that you actually had any specific or any um day-to-day interactions with uh Mr.

Christensen were years ago when you were studying for the lieutenant's exam?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Um would you agree with me that the rules that Mr.

Christensen has violated are essential to be followed by members of the Milwaukee Fire Department?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Um would you also agree with me?

Well, would you agree with me that Mr.

Christensen has broken the trust of the Milwaukee Fire Department and not performing these essential functions?

Yes.

And would you agree with me that Mr.

Christensen has broken the trust of the Milwaukee Fire Department by allowing his subordinates to not uh to also violate these rules?

Yes.

Would you agree with me as deputy chief, your job is to, you know, uh maintain several different uh, like the houses, all the houses in the city during the shifts that you're responsible for?

Is that fair?

Yes.

I mean it's I'm overseeing everyone, and then there's layers of the battalion chiefs and then captains and lieutenants that divvy up the responsibilities.

The pyramid, if you will.

Correct, right?

And you're you're at the top of that.

On the year, operational, yes, operationally, yes.

Yeah, I was gonna say, I know I know there are people above you, but yeah, okay.

Um would you trust Mr.

Christianson to go out on runs or to say that he's gonna go out on runs in the future, knowing what you know about what happened here?

I'm gonna think for a second.

Please.

I think that not going on a run.

Not only puts the citizens in jeopardy, but it also puts you also put the careers of the people you're working with in your hands as well.

Um why that decision was made, I can't I can't answer that.

Um but I think that's a difficult question for me to specifically answer because there's so many different layers associated with trust and rebuilding trust and future actions.

Um I don't know if I can specifically answer that inherently I do believe that he knows what he did was wrong, I believe that he would never do that again, but I believe that trust is something that has to be rebuilt, and I don't know what that path would look like.

Okay, thank you.

No further questions, redirect.

Yes, thank you.

I'll be real short.

At least two other people, Lieutenant Bushma and H.

E.

O.

Hart, were initially terminated, as was Captain Christians, but those two persons have retained positions as firefighters with the Milwaukee Fire Department, correct?

Yes.

And you'd also agree, would you not that uh Captain Christianson now knowing that what he did was wrong and wouldn't do it again, that uh he could at least add a minimum to the position as a firefighter, correct?

Are you referring to him getting his job back or my opinion if he could perform the job?

Just for clarification.

His your opinion is to him doing the job.

If he were to retain a position with the Milwaukee Fire Department, even as a firefighter, you would agree that he could still contribute to the department and be doing a good job for the department.

I believe he could perform the functions of a firefighter.

And do a very good job of it.

Yes, I have no other questions, thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

Commissioners.

No questions.

All right, thank you very much.

You can step down.

Um we have 10 minutes.

Do you have a 10-minute witness?

I mean, well, my theory, my premise is let's it would take probably about the same time as the last witness, and this way we could get uh and out.

I prefer to do that.

Um I don't know, it's cool.

I you know, in the court system, people turn into pumpkins at noon if that doesn't happen here and we go a minute or two.

Uh, thank you.

All right, you want to call your next witness?

Joel, correct?

Right, please?

All right, sir.

You want to raise your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you God are under the pain and penalty of perjury.

All right.

Please have a seat, adjust that microphone, tell us your name, and spell your first and last name for the record.

Joel Recklitz, J-O-E-L Recklitz, R-E-C-H-L-I-T-Z.

Go ahead, counsel.

Mr.

Reckless, you were employed by the Milwaukee Fire Department, correct?

Correct.

When did you begin your career with the Milwaukee Fire Department?

September 21st, 1998.

And what is your current position, sir?

Battalion chief of the second battalion on the green shift.

When did you get the battalion chief position?

September of 2019.

I mean the most senior battalion chief in the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Yes.

Do you know Todd Christensen?

Yes.

And how do you know him?

I met him uh September 21st, 1998.

We were both fire cadets together, um, and then subsequently since that date.

Based on your experience, how would you read Captain Christensen's work with the Milwaukee Fire Department?

My opinion of uh Captain Christensen is he's always done excellent work.

Uh that I've that I've witnessed that's based on things you witnessed, correct.

Just over the years of working with him, um never assigned together, but just working with him uh through the course of our 20 coming up on 28 years.

How do you feel about Captain Christians' dedication to the Milwaukee fire department?

I feel that yeah, he is dedicated to the Milwaukee Fire Department.

What do you base that on, sir?

Again, just work experience um over the last 28 years and uh firehouse um like behavior at in the firehouse itself, and you've become aware of the fact that the Milwaukee Fire Department has made a decision to terminate Captain Christianson?

Yes, do you feel that Captain Christensen could be a contributor to the Milwaukee Fire Department if he were brought back?

If he was brought back to I think he has the skill set to uh contribute, uh positively in the fire service.

Could you be a little bit more specific as to how you believe that uh Captain Christiansen could contribute to the Milwaukee Fire Department if he were brought back?

Sure.

Um with that um knowledge that you gain over the course of a 28-year career.

I mean, he has an inherent um uh inherent knowledge of the fire service of our procedures of reading fire, um, of our rules and general etiquette.

Um, so if he was brought back, I don't think any of those uh that knowledge or skill set would be diminished necessarily, so you would see that he'd be a contributor to the Milwaukee fire department?

Yes, he could.

I don't have any other questions, thank you.

Cross examination, thank you.

Uh BC Recklets, um, you agree with me that you were not present um on Green Shift at uh station 31 or I'm sorry, blue shift on station 31, the days in question wherein Mr.

Christensen purposely chose not to go out on runs?

Correct, right?

And your expectation as battalion chief that your house captains would set the proper tone and tenor for the members underneath him?

100% right was the was B uh was Mr.

Christensen's actions, did Mr.

Christensen's actions set that proper tone?

No.

Um you agree with me that the violations that Mr.

Christensen has admitted to are serious infractions of the Milwaukee Fire Department's code of conduct, yes, and rule book, yes, and it's your expectation that every captain underneath you, every HEO underneath you, every lieutenant underneath you, every firefighter underneath you to follow those rules, yes, no further questions, redirect.

Just one more question.

So battalion chiefly to your degree that uh even though Captain Christiansen has violated these rules, he could still be a contributor to the fire department if brought back, right?

Objection outside the scope.

Overall, let him answer.

Yes, as I stated earlier, his um knowledge and skill set that he's acquired over 27 years, I don't think has necessarily diminished.

So he if brought back, he does have a wealth of knowledge and institutional uh knowledge that could be beneficial.

Thank you.

That's all that's one further.

You'd agree with me that trust is inherently important within the Milwaukee fire department, yes.

You have to trust the members underneath you to do their jobs, yes.

You have to trust the people to your left and to your right to help you get out of a burning building alive.

Yes, the Milwaukee, the citizens of Milwaukee have to trust the members to show up when they call 911.

Yes, thank you.

Any other questions to the speech?

I have one follow-up.

So battalion chief record that you'd agree with me that uh you would have faith and trust in Captain Christians if he was working next to you at a an emergency situation within the city of Milwaukee, correct?

My answer goes back to the fact that Captain Christians and I came on together and took the oath together.

So I've I've known Todd for a long you know, for my entire career.

So there is a definitely a different level of relationship that I would have with Todd, um, than other people would um serving in our same capacity.

Uh I'm glad I'm not the chief.

I'm glad I'm not anyone else.

Um, but based on that relationship, I could trust Todd, but I'm also very help uh happy that I'm not making those decisions.

There are any other questions, anything else to this witness?

Commissioner.

Question.

Is battalion senior battalion chief from the police department.

Have you ever had him directly work?

Uh fire department.

I'm sorry.

Has he ever worked for you directly?

Not directly, no.

Okay.

Have you ever worked in the same house with him?

I do not believe in the same house, no.

Okay.

Like, you know, a day at a time and here and there, and like, but not like as an actual assignment.

Okay, thank you.

That's all.

No questions.

All right.

Any follow-up questions based on yes, thank you.

Captain Chief Reckless, uh, do you recall working with uh uh Todd Christians at ladder one?

May I ask a question that that was the blue shift, correct?

Ladder one on the blue.

Okay, yeah, so for a three-month period, uh September of 2019 to December 31st of 2019, yes.

I uh Todd was under my command um and and uh he was ladder one, I would be battalion four.

Okay, well, now I have a clarifying.

Yeah, so I just want to I guess first of all, do you have anything else?

No, okay, okay.

But that's I want to be clear.

So you were still a battalion, you were battalion chief at that time.

Correct, in 2019 to yeah, two September of 2019, I was assigned battalion four blue until January first of or December 31st of 2019, so that four month period.

And you were you were not captain at that time.

I was in 2019.

Yeah.

I guess I was captain twice.

Oh okay.

Um I just wanted to clarify.

I I appreciate that, but we're now asking questions of someone who's not under oath.

So this is obviously a little odd because um Captain Christensen offered some information basically to refresh uh uh Mr.

Eckley's recollection.

You can't put the tube the toothpaste back in the tube, that's been done.

But notes, no worries.

All right, I you're done.

I just wanna I just wanted to clarify because you asked if they were assigned to the same house together.

And that is not assigned to the same house.

No, he was assigned to my battalion, but not the same house.

You can step down, thank you.

Any other follow-up?

All right.

I knew that, but just for all the two.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

I think that's one of the things that makes us challenge I think.

Because the structure of it is different than structure at all.

But like making it clear, like on someone else outside of the house supervisor, what's the peak supervisor in the house?

A little bit more.

Andow many of us?

L'humanity,an songs, okay, and so Human, so How many of us?

Human.

L'autre.

Oh, yes.

If they weren't know how to do that's not me.

Did you need me to get copies?

Oh, it'd be easy if you basically however many copies.

And that's gonna be exhibit fourteen.

Uh it should have been included with um it can be exhibited fourteen.

That's fine.

I have zero problems.

All right.

Um it should have been included in exhibit nine, but I I don't know how we missed that.

So yes, that's your problem with that.

Okay, good afternoon.

We are back um for the continuation of the phase two hearing for uh propellant type Christianson.

The appearances are the same.

I do want to make a record that um at the beginning of the hearing this morning, I read into the record the stipulation between the parties.

Apparently, practice had not been to mark that separately as an exhibit.

I think because it's read into the record that it is more appropriate for it to be marked as an exhibit.

So that's been marked as exhibit thirteen and will be included in the record.

Um so I I know there was some discussion about some additional documents.

Do we need to wait for copies or are we ready to go?

If we could have a copy, so I'd be pretty.

Come on down.

Okay, we'll wait.

Sorry, I didn't mean to.

No worries.

No, that's in that that one's on me.

So just going forward, so I know.

Uh you would like any potential stipulations going forward to be marked as exhibit one, and then we can enter that in.

Not for this case, but yes, I think that is not a problem, and I we can do that.

Okay.

Okay.

This is all one document or three separate.

We can do it with one document.

Yeah, just four pages, one document.

That's fine.

It's all the same thing.

Well, the same as there.

Like I said, it should have been included, and I don't know why we missed that on the copy.

So not my intention at all.

Okay, so it's okay.

Who's your runner?

It'll be great, Nick.

Mike Allen.

Okay.

I refer to him as your runner is gonna get my answer.

That's too like fun.

You just want to pop the there before you.

Yeah, so it's always on there.

Yeah, I don't know if that's because I don't know.

I think it's just uh a name to my personality.

You have to have me.

Everyone's always telling me that, and I know that are on, and I don't mind.

Short title.

I'm the in between return.

Short title.

In my offense, I think there's a chemical that your brain produces that's an inhibitor that you produce less of as you get older.

So mine has nothing left.

So thought Pat's in head, it immediately escapes.

Okay, oh god.

Yeah.

And I already have such a limited edit button anyway.

What about when I get over?

Oh, I'm still pretty good at it.

I have to.

What kinds of TV stuff?

As we can learn in the court house.

There's digital audio recording equipment that is always on.

So even when you have the microphones turned up and you were having what you thought was a private conversation with your court reporter.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation can recover that and use it against you in a federal trial.

Yep, on that note, could you pass me a piece of chocolate?

Yes, ma'am.

Did you get back in the building though?

Getting into the building isn't the problem.

It's parking structure, which I was unable to get into.

But I really um one next door you couldn't get into.

I got some answers for you about that from the swinging.

Okay.

So sorry.

That's all that's a small thing.

I think it's she knows all the things.

Oh she knows.

Yeah, yeah.

She's moving it.

No, I didn't know.

I didn't have to go to something after this.

No, this is a beautiful day.

So you know.

That's right.

It's still pretty much a sense.

You just gotta only have a lot of which this is.

Unfortunately, they don't run for those kinds of people.

Okay, that's also my role for you, Nico.

I was gonna say I was about to say nice and do what you say.

Well, as you know, there's a struggle in this town.

Between where that should go and where other people are part of the one, it's like clinical.

It happens to benefit me, but you're gonna need something.

So then you should think someone about blocking or something.

Nothing about data.

Is it before us?

Is it before us?

Oh, okay.

So let's see.

Well, that's right, this will be able to see.

Oh yeah, there's one the other one, too.

Yeah.

Well they do.

It's on the sidewall, like we said look this way, it's like on that.

Well we'll see licensing comes in the room.

So that's why they have them.

Oh well, licensing is usually the big room.

It's only isn't here.

It's only the maps, I think.

Okay.

Okay.

It's not old school.

It's old school.

That's like everything else about your memories.

Vintage.

I prefer the term pintage.

Vintage.

I like classic.

But classic changes, they play Nirvana on Classic Park Radio now, so you can't bet on classic.

I think classic has a specific definition of over 20 years.

At least if you're referring to cars, the cars are now already classic life, so I should say over 20 years.

Oh, it's a vintage.

Well, 20 years you're entitled to like collector plates.

Yes.

That is so helpful.

Well, there's a classic call, though, too, that has that has a year.

It was like I swear to it's like an ESO center or something.

It has to have like certain collectors.

Yeah, you know, you don't have a classic.

It's literally like a hunger or something.

And you have to pay a slightly higher registration fee because we pay a lot of things.

That is true, yes.

That is true.

You can't drive in January.

Yeah, yeah.

It's kind of like a never photo emissions.

Oh my these ones, which is a lot of things.

And what collectors play this wrong one?

Yeah.

40%.

But you know, which is anyway.

Yeah.

You know, I don't know emissions, but every two weeks you have to register, re-register.

Your motorcycle, but the sports or I have out of the other collective place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

He's very nice.

That's the other one.

Is that one of the things?

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

I put it there.

Sorry about that.

Oh, I see.

Just pass it down to you cane bottle or more.

Well, you have them?

One more.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Alright, we took uh a moment for some documents to be photocopied.

Uh they've now been returned.

And I believe everyone's in session of document that's been marked as exhibit 14.

Um, Mr.

Retco, does the appellant have any additional witnesses?

Yes.

I'm calling Todd Christianson at this time.

Okay.

Can I take this up?

Yes, please.

Sir if you would remain standing and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help you God are under the pain and penalty of perjury.

All right, please have a seat, adjust that microphone, tell us your name and spell your first and last name for the record.

My name is Todd T O D D Christianson, C H R I S T E N S E N.

Go ahead, Mr.

Redko.

Mr.

Christianson, what city do you live in?

I live in the city of Milwaukee.

How long have you lived in the city of Milwaukee?

The entirety of my life.

46 and a half years.

And when did you first get uh employed by the Milwaukee Fire Department?

On the fire department, I was appointed to the position of fire cadet on September 21st, 1998.

And what is your current position in the Milwaukee fire department?

At the time of my discharge, I was a fire captain.

When did you get the position fire captain?

Uh this last one, it was September, or excuse me, January of tw 2024.

In fact, exhibit eight, if you'll look as uh what exactly is exhibit eight.

I have one that says exhibit one.

Sorry.

The number changed.

You skipped it.

What's the number?

Eight.

I'm sorry, I thought you said A as a number.

Yeah, I thought you said A too.

That's like they all have numbers, I'm sorry.

Okay.

I have it.

What exactly is exhibit eight for the record?

Uh this is uh a uh form that you sign when um you get promoted.

And what does that particular document show you were promoted to?

Uh I was promoted to fire captain on the nineteenth of January 2024.

And what is your uh current seniority level in the position of camp in is that the fire department?

Uh not terribly high.

Um bottom quarter.

I think there's there's approximately 50 captains, and I was like like the number 40.

And how does that affect your ability to choose where you get stationed within the Milwaukee fire department?

Uh the top few captains get to pick um their station assignment approximately every four years?

Sometimes that number changes.

Sometimes it's the top twenty-five percent, sometimes it's the top 10%.

Being at your lower position, would that affect your ability to select where you wanted to work?

I was not given the opportunity to pick.

And generally during your career, has your seniority affected the stations you had work out of?

Yes.

In the position of firefighter, I was able to select houses on two occasions.

In the position of fire lieutenant, I was able to select locations three, maybe four times.

And those opportunities you were able to select uh positions, what kind of district stations did you pick?

I would always choose to be uh at the busiest houses I could.

And why did you do that?

Yes, I'm busiest.

Uh that's just my personality.

I wanted to be uh I wanted to be where I could be the most help, uh be where the quote unquote action is.

What is your responsibility as a captain?

Milwaukee fire department.

Uh I oversee or any captain oversees um their personnel assigned to their apparatus across all three ships.

Um and if you are the senior captain or the only captain at a firehouse, you oversee um the house as well as all the personnel in it.

And I'm gonna backtrack a little bit here.

You indicated that you uh began your employment in the Milwaukee Fire Academy on September 21st, 1988, 1998.

Yes.

Uh how old were you when you made that decision to join the Milwaukee Fire Department Fire Academy?

Um I requested uh application materials um through the fire police commission um in either late 97, early 98, uh so senior year of high school, 18 years old.

Why'd you make the decision to go work for the Milwaukee Fire Department?

Um honestly it was uh a favor to my father.

Um I wanted to be a police officer, so I had also signed up for police aid, um, which I was for four weeks.

Um but uh as a favor to him, um, he said take the test because you'll never get an opportunity like the cadet class again, so I did, and then as the weeks and months of uh summer after senior year waned on, um I made the decision that I wanted to be a firefighter more and I wanted to be a police officer.

Now prior to making that decision, were you in the explorer post for the fire department?

I was in the explorer posts after I made the decision that I wanted to be um employed by the same walkie in some fashion, they're police officer firefighter.

Um, explore post was fairly new at the time, um couple years old perhaps, um, and that was a method to find out if uh the fire service was was for me or or anybody else who's been rolled.

Can you explain exactly what the explorer post is?

Um uh it is a a organization um and program run through the Boy Scouts of America, where um they allow they call it high school age kids, so teenagers basically, um, the opportunity to uh experience professions that they might not have considered before.

Um in the city of Milwaukee, there is one dedicated to pilots.

So if you want to fly airplanes, you can learn about aviation.

Um the fire department at one time had uh explore post 875 for the fire department.

Um it's it's called it's called the junior fire institute now, but it's same same but different.

Um, and then I don't know if Milwaukee in particular, but other uh area police departments have them as well.

After you began working at the Milwaukee Fire Department, have you ever been involved with the explorer program?

Uh yeah, after um after graduation from the Fire Academy, um I stayed on with the explorer post as an instructor.

Why'd you do that?

Uh uh I felt that the explorer post uh was very beneficial to my becoming a Milwaukee firefighter.

So I wanted to give back.

Um they helped me, I wanted to help others.

What have you done exactly in the explorer program since you started working at the Milwaukee Fire Department?

Um I was a believe they believe the term at the time was associate instructor for uh upwards of eight to ten years.

Um it wasn't so much a recruiting tool, but that seemed to be what it kind of became.

Um many explorers became uh applicants for the position of fire cadet, um, some very successful.

Then after being a associate or assistant instructor, um I I led the post for two years as the head instructor.

Why did you decide to take that on being the head of the explore post?

Uh because I enjoyed it so much.

Um it was a again, it was it was a way to give back, and there were directions that I wanted to take that were in place when I started as an explorer that weren't in place uh shortly after.

Um there's a trip to Iowa where um you meet up with other explorer posts across the country, kind of like a uh Olympics of kids doing firefighting.

Now you said you indicated that you started with the Milwaukee Fire Department Academy on September 21st, 1998, and you eventually became a fire chief or captain fire captain, excuse me, on January 10, 2024.

Can you describe your progression through the ranks of the fire department from when you started in the academy to the time you became a captain?

Uh sure.

Um the class was approximately five months.

Um the fire academy proper was 16 weeks, um, one year of probation as a brand new graduated firefighter.

Um I was in the rank of firefighter for seven years when I took my first um lieutenant's exam, um, scored fair uh to middling.

Um, where but I had the opportunity to act lieutenant on a very regular basis during the two years that that list was in effect.

Um missed out getting promoted by one person, uh took the test again, um, did much better, um became uh became fire lieutenant, relieved for three years, um, was assigned to various houses, some for a long time, some for not.

Uh took a fire captain's exam, did fairly well, uh, but as uh my luck goes, I was uh one person short again.

Um, but there was no um the process wasn't in place yet to take another uh uh hold another exam.

So they made me a temporary captain um by virtue of my placement on the previous list, and I filled in that position for uh 14 months and went back to lieutenant and was at one point the senior lieutenant in the city of Milwaukee, um, and then took another cabin's exam and then did well, and that's the 2024 promotion.

And you held that position of captain ever since?

Yes.

Okay.

As a member of the Milwaukee Fire Department, how do you serve the public?

Um the canned answer is um uh protect lives and property and render pre-hospital care to the sick and infirm.

Um, but that's the generic answer.

I think everybody knows that Fire Department General does more than that through smoke detector initiatives, but I mean I guess both that kind of falls under protecting lives and property.

If not all of us, I'd like for you to go to exhibit nine.

Okay, now the last two pages of exhibit nine at the bottom are marked 253 and 254.

You described to us what page 253 is.

Yes.

So you would have received EMS unit award?

Yes, uh it's in that same uh packet.

It's not uh it's not paginated.

It's the next page.

And what does that say about the EMS unit award?

It says MVA gunfire rescue November 15th, 2024.

Yes.

What exactly was that about?

Um we were uh engine 26 was dispatched on a uh MVA, which is motor vehicle accident.

Um it was a um in general terms it was a fairly minor accident.

Um we had uh sent I believe one individual to the hospital via uh a private ambulance company and um a vehicle was was stranded in traffic, so in cases like that, um we remain on scene until the police department arrives to uh uh keep traffic uh from hitting the the the stranded vehicle.

Uh during the um transfer to the to the officer when I was giving uh that officer the the pertinent details um shots rang out in a very close close to where we were um unknown location, but it was clearly close.

Um shortly after that, like within seconds we heard an individual's uh screaming.

Um our protocol is to vacate the scene um as quickly and safely as possible as um uh it wasn't secure.

Um so uh we we all climbed in the engine and drove around the block and in doing so uh we came across the individual that had been shot.

Um he was um bleeding profusely from his uh femur where he had or thigh where he had been hit.

Um and while uh it was not the safest decision I've ever made.

We um vacated the engine and began care uh of this individual.

And uh I requested I reported the shooting on on dispatch uh on the radio uh the location we were at, and requested a uh paramedic unit and uh suggested their route of travel from uh where they would be able to meet us.

Um and uh in the interim, waiting for the ambulance, the uh police department had secured the scene.

I don't recall if uh they had ever located the the shooter or where the shots had come from, but the scene was secure enough for us to um uh help this person and uh transport them to freighter him.

Just to be clear, you you made this stop contrary to protocol that we weren't supposed to be there until the scene was secured by police, you save this man's life anyway.

Yeah, yes going back to exhibit nine uh the page immediately in front of page 253.

That's the UMS unit award for that would have been presented to you by November 15th, 2024 for this action.

Yes, this is uh uh certificate that I received.

Now turn to the very front page of exhibit nine.

What exactly is this?

Uh this is a photograph of a um framed certificate slash plaque that I received uh at the uh awards banquet in 2005.

And why did you receive this award in 2005?

Um a uh my company officer um nominated me to receive, we didn't uh really have the uh distinguished service award yet at the time, but um he chose to um ask that I be recognized for outstanding volunteerism.

When you say outstanding volunteer, would what exactly you mean?

Uh I think primarily it had to do with um my uh uh involvement with the explore post.

Um I don't know if it's obvious, but that's not a uh a paid position.

It's you're doing it because you want to do it.

One other question about the explorer post.

Uh is there anyone that you're working with now in the walkie fire department that is in a higher rank than you that you would have taught at Explore Post?

Uh it's it's not several, but it's plural, yes.

When you say plural, um I think I think two deputy chiefs, um a battalion chief and at least one person that is uh a captain currently that uh made captain before myself, and then um now some of the younger ones that were uh are coming up to the ranks as well.

Um I don't want to say my favorite, but uh uh my favorite's a lieutenant now.

I'm proud of them.

Okay.

Now go to the next page of exhibit nine, the second page end.

Says Milwaukee Fire Department Meritorious and Community Service Awards.

This one looks like it's the October 9th, 2014.

Can you describe what this is?

Um yeah, it just is like uh exactly like you said, it's the uh cover of that um that year's awards program.

And turning to the next page or the back page of that.

Um we uh as an engine 26 responded to a uh working fire at um a building we call taxpayers.

It's uh uh usually a brick building, and it's got a business on the first floor and apartments on the second floor.

Um and there was uh fire in the living area, so on the second floor.

Um we had uh deployed our hose line.

We were the first engine on scene, and um to the what would be the logical location to get to the second floor, the logical door.

Um this happened to be a triangle block, so the logical uh answer was not.

Uh there was an individual uh on scene uh civilian uh on the sidewalk in front of the building, and I was able to translate that there was a better door to go in, and that there was a victim trapped on the second floor.

So I redirected uh instructed my my crew to redirect the hose line to what we were the proper door, and then I went in um ahead of the line to um search for the the trap victim who uh was discovered and uh rescued.

Now going into the home in front of the hose line, is that also a violational policy?

Uh it's not taught.

So that was something you did to save someone's life?

Yes.

How many times in your career as a Milwaukee firefighter have you saved somebody who's been stuck in a fire?

Um five.

Like myself, five.

How many any idea why every time you do that you're not given an early court?

Um it's early in my career that wasn't really um that wasn't standard practice to uh uh send in things like that.

Um and then other times um the awards committee uh kind of rates the the nominations based on um uh like a danger level.

Um other things aren't um typically recognized.

Like if you get someone down off of a ladder, um that isn't usually um ribbon-worthy.

But that's part of your normal work that you normally do, yes.

It can be and going to the next page in the final page on exhibit, and I guess titled unit citation rescue, and this is for the event on June 1st, 2014.

Uh it's the it's the same event we just talked about.

This is just a picture of the uh the actual plaque.

I think there's a typo on the uh the plaque itself, but it's the uh that's the same incidents that I just described with the taxpayer.

I'd like for you to turn to exhibit 10 now.

I have it.

What exactly is exhibit 10 from a page of it?

Uh the 258.

Yes.

Uh this is um a letter from uh retired assistant chief Smith um effectively thanking us for uh high standards and it appears that uh the fire department where we receive the a phone call from patient Joseph Aliolo.

I'll call it ILO, but okay I can't confirm that.

Is that somebody that you would have helped in a life altering situation?

Um I'll be honest.

Uh I don't remember Mr.

Ayalo.

Um however uh I'm glad he remembers us.

Um so uh it's rare that um the patients you help uh go through the the process of of praise and uh but when they do it's appreciated.

And the back stage of exhibit 10 is what exactly?

Um so this was uh email effectively uh saying the same thing.

Um this is letting us and all the members that were uh on scene at that time that uh a patient wanted to thank us for our good work and then uh the the front page is more of the official recognition because it's a signed letter from the fire chief or in this case the assistant chief.

Okay, for the record, Mr.

Ayalo's last name is AIELL.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

I just because the court reporter has to take this down and got it.

He doesn't have the document for analysis, so thank you.

Captain, can you now turn to exhibit 14?

That's the one we just made.

Okay.

What exactly is exhibit 14 about?

Um uh this situation was a um a working fire, and um uh we were the I think second engine on scene.

Uh in any case, um uh a rescue had been performed uh uh prior to our arrival, and as that uh or those two companies went back in to um continue the fire fight, we uh who were uh supposed to be in the like the second line uh kind of switched gears, and we ended up taking care of the uh individual that was pulled from the fire versus um uh uh entering the building with the secondary line.

The last two pages of exhibit 14, it's entitled in the matter of meritorious service team award for fire rescue, and it gives an address.

So this is something you would have received as being part of this call?

Uh yeah, so the um this the two pages with the matter of are um the chief retired battalion chief wolbistall uh uh nominated all involved in this particular incident for um a team award, and then um everyone that's on scene myself included gets like like I said previously, it's uh it's like an official letter signed by the chief for your records, you know, your your uh oh your file.

Now in regard to prior disciplines that you've had in the Milwaukee fire department, have you had any prior disciplines?

Um I wrote myself up for being late in 2006.

And by uh writing yourself up for being late, uh how long did that remain in your file as regard to a discipline from which maybe progressive discipline?

Uh yeah, yeah.

Uh there's a the tardiness control policy.

Um so at the time um if you were not late at all for six-month period, um that step uh would be uh erased, and you would go back down to quote unquote zero.

You want to be on zero.

Um uh it's it's like you said it's a progressive, so each time you're late and you don't go back down, it goes back, it goes up, and then five is uh termination.

So as I understand it, you have no disciplines currently pending against you from which progressive discipline could occur.

Correct.

Well, working at the Milwaukee fire department, besides teaching the explorer posts.

Have you taught any other training sessions for firefighters?

Yes.

Can you explain exactly what you've taught?

Um twice I was a uh adjunct instructor at department wide um in-service training.

One was um live fire burns at a high-rise structure, fighting fire with via standpipes and and other um operations that that take place at uh high rise structures.

Um I was uh uh myself and another individual were in charge of um somewhat adopting a uh procedure for um performing uh entry into uh elevated structures, not so much high rise but tall um via uh aerial ladder and then how to perform rescues of with uh via that method uh I taught a uh for the hazardous materials team.

I taught a um what to do in the event of uh like a tank car railroad tank car with uh unknown chemicals incidents, whether it's uh derailment or just uh leaks.

Um I taught battalion training on the when we added two and a half inch uh attack hose to the engines.

Um attack hose of yes, uh I taught also at the battalion level um methods on uh flow paths uh sponsored by underwriters lab.

Um effectively if you shut doors um fire doesn't move around as much.

Uh have you also taught um other agencies, firefighters from other agencies?

Oh uh yes.

Um I can't believe that Chief Rackless forgot that I worked for him.

Um I did uh at his request.

Um I taught uh VES vent enter search to uh members of the St.

Francis Fire Department at Oak Creek, as well as members in uh at the time the 4th battalion, and then as I was assigned to that team, that was the incident command post team, um I certified um the members of our team on how to operate the uh drones.

Anything else that you can think of that you've taught within the fire department or with any other groups?

Um, just uh uh a long line of uh young members assigned to me.

What exactly is the special team in the Milwaukee fire department?

Uh so uh everybody on the fire department uh is firefighter trained and at minimum uh emergency medical technician the EMTP uh BLS.

Um a lot of individuals starting are also uh paramedic ALS.

Have you mapped involved in special team training within the fire department?

Uh yeah, the the hazmat tank cars and then the the drones.

Um and then to answer your question uh after uh usually after your year or your probation year um avenues open up to participate in other uh parts of the fire department.

We have uh several special teams, hazmat, um heavier been rescue team, the dive team, uh the individuals that ride the bicycles at festivals, uh, that's the PBR team, I uh the ICP, the incident command post team, uh, among others.

So you've done training for incident command team members?

Uh correct.

And just so they were all clear what exactly is that all entailed.

Um how to operate the um the actual incident command post itself.

We call it the Winnebago.

It's a uh as faculty, it's a giant RV that um has communication equipment as well as computers for um chief officers to utilize at large scale incidents, as well as the drones that the it's a command post also has the drones.

How was it that you got uh the knowledge to teach people how to use drones uh that was uh by virtue of being around it um an osmosis thing i once i was assigned to um be a part of that team at that house um that just became my project approximately how many runs have you gone out in your career mock you party from it uh on the low end i would estimate over 20,000 probably closer to 25.

Now during your work with the Milwaukee Fire Department have you incurred any injuries?

Several can you identify what injuries you've incurred um I've had stitches uh from uh effectively a piece of the fire engine collapsed on me um I've had multiple concussions I have a um I think it's a ligament sometimes I forget between ligaments and tendons uh it's supposed to be three inches and mine's four so um effectively my left foot can buckle almost at any time how did you incur that injury uh that was at it that occurred at a fire.

Do you have PTSD?

I do.

Any idea how that incurred um in the early 2000s I was almost struck by a uh bullet um it was determined that it was less than an inch from hitting me.

Can you explain the circumstances to what you were doing at the time that you were almost shot uh we were um on a um uh a medical run and we were waiting for uh the private ambulance to arrive you recall exactly when you would have realized you had PTFC uh it certainly wasn't then um I believe you know the uh I was born in the 70s so feelings get very deep deep down where they belong um so that that was something I I didn't dwell on um those feelings became exacerbated uh or came back to the surface during the um the shooting incidents the that we described uh after the car accident um exhibit so november 24 yes how was it that you learned you had PTSD at that time um after the process of this began um uh during my my initial interview with uh deputy chief Darren Peterburse and fire compliance officer Deanna Perez um made a a statement during the interview process that I believe I separated a a mental lapse um FCO Perez brought that back around and we began talking about avenues in which to seek possible help um at that time um I went home and I began uh I I found myself at the um first responders network um run through I can't remember now it's freightered uh something behavioral health uh in any case um I began a session with uh a therapist and through that it was uh diagnosed.

So that was something that uh Diana Ferez would have been told during your interview.

Uh she provided me with the uh uh numbers and website.

Um, and then my interaction with her was very minimal after that, so um I I wouldn't expect that she would have had access to what my diagnosis was.

Turn to exhibit one number one the very first page, the one that's marked 30 at the bottom?

Yes.

At the very bottom it says investigation, I Christians, and it has a date October third, twenty twenty five.

Yes.

Is that the date that you would have had your interview with Diana Perez?

As well as Deputy Chief Peter Burst, yes.

So the assistant chief was not part of that interview?

Uh not that one, no.

Then this investigation would have been around the events that uh battalion chief Lang would have reported on September twenty-fourth regarding the incident of September eighteenth, right?

Yes, this was uh it was investigating that uh occurrence, yes.

Can you turn to exhibit number three now?

The very back page of exhibit three, the one that's marked as twenty-nine.

Yes.

This would have indicated that the charges based on the incident of September 18th would have been issued on you as of December 5th, 2025?

Uh yes, um as well as uh the other incidents from uh 2025 going back to March.

Okay.

Now go to exhibit number four, please.

What exactly is exhibit number four for the record?

Uh this is the um list of all of the charges that uh I received.

And then it says penalty discharge from department?

Yes.

And it's dated February 4th, 2026, correct?

Yes.

Up through February 4th, 2026.

What exactly was your work status?

Uh active employee.

And when you were interviewed on October 3rd, Diana Perez, who interviewed you would have given you tips about you possibly getting treatment for PTFC?

Um I don't think the acronym ever came up, but she did uh said she she found a business card and a flyer or something um that pointed me in the right direction.

When did you first learn you were going to be terminated?

On the morning of I worked the first the second was the email.

Uh the morning of the third, I received a telephone call from uh former vice presidents of the union, Brian Merkel.

I believe it's an exhibit number twelve or thirteen.

Oh, set one.

Eleven, please.

Okay.

What exactly is exhibit eleven for the record?

This is a screenshot of my um department email uh that I received on February 2nd that uh my shift began at Wednesday the fourth at zero eight hundred, and then this indicates that for the last half hour of my shift I was to report to administration in my own car.

Why was it that you went in on February 4th and to sign the uh resignation letter?

Um it was strongly suggested.

Um I was asked to do it.

Um I was told that I didn't have to do anything.

Uh like the chief parish suggested that um I mean they can fire me whether I'm there or not.

Um, but that was where my head space was at that time, I was okay with that.

Um and then uh my union reptively begged me to come in and sign the paper, so I did.

What was your understanding in regard to when your termination was going to become effective?

Um I wasn't again, I wasn't really in the right head space.

Uh originally it was going to be the morning of the fifth.

Did anyone tell you that once you sign that document it became effective on the time you signed it?

I don't recall if that was said.

No, I called in sick.m to November or February 4th at noon, did that affect how your uh eligibility for your DDR application with the city of Milwaukee.

Did that get affected in any way?

Yes.

Um I was told that while individuals in the disciplinary matrix, they're unable to um apply for any sort of uh medical uh leave if it has to do with mental health.

So um I didn't um effectively then uh I figured that uh uh if I'm getting fired, I might as well give it a try anyway.

And I reported to um I reported ERS and uh filled out my paperwork to request ordinary disability by grounds of uh post-traumatic stress.

Um currently in the state of Wisconsin, you cannot get full duty disability for mental health reasons.

Um you can get uh 32 weeks, but you cannot get a disability retirement.

Full uh so I filled out my paperwork at uh ERS, and it was timestamps a half hour after uh the effective time of my termination.

Uh you have admitted that you violated the rules that you're being charged with, and that uh in PS PTSD.

How is it that you could still contribute to the module priority carbon if reassigned to the department?

It would have to be in some sort of uh support role.

When can you say that what you mean?

Um uh a 40-hour uh a day ship position um where I could contribute in in ways that don't involve um emergency responses.

Is there anything else that you would like to add that you would like the uh carrying examiners to get the decision makers to understand about your situation?

Uh yeah, um I messed up bad, uh very bad.

Um I understand that I broke trust and uh and like um I think like Chief Hartson said I I don't know what the road back is.

But I do think I can be redeemed.

I do think there is something that I can offer.

Um I'd like to think that the nearly three decades of great work can um not necessarily cancel out uh the errors I've made, but um I'm not sure if that's fully been considered uh at this point, and and I'd very much like it to be.

Um but like attorney Recco uh suggested, I I never wanted to just be a firefighter, and not not the rank position, but just someone that only comes to work um and then goes home and gets her paycheck every two weeks.

Uh that's never been what I've been about.

I've except for that one time, I've always come to work an hour early.

Um I've been involved in four special teams throughout the course of my career.

Um again, I I've it's it's well over 20,000 runs that I did vote on.

And the seven that uh I didn't um I'm sorry.

Do you need a moment?

Um I'll be alright.

Okay.

So as I take it, if you were reinstated, you would take the aspect of your career where you've been dedicated to help the citizens of Milwaukee and the fire department and bring that back and go as well.

So that would be my intention, yes.

Sir, anything else that you'd like to have before I start a question?

Uh not at this time.

Okay.

I'm sure thank you.

Cross examination.

Thank you here, and examiner.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Christensen.

Hello.

You'll agree with me that the rules.

Chief Lipsky identified you as having violated a reasonable, correct?

I definitely did not go on those seven runs.

And there's 24 things that that entails some of them are kind of doubled up, but yes.

And you agree with me that discipline is warranted for your violation of these rules?

Yes.

You'll agree with me that you had no reason to not go on the seven enumerated runs as we've identified in exhibits uh one and four and five.

Um I have no good reason.

Uh the officer on the med unit suggested that he didn't need us, so I didn't go.

Okay, right.

And then and then to be clear, there that's not a excusable reason to not go.

No, but it's reason.

Okay.

Um you also agree with me that not going on those runs is a violation of the oath of office that you took, um, that Tony Rocco identified as I think it's number eight.

Exhibit eight.

Yes.

You also agree with me that the captain of the house sets the expectations uh for the members underneath his or her command.

Yes.

You also agree with me that the captain's uh uh leadership is shown through the decisions that he or she makes.

Yes.

Uh you agree with me that um this is a novel or unique situation.

There's that many times wherein fire fighters don't go on the runs that they're called to.

Yes, I would agree that's unique.

And I just want to make sure that I understood your testimony here.

Is that if the commissioners decided that uh you should be instated back to the fire department in some capacity?

Your testimony here today is that you believe you're uh not capable of performing the role of a firefighter.

Three on or one on, three off.

I don't know.

Okay.

I'm not gonna hold it to it.

All right, no further questions at this time.

Any redirect?

No, first time, thank you.

What kind of support roles was the fire department have that were Monday through Friday or 40 hours a week in that beyond runs?

I'm just making sure you have to.

There's several.

Um they have um a program called Mori, uh about outreach for uh individuals that um are taking narcotics as well.

Narcotics, um, as well as um uh community relations positions as well.

Um uh the old firehouse on Franklin Brady.

Um, and then the new shop.

There's uh a lot of individuals signed there that that participate in various programs.

Okay, no further questions.

Oh, sorry.

Sorry, I won't do that.

I think I can figure it out.

So I um I'm wondering if you can help me understand.

So the hierarchy in the fire department, as I have witnessed it, is pretty set.

Captains are above lieutenants.

Yes, it depends on the role.

Um, while yes, captain oversees lieutenants, but there's circumstances, uh incidents where, as an example, the first arriving truck at a fire, the officer on that rig is in charge of the fire until relieved by the battalion chief.

Yeah, which could be a lewd, I get that.

Or acting firefighter, um, or firefighting lieutenant.

So um medically Lieutenant Bushman outranked me in these circumstances, like as a paramedic.

Yes, right, but not in terms of ops in the house.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

I'm also trying to get some clarity on.

Did you disclose to MFD your diagnosis of the PTSD once you got it, which was after the start of this disciplinary process?

I informed my union rep.

I didn't know HIPAA-wise what what I'm supposed to tell people.

But the union knew.

My rep that I don't know how far he disclosed it after that or at all.

Okay, thank you.

I guess I don't have any questions.

Any follow-up based on the commissioner's questions?

Suddenly.

Uh none for uh Mr.

Christianson.

I would uh reserve the right to uh bring AC Parish up for rebuttal on some of the questions that uh uh Commissioner Bergos rendered.

Okay, um so Mr.

Christensen, you can step down.

Mr.

Retco, any other witnesses for the appellant?

Yeah.

All right.

So the appellant rests.

Apparently, the chief would like rebuttal.

Just a single, just maybe two questions, just so that way the record is clear and I should never lock your I should never, I should never give a number, you are correct.

You're an examiner, I didn't know better, but I don't I don't suspect it will be longer than a couple of questions.

Alright, all right.

Um I'd like to recall for rebuttal purposes, um assistant chief parish.

All right.

Um I always took the position same reporter, same day, same oath.

So I'm not going to reswear you so you can have a seat, you are under oath, but since uh you're being recalled, I would ask if you would just first once again tell us your name and spell your first and last name for absolutely Joshua Parrish, J-O-S-H-U-A, P-A-R-I-S-H.

Thank you.

Uh Chief Parrish.

You uh heard uh Commissioner Bergo's question to appellate Mr.

Christensen.

Yes, I did.

Can you provide an answer to Mr.

Commissioner Burgos' question?

Absolutely.

So we do have multiple 40-hour positions on the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Um, those typically come with enhanced levels of responsibility.

Um the individuals assigned to those positions are normally specialists or have specialty qualifications.

So one of the examples that he gave was the Mowaki Opioid Response Initiative.

Um is historically staffed by community paramedics, which are all trained at that advanced uh level of uh training.

We do have some individuals that function at the EMT level.

Uh we send them out to school at EW Milwaukee.

Um, and as you may note, they are working with uh some of our most delicate populations in the city.

So individuals that are working through um drug addictions or rehab services, so once again, highly fragile, um extremely dynamic situations.

Our community relations division uh does have a four-person staff that's full-time.

Um the unique thing about especially that 40 hour job is the schedule is just confetti.

Um so you are working nights, you are working weekends, um, you are at whatever community event we're sending you to.

Um, it is very much a pop-up and represent the department kind of thing.

You're also responsible for scheduling um companies in the field um to do community relations assignments wherever they may be we have individuals there now who speak uh multiple different languages things like that so it is a very bespoke position the individuals at the training academy um have varying levels of responsibility at varying levels of rank um those are also additional levels of responsibility because they are responsible for uh trying to usher our brand new firefighters and fire cadets um actually through the training academy safely um so they need to be uh well aware of the safety considerations and also working with individuals who are uh you know really learning the basics of firefighting um so these aren't really items that are you know open for a person just pick and get one you have to actually apply those are normally competitive processes you have to be qualified to do one of them um and then um there is a extra sphere of trust that is put in those people because um it isn't all the time that they're supervised by another individual uh who may be of higher rank or of more um authority or experience actually quite you know the opposite sometimes a person who may be of lower rank maybe have higher experience qualifications so they're working out those situations on a case by case basis so excuse my ignorance uh and the fire department would a 40 hour day shift job be preferable I know on MPD it would be but I don't know about firefighters it really depends on the position some are harder to recruit for some are not um it really actually it's the person the position and the person um I've been on a lot of 40 hour assignments but they are for things that I love and I'm passionate about I spent multiple years in recruiting multiple years in training I was a community relations director for several years um so it really runs the gamut so a a base level firefighter who can't go on runs is not um preferable that is not so that is not a qualification or an exception you alright I'm still the paramedic too by the way we're comforted by that um so no that that's not the way our 40 hour positions work it's not something that you do because you can't go on runs is something that you do because you love that position or you love that job.

Thank you.

No questions what rank does a person have to hold to be an instructor at the fire academy you can be in there's three different ranks to be an instructor so you could be an instructor at a firefighter we call them a uh fire service instructor the lieutenant fire service instructor sorry about that so we have I want to say there's one or two of those that have to double check um the lieutenants are both full times and we have adjuncts we bring out for academy classes we also have lieutenants who uh oversee some of the day to day for the fire cadet program and then we have a captain over each uh program as well for training so they all have different levels of responsibility for training that are outlined in the FPA standard so you don't necessarily have to be a constructor it depends on the level of author or the level of instructing that you're doing can you indicate there was a position called something that's like equivalent to a firefighter I'm sorry could you repeat the question yeah you'd also mention that there's a lieutenant at teach and there was one other position that you indicated that that is yes the fire service instructor that's of course onto like a firefighter uh it is at the firefighter pay rate okay it is not equivalent to a firefighter now okay thank you that's all I have settling any thank you very much.

Any other rebuttal witnesses?

No.

Any server button no okay so the evidence is closed.

Um I'm gonna suggest that I'm gonna give you 10 minutes to gather your thoughts.

So we'll take a 10 minute break and then we'll come back for closings.

I can call mine or more.

I mean, whatever is there.

I mean, maybe I could share the existence of that.

There was no first one, so it's a lot of uh EFT level.

All right.

I think we are back on.

Um the evidence is now closed.

We'll give the parties an opportunity to make closing statements.

Assistant student attorney Headley, would you like to give a closing statement?

Yes, I will, and I will make this as brief as I possibly can here in examiner.

No guarantees as the amount of questions, though.

Thank you again here, hearing examiner and commissioners for your time and energy and grace here today.

Um the appellants' case and to render a decision accordingly.

As the commissioners are well aware, what your obligated and what you're tasked with here today is to determine whether for the good of the service, um, if Mr.

Christianson's discharge should be permanently upheld.

And in so doing, you have two just cause factors to evaluate in your deliberations.

The first, factor six, is whether the chief is applying the rules here fairly and without discrimination against Mr.

Christianson.

And the second is whether Mr.

Christianson's discharge from the department reasonably relates to the seriousness of the his alleged violations and to his record of service.

The facts that they can get from that, interviewing the subjects of the investigation, providing additional information through other interviews and other documents, months and months and months worth of research, months of going through tedious 30,000 lines, line by line of data to figure out what happened when and who did what in this case.

Now, at that time, after all the evidence was amassed, presented it to Mr.

Christensen.

He went through and had an opportunity to determine whether or not he felt anything was incorrect.

You heard from AC Parrish that he did point out some things, and what did the chief do at that point in time?

Reviewed more data, pulled everything again, just to determine and make sure that what Mr.

Christensen was being accused of and being charged with was accurate.

And that's what happened in this case when they came back and reported this is what we have.

There was an agreement to it, and that's the charges that we came to.

At that point in time, the chief has a determination.

We heard from AC Parrish that he uses information from various things.

He has a degree in human behavior.

He focuses on the paramedics, he focuses on social justice.

If you know anything about AC Parrish, he focuses on social justice, determine how best to come up with what makes sense in this case.

He determined whether or not Mr.

Christensen was able, in fact, to do what he was supposed to do and didn't, whether or not he knew what he was supposed to do, and whether or not he was willing to do the thing.

Those three check-in points at which point in time AC Parrish and Chief Lipske were able to determine that Mr.

Christensen knew what he was supposed to do, right?

Mr.

Christensen did have the ability at those times to go on the run.

Mr.

Christensen knew what he had to do as he himself testified in upwards of 25,000 runs.

So he knew what to do.

The tone goes off, you go in the rig.

The tone goes off, you go to the call.

I don't mean to seem simplistic with it, but quite frankly, that's what it is.

That the job at the heart of the job, the heart of what the fire services here for is to respond to emergencies accordingly.

After weighing all those options, uh assistant chief parrish determined that discharge was appropriate.

He recommended to Chief Lipsky that discharge be appropriate.

And if you heard from, as you heard from AC Parrish, the reason why is trust.

As a house captain, Mr.

Christensen was responsible for setting the tone of the firefighters and lieutenants and HEOs below him, both on his shift and on the other two shifts that he's responsible for.

He's also responsible for setting the cultural context for all of the younger members.

You heard him testify, you heard Mr.

Christensen testify that he loved to teach.

Keep in mind here what he's teaching the people on his shift with him, some of who have been on only a couple years.

If that is that when you don't feel like going, when oil changing in the car is more important, you press this button and not go on this med run.

That's the tone that was set.

That's the cultural context that was provided to members of the department beneath him who had no ability or had a very, it'd be very hard battle to fight against the House captain to say, no, I've been on the job for a year, you gotta go now.

What you also heard today was testimony from Mr.

Christensen's two character witnesses, deputy chief uh Robert Hartung and battalion chief Joel Recklitz.

And if you recall the testimony and want to take some time to pull back their testimony, if you call their testimony when asked if they had trust that Mr.

Christensen could do the job, each took a very long pregnant pause, and each took some time to think about and very calculated, and they were very calculated in their response.

What you got from there was, I'm glad that I did not have to make this decision.

What you got was I think he can do the job of firefighter.

At the end of the day, there's no unequivocal yes.

Myself as a as a battalion chief, myself as a deputy chief, I would trust him under my employee.

I would trust him to do what he's supposed to do.

And that again goes quite simply back to the seriousness, going back to that seventh factor that you are to weigh in here.

The fire department, as you well know, needs to have the trust of its members, the fire department and our executives need to be able to trust that when a tone goes off, the call will be run.

Citizens of Milwaukee, those of us who live here are very uh reliant upon that, and to not have the ability to rely on your fire department to show up when a 911 call is placed, undercuts and specifically highlights the seriousness of these actions.

Fire Chief understands that Mr.

Christensen has had a long tenure with the department and took that into consideration.

Fire Chief understands that Mr.

Christensen had uh various awards.

I believe five over the course of 27 years, about once every five years.

My math is correct there.

That alone does not give an individual carte blanche to not do the essential functions of your job.

And keep in mind, we're not talking about going above and beyond here.

We're not talking about doing something extraordinary.

We're talking about hearing a tone and going out on a run.

Again, at this base level, is it base level so fundamental that I can't describe for you how more fundamental that is, but just say it's essential.

Finally, I I have no doubt that part of this commission will be determining whether or not the discharge is appropriate and whether or not some other lesser form of discipline may be appropriate.

Mr.

Christensen identified that he does not feel comfortable being back in the field as a firefighter.

You heard from AC Parish that every other 40-hour work week job that exists is a specialty, is something that's higher, is something that may not be promotion in pay, but definitely in obligation.

There's no way for him to be in this in the deployment of the service for the fire department.

Even if you were to demote him to a firefighter, he's gonna be expected to go back out into the field.

There's no place else for him to go.

Um that I submit that the chief has uh established beyond the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is required, that he is applying the rule fairly and without discrimination.

You saw the amount.

Take a look at exhibit one, all of the evidence that they accumulated over months and months of determining all of the other individuals who were fact who were similarly disciplined according to their culpability.

Uh, you hear you heard and you have in here before you the amount of calls that have been ignored versus the amount of calls that he knew he should have gone on, and why exactly the seriousness there outweighs his record of service, and with that, the chief would request that uh the discipline in this case discharge be upheld um with Mr.

Christensen.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Redcock, thank you.

That the chiefs apply my rule or order fairly without discrimination against the subordinate.

That's number one.

Number two, the discipline reasonably relates the seriousness of the alleged violation and to the subordinates record of service.

Case is pretty clear.

The evidence came in at no time if the assistant chief or anyone considered Mr.

Christensen's work history or discipline record with this department that was admitted to.

That's something that had to be considered in regard to the subordinate's record of service, and it's that's something to reasonably consider in the seriousness of the alleged allegation.

This man's put on 27 years of hard work for this department and for the city of Milwaukee.

He's received numerous merit awards.

He saved multiple citizens in fires and in other situations.

This man's gone above and beyond a normal firefighter, and he has executed his job very well, and he's admitted that what he did here was not something that was right, and that he's just learned by it, and he will never do it again.

Now, in regard to everyone else in this case that was disciplined.

There were several people that were terminated.

Every single person has received a position with the fire department once again, except for Captain Christianson.

That comes down to the situation of originally he was informed at the end of your shift on February 5th at 7 30 a.m.

would want you to report your personal vehicle to administration, and he knew at that time they were going to terminate him.

So he called in sick on the board.

Isn't that amazing how all of a sudden he went in and applied for a duty disability related situation on the afternoon of February 4th, and the termination time was somehow changed from 7 30 a.m.

on February 5th to noon on February 4th, so that his application could not even be considered.

That in and of itself is discriminatory.

That in of itself shows the order was not fairly undertaken.

It shows that the discipline is not reasonably related to the seriousness of the allegation, and it shows that no one even considered Mr.

Christianson's work record or his disciplinary record.

And for all those reasons, I respectfully request that the commission consider all those items and providing discipline to Mr.

Christianson or not applying discipline, but the bottom line is termination is way too severe for an officer, a gentleman who's put in 27 years of work as talk courses constantly, not just to people in the department, but to explore kids that are thinking about becoming firefighters, and also to other departments, St.

Francis O'Cree.

This man has that experience, and that anyone who says that he could not somehow become an instructor, or somebody who says that he could not be part of community relations, or somebody who says that he could not be a person that goes with a paramedic on calls to check habitual 911 callers before the fire departments sent out to see what's going on with that call.

That ignores the situation and ignores the fairness.

It ignores this man's rights as a person and his rights and responsibilities that he's earned by working for the department and giving his life to the department.

I'd like for everyone to consider that.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anything else for the record?

No.

All right.

Um, at this point, the commission will proceed into closed session to consider our deliberations of the just cause standards set forth in item six and seven.

Six, whether the chief is applying the rule or fairly and without discrimination against the subordinate, and seven, whether the proposed discipline reasonably relates to the seriousness of the alleged violation and to the subordinate's record of service with the chief's department.

So we'll go in a closed session.

Thank you.

L'autre l'oeil L'humanityow many of us?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Humanseo, o'clock.

Humanity All right.

We are back on the record.

The appearances remain the same.

The commissioners have had an opportunity to consider the testimony and the evidence that has been introduced at today's proceedings.

The commissioners have made a unanimous finding that the chief has met his burden to show by the preponderance of the evidence that the rules in this instance were applied fairly and without discrimination against Captain Christensen, and the commissioners have found that the proposed discipline reasonably relates to the seriousness of the alleged violation and to his record of service with the chief's department.

And so therefore, the commissioners are upholding the discharge decision of the chief.

In looking at this matter, the commissioners considered Mr.

Christensen's length of service along with the number of his awards.

Captain Christensen was very, very well aware of what the expectations were of him and what was necessary to fulfill his duties as a firefighter.

Authority in that house.

He set the tone.

The most serious thing that the commissioners recognize is that you had a young firefighter who somehow thought that this inaccurate entry of information was something that was normal and was acceptable in the fire department.

That's the type of cancer that eats away at the department from the inside.

So this doesn't mean Captain Christensen is a bad person.

This doesn't mean that his career meant nothing.

But the seriousness of this and the fact that he was in charge of this firehouse and the fact that this happened multiple times and required an actual false entry by pushing the button each and every time.

The seriousness of that is something that can't be overcome.

It is an incredible breach of trust, and for that reason, the decision to terminate him was appropriate, and the commission will uphold that.

So at this point, I need to waive the 10 day rule.

We'll be working on a draft decision to get out to the parties.

Thank you very much.

Anything else for the record today?

Nothing else to record, just for that.

I believe I have no problem with waiving the 10 day rule.

Mr.

Retco, any objection to waiving the 10 day rule?

Or decision?

Yeah.

Very good.

Alright, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

We're adjourned