This is the May 26, 20 2026 meeting of the Fire Police Commission's Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Present our Commissioners Fong, Horowitz, Schneider, Spence, and myself, Commissioner Burgos.

Also present our FPC Executive Director Leon Todd and Deputy Director J.

Pusick.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We will begin with item number one, which is public comment.

However, I we do not have anyone, any people with us uh in person this evening.

Bridget, do we have anyone appearing virtually?

And she's just no one appearing virtually, Director.

All right.

There being no further comments.

This concludes the public comment portion of the meeting.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The second item on the agenda is FPC 212543 resolution relating to the March 24th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Is there a motion on this matter?

Mr.

Chair moved to approve those minutes.

Second.

Any discussion?

I'll take a vote.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The third item on the agenda is FPC 212544 communication from fire and police commission staff relating to FPC citizen complaints in 2026.

And for this item, uh there's a short memo in the file.

Um just summarizing the uh the complaint categories that we've received to date in 2026 along with the dispositions.

Uh there had been a previous request to have uh the categories of complaints uh have a little bit more specificity than what was previously provided, which was uh I think, you know, half a dozen categories and uh it included things like department procedure or um department policy or services which isn't very descriptive.

This one uh now lists things like excessive use of force, failure to activate body war and camera, failure to file a re file a report, uh, and so on.

Uh, it also includes things like unfair arrest, uh illegal search and seizure.

Um so though the complaints to date in 2026 are now broken down in this in these categories.

I think there's about uh 20 or so of them.

Uh this information is largely uh if not virtually the same as what was in my uh monthly report, but I did want to just present it uh as a standalone item just to uh give members a little bit more time to uh review it and ask questions if they would so like.

So with that said, I'm happy to answer questions.

Do any commissioners have questions?

I do.

Yes.

Yes, Commissioner Hornitz.

Thank you.

Well, I I'm wondering.

I mean, they kind of in this initial list in the memo, uh it's indicating that failure to fully investigate, you had 10, and uh excessive use of force you had nine.

I mean, I I'm wondering whether the failure to fully investigate is on the rise comparatively, whether or not the use of force is on the downward slope.

I just would like to know what's some kind of comparison because it seems odd to me that there would be um a leading number of the failure to investigate.

I I what do you think about that?

That's a very good question, and to be perfectly honest, it's one that I did not prepare for uh to discuss whether or not these are consistent or uh contrary to any trends that uh that we may have seen over the last few years or so.

Uh I will look into that and and get you some follow-up information on it.

Okay, yeah, I think the the data will be more useful when we know how it compares to past conduct, past complaints.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Um I guess I I also um I appreciate the um the increase in sort of types of data here.

I think I would also be curious um for us to track uh the number of complaints that are made either in Spanish or using the language line with other languages.

Um then I would also be curious to know for the complaints that were sustained um or somehow otherwise had this sort of uh I don't know if you want to call it positive or negative outcome, but what what categories those were in, so that we could see if, for example, all of them were use of force or all of them were failure to fully investigate.

So I'd be curious to see those numbers as well.

Okay, I can certainly get that.

I don't have them right now.

I'm sorry, I apologize.

Any other questions?

Just uh um hopefully it's uh just to refresh my memory.

These numbers include those complaints that went directly to the various departments or no?

No.

Just us.

All right.

So what would be useful is understanding the full breadth of complaints.

Yes.

And and typically we do uh an annual um citizen complaint report that includes not only FPC citizen complaints, but complaints that were filed directly with the departments.

Um prior research uh policy analyst wasn't able to get that done before she departed.

She was focused on use of force and vehicle pursuits.

Um as soon as we get a new research and policy analyst, we'll we'll prepare that report.

Good luck on that.

All right.

Sorry, just a follow-up question to that.

I don't recall if this is already the case, but could that report include um I if I recall correctly, um Lit had a proposal regarding the number of days, um, and I think we were largely sort of already in compliance with the number of days that it takes to resolve a complaint.

Um, but if that report doesn't already include that, if that could include data on that, that's and it typically does include the data or it has in the past on the length of time to uh resolve complaints as well as um the race and ethnicity of the complainants and uh a number of other data points.

I have a question.

Can you explain no FPC jurisdiction?

There's 15 of them.

So people call the complaint about the police and it wasn't our jurisdiction.

Yeah, it can be uh cases involving the sheriff's department or the jail, or uh sometimes it's even DPW or just yeah, something that's not directly with uh involving misconduct of a police fire or DEC employee.

Do we then direct them?

Yes, okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

I do have a question, maybe a little off um topic.

But this came up in another um another organization, another governmental organization.

Do we have a whistleblower policy that is in effect comes through your office?

MPD does.

Um so um generally speaking, if a member of the department files a complaint with us, and we don't disclose that to the department, um, there's certain I presume at least certain people with access within the departments are able to see that since we're using their aim or benchmark system, and it may, you know, if it gets to the point where there's uh a citizen complaint trial or something like that where it's necessary for disclosure, we would do so then, but generally speaking, we don't disclose it.

And even if MPD did become aware of it, they would be prevented by their policy from retaliating against the member.

Yeah, it's one of those for me, it's a question of who ultimately has responsibility or investigating those claims.

Is it the various departments or is it uh FPC uh fire and police commission or how does that get resolved or get dealt with?

So generally speaking, if they file, and this is something that I I want to address in item number six, I'm sorry, number five.

But uh generally speaking, if they file a complaint with the FPC, my presumption is that they want, you know, the FPC as an independent agency to do the investigation and handle the matter.

Now there are some circumstances where I will refer cases to IED, um, you know, for example, if they've already received a complaint or have an internal investigation open and they're already investigating it, uh, or if someone files a complaint simultaneously and there's no need to do two investigations and uh and you know if for some reason they're better suited or they want to take that one you know depending on on the nature of the complaint that may be appropriate to refer.

And there's a handful of other situations where I think it might be appropriate to refer um cases to uh MPD's internal affairs.

You know, for example, um there's some cases where well while I can issue a policy review or counseling order, I can't order formal discipline.

And so if it's something that I feel you know obviously uh that rises to a significant level that would warrant a citizen complaint trial maybe somewhere along the lines of you know five days or more of discipline just like uh is the benchmark for appeals that certainly would be appropriate to refer to a citizen complaint trial but then there's uh sort of an intermediate an intermediary category like oh maybe they uh in my view should get a reprimand or maybe at most one or two days but uh it doesn't rise to that five plus day level I I may refer those to uh to IED um again that's sort of the category that I'm I'm looking to discuss uh in item number five but uh fair enough thank you any other questions this being a communication file no further actions required at this time director please proceed with the agenda next item is item number four FPC two one two five four five communication from FPC staff relating to citizen complaint trials and disciplinary appeals involving pro se complainants and appellants um and so this is uh a continuation of a a file a communication file that we had earlier this year uh and that that one was related solely to um pro se complainants and and I think uh where we had left that was uh FPC staff was gonna uh investigate the possibility of some type of referral program or and or um pro se guide or or handbook or something like that uh you know since that time we've we've done a little bit more uh thinking on this and I I think uh Deputy Director uh Pusek had uh had some ideas that we wanted uh to share with you uh and get your your input on.

Yeah so um you know obviously the the problem here that we're trying to solve are um complaints or or started with solving the problem of complaints uh that get made uh it's appropriate for a trial to the board but um you know the complainant obviously has the responsibility to come in and essentially under our system prosecute their own case right they have to come in and have the ability to present evidence at least to some rudimentary level um and to argue to that evidence and to to know what to put in and what can't be put in and I think what I've been told happens in the past sometimes with these situations is um people are upset they have a lot of emotion a lot of feeling about what happened to them and um it just doesn't always go off well and so sometimes you end up with situations where maybe it seems like there might be something there but you can't really figure it out because they can't appropriately prosecute or put in the evidence for the board to properly consider.

And obviously there are situations where you know I'm sure the commissioners would want to take action in some of those cases.

So having uh somebody available to discuss the case with them and maybe the parameters uh of a of the rules of evidence how to put evidence in how to do that and maybe even potentially represent uh them um to me it it presents an interesting opportunity for um honestly law students.

Um an opportunity where um like UW Madison has a lot of clinical programs in their Remington center where um students can meet with people who are facing this kind of administrative litigation, um, get advice from students, and then actually if they want the student to represent them at the administrative hearing, they can do that.

Um and that would be a great opportunity in this context because number one, the people the re you know, the people doing the representing don't have to be attorneys.

So there's no licensure issues, there's no nothing like that.

Um it would provide an opportunity for an elder law student to get some experience in litigation uh in administrative law, potentially employment law, um civil rights kind of stuff.

Um and so and it and it would lead to the case just moving more smooth.

I mean, I think you all have been on trials, whether they're disciplinary or complaint, where there's a pro se person and they don't go very well uh and they don't run smoothly because a lot of pro se folks don't kind of know what they're doing.

There's a lot of hand holding and there's a lot of you know um things that go into that.

Uh and I think um that's true even in the court system, right?

We see that with pro se defendants in criminal trials or civil cases, uh, you know, like evictions and things like that.

Um and so having a representative there for the parties if they are up unrepresented would help uh make the trials go smoother.

It would help uh make sure that the the issue that needs to be developed factually actually gets developed, right?

And that the appropriate facts get put in for the board's consideration.

So I think when when we were talking internally about all of those issues, it it seems to make sense to me that you know um we have a system uh potentially to help uh unrepresented citizen complainants navigate this process, but also potentially if we have unrepresented employees um who either aren't gonna be represented by the unions or they're civilian employees, and so they don't have a union and maybe they don't have the kind of cash necessary to bring in a lawyer, it would be good for those folks too to have a representative to help make the process go smoother, make sure that the right evidence is getting before the commissioners.

So um like I said, uh to me it seems like a perfect opportunity for a law school.

Um so what I've done to that extent is reached out to um some representatives from Marquette's law school because they're close, um and they have some clinical programs uh to see what their level of interest and ability would be to create such a program.

Um I haven't gotten a formal response back on that yet, but I would anticipate uh sometime in the next week or so getting that, and then we can move forward from there.

If if Marquette doesn't have the capacity to do something like this, um my backup idea would be potentially to reach out to UW because uh and I certainly if there's if commissioners have thoughts on this or uh issues, um please uh provide them.

But my thought would be most of this work can be done largely by uh video link, right?

So meeting with the client and advising them, um uh doing the uh pretrial hearings if that's what the person wants.

Um the only thing a student would have to come here for would be the trial.

And the amount of pro se trials we get, we're talking probably one or two a year, maybe, right?

So it's a small number.

Um, and so I think potentially Madison might have the capacity to do it if Marquette doesn't.

Um and if if neither of those things pan out, uh, potentially having um some pro bono attorneys sort of on speed dial uh as a way to to connect um any unrepresented people up with them might be a uh sort of a third path.

Um but so those are sort of the rough ideas right now.

Like I said, I mean that the hope would be is that we could have a program where law students that are, you know, in their 2L or 3L year are getting the opportunity to do this work.

So we have we have a full employer police commissioner Marquette Law.

I I have not reached out to him just because I I don't believe he's uh in the program that does the legal services uh division, which is who whom I reached out to, uh was the head of that department.

I think that's my understanding is is uh and I've done some informal sort of investigation in this.

My understanding is she would be the most appropriate contact person here.

So that's that's who I sort of directed my more formal request to.

Any questions?

Yeah.

Any issues with liability for uh folks who are not licensed, giving advice.

Yeah, so typically um the law school, if they have well, you know, when they have a clinical program that's developed, there's typically uh an insurance piece that uh that they have to cover that.

And obviously um, like Madison uh their clinical programs are typically done, you know, it's by law students, but it's under the supervision of clinical attorneys.

Um and so the students are um working under the advice and counsel of those attorneys.

Um and so they long story short, right?

They have a structure for that for coverage of that, and it's on them, my understanding.

And there isn't any liability that's passed on to the fire and police commission.

I don't believe so.

Okay, I wouldn't think so.

Uh our rules do allow for a person, either an appellant or a uh a complainant to have an advocate uh with the approval of the hearing examiner, and it doesn't require that that person that advocate be a lawyer.

Uh so it would be our consistent with our our existing rules.

And again, I I agree that I don't think there would be any liability passed on directly to the city.

Um I say directly because um, you know, there is, you know, from a certain point of view, um, you know, some people may not uh i.e.

the departments or uh others may not be happy with this because essentially you're finding a representative either to get someone in trouble or defend an appellant against who's been disciplined by the chief.

Um that being said, uh, you know, in my personal opinion, those concerns are are far outweighed by fairness to uh the parties and just making sure that they have a fair opportunity to uh present their case, be heard, and that the process goes smoothly.

Uh all that being said, we wanted to uh bring this before you to see if anybody here has any objections to this, so we're not getting ahead of what the commission actually wants to do in this regard.

Just as one commissioner, I've seen um situations where people have um actually represented themselves and it gets tied up in knots, and we're sitting there wondering, why in the world wouldn't you get legal representation because if you were to understand process and the key the salient points, you may have not gone this down this pathway, and you feel bad for them.

Yeah, you really do because um it's a situation where if they had taken a different path, maybe the outcome wouldn't have led to um an appeal.

Wouldn't have led to discipline, wouldn't have led to a lot of different things.

So I'm I'm one who's in favor of continuing to research this and finding a um a resource to help those who quite frankly may not have the resources to help themselves.

Yeah, and in terms of liability, I mean that you know, this isn't something that we're gonna be directing or you know, it's essentially just finding a partner to make a connection and then from there it's on the litigants and the clinical program, right?

That it's a relationship that they can enter into of their own desire or not, um, and then from that point, uh, you know, it would be um up to the clinical program to represent them under our rules.

Yeah, I think it would be different if we were underwriting in some way, shape, or form.

Yep.

But that's not what we're talking about.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, the the clinical program wouldn't be in any way connected with us or you know, uh it would just be we're kind of um again it to make sure that the proceedings are as um effective as possible for for any side of a litigation.

Yeah, um, or sort of, you know maybe uh helping to point out that there's an there's some room here to have a clinical program in this space and it's a possible resource offered not a pure goal because they can choose to not still say no, no, I'll I'll take care of this on my own.

So yeah.

I agree.

I think it's great.

Is there a specific pushback thus far about the program or the potential program?

Uh, not from the departments.

Uh I I do remember when I can't remember if it was the prior hearing examiner or the one before him, which uh there was a case where I was uh a uh a citizen complaint trial type case where I was considering uh the possibility of looking into uh finding the person a pro bono lawyer and uh they advised me against that um for kind of the reasons that I've stated, um, but again, I just don't remember which examiner it was.

Uh at the time that advice did seem to make sense.

Um particularly if this board hasn't, you know, at least informally sanctioned a uh uh its own program that this is what it wants, and it's just me doing out whatever or going off on my own and doing it on an ad hoc basis.

Um, but I do think it certainly would make the the process run a lot smoother.

I know that really since I've been here, the only time the citizen complaint trial process has worked well is when both sides have had a lawyer and there's at least one incident that I I'm thinking of where the person I thought it was a meritorious case and the person did not have a lawyer and they just could not negotiate uh or handle the situation and it got uh uh dismissed on on procedural grounds.

Um I also think there's been at least two cases involving DEC employees in the last year or so that I've I've at least saw parts of uh that that seemed to um I don't want to say that the issues were not fully litigated, but perhaps not as litigated as thoroughly as they could have been.

Um yeah, thank you for that.

I I was on one of those and I definitely agree.

I think I've seen maybe two, maybe three, at least two uh pro se um situations in my short thus far tenure here.

Um, and and I'm certainly agreement with in in agreement with what everyone has said with regards to what makes for the most fair trial.

Um and I think with regards to the situation that I think there's a big difference between us sort of um asking for the facilitation of a program that would be available to many versus, you know, realizing that one specific person needs um assistance or counsel.

So um I would hope that there's not too much objection because I do think that this would certainly lead to smoother and and more fair outcomes um based on my experience of uh how difficult it can be for someone who's pro se to navigate the process, which is new, not to mention any emotions that may be coming up for folks.

Okay.

Um yeah, so I understand that the uh clinic run by the law schools would be in a position to do this for pro bono representation, but what about out of pocket expenses and costs?

Would that have to come from the litigant?

Would there be an expectation that the clinic would cover them or that you know, I just I just in the private sector, you know, you as an attorney you tell your client, this is the attorney's fee, and these are the out-of-pocket costs, and if we lose and I'm on a contingent fee, you don't owe anything for attorneys's fees, but you do have to reimburse for costs.

So, um, I mean, my understanding of how that usually works is um, I mean, the the answer is is sometimes the clinical does cover co some costs and sometimes the the client might.

Um, for example, I mean, so, you know, the the law school, at least at UW has some pretty well developed clinicals like the Wisconsin Innocence Project, legal assistance to incarcerated persons and things of that nature.

Um, a lot of the costs um, you know, to the extent there are any costs, you know, um a lot of those are are covered by the clinical program itself.

Uh how however I I mean I don't know exactly what what costs you're you're referring to, but potentially if there's like filing fees or things like that, I would think that would copy almost certainly be on the on the uh on the uh litigant.

We don't charge a filing fee and generally speaking, uh I would I provide both sides with a uh courtesy or at least an electronic courtesy copy of of the entire record.

Or the investigator file.

I I get that, but I think that there could very well be cases where the litigant uh or the the uh um law school person, the attorney really thinks they need a an expert of some kind.

And then, you know, is that going to be made available?

How you know what's that?

And then there's, you know, some miscellaneous costs.

If if the UW people are driving back and forth uh for for this, uh there's some travel expense and maybe the clinical program covers all of that.

I don't know.

But um Yeah, I'm not I'm not envisioning a situation where we would cover travel costs or paying for an expert or anything like that.

To me, um, if if an expert had to be paid for, I would imagine.

I mean, first of all, the arrangement there would be between the litigant and the clinical program.

Um but i if if ultimately um there was a an expert that costs uh a significant fee, I would imagine the clinical program would say, well, you know, that that would be the litigant litigant's responsibility to pay for that.

I would assume.

I I don't know.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is and is there a um any threshold for obtaining representation in terms of um uh being showing that you have financial need, um, or is it just like I I haven't hired my own attorney, I'll just take whatever's free.

Yeah, I didn't contemplate um having a um uh a threshold for, you know, poverty level of any kind.

Um to me, I just it seems to me uh it would be a service that would be open to whomever wanted to engage it if they were involved in litigation before the FPC.

Um, you know, uh i if if you have the means to hire an attorney, but you'd rather have a law student represent you at one of these things, I guess that's maybe perhaps your choice.

I don't know.

Yeah, and I you know, I have some thoughts on this just because I I know, you know, typically when you're looking at uh legal aid or legal services attorney attorneys, I think they're looking at thresholds of either a hundred and twenty percent of the poverty line or two hundred percent of the poverty line.

But that that's pretty low in terms of uh an economic scale, you know, even people who are making, you know, fifty or sixty thousand dollars a year if you're looking to spend two hundred dollars an hour on somebody that's gonna put in a fair amount of time that really could be cost prohibitive.

Um so I I guess I wasn't envisioning an an income threshold or screen, but it's something we could talk about.

When I think about some uh I guess when I think about especially especially with some of the disciplinary appeals, I don't know that it would be I think it might be not appropriate to have the income threshold.

Um, because I think I think if the goal is to have more fair, more smooth um trials, I think A, that's kind of an unnecessary barrier to jump through, and B, there have certainly been folks who it essentially seems like they just have a lot going on, but they still might not be able to make that number um given the their situation or their family situation.

So I think I would probably personally not want to see that in effect.

And I would think sp especially with complainants, you know, you're asking someone, okay, bring forward this complaint of misconduct, but to get any relief, you have to hire effectively you have to hire an attorney and spend your own money to prosecute it.

Um even if you have the money, it does seem somewhat unfair or unnecessary.

Yeah.

Or unrealistic.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, and and you know, uh thinking about sort of like the public defender service uh and what I mean, the the financial analysis that that they do is incredibly prohibitive.

Like you have to be extremely poor to like you you can't own hardly anything.

You know, if you if you have a brand new car, you're not gonna get a public defender, right?

Like they they want you to sell everything you have and and be pretty much have zero in the bank in order to appoint an attorney.

And so um you wouldn't want to see something like that.

I obviously none of the appellants on disciplinary issues would be qualified because they have, I mean, on paper, they all have an income, I guess, unless they've been terminated.

And so, you know, none of them would qualify under the public defenders' um standards, and so you know, I just don't know uh let's let's be real about it, right?

There's a lot of people that have somewhat substantial incomes that because of debt and other things they owe actually have almost nothing.

So um if we got into that business, I would think we would have to be really careful uh because that can get really tricky.

Are are we making an assumption that folks are being counseled before they come to an appeal hearing as to whether or not um they should consider legal representation?

What what's the um what is the process to ensure that people know that this is handled like any legal hearing and maybe above your uh knowledge relative to how the process works.

I'm not sure how much information is given up front.

Um if it comes to the police, I'm sure that the union counsels them in the case cases where we've had DC employees come before us.

I'm not sure what that looks like for them.

Can you speak to that?

Well, certainly uh FPC staff when the when the appeal is filed, does you know send out an email that that asks them to let us know if they're going to be hiring an attorney and that they have the right to do so uh at the first um pretrial conference with the hearing examiner, uh I know I know uh hearing examiner Feiss and Moroni too would at least inform people that they do have the right to have an attorney that may make things go better, they're not required to do so.

Uh it's their choice.

Um but um I don't know that they are well, I don't think that they are specifically saying, you know, this is something that is technical in nature and complicated.

Um I mean to a certain extent, um I think people do, or at least some people do know that.

I mean most of these cases are on the police side, but um uh it's really a matter of financial ability, right?

Yeah, I didn't know if if there was enough information given to people who may not have been involved in any sort of litigation, if they had no sense of what takes place they could assume well yeah, you know what?

I'm gonna get up there and I'm gonna speak my truth, and that will carry the day.

And unfortunately, that's not how things go.

No I do remember there was a a recent pro se uh individual who at one of the pretrial conferences indicated like oh well I I really I just thought that this was going to be a meeting and I was going to plead my case to the com the the three commissioner panels and um it's not exactly like that the there are at least some rules of evidence and procedure that that do apply.

Yeah and and so with that just telling people you know there and this may happen in pre-trial there you know we handled this like any case become coming before a judge um so you might want to consider whether or not you have enough of a knowledge base to present but can't tell you to go out and get representation or not but these is the way that this is handled.

And for some I I just get the sense that they weren't thinking at that level at all.

Yeah I mean I think it's a good idea to do uh it w it might be a cruel thing to do if we don't have uh uh something in place like this clinical program for somebody that can't afford it they might you know I mean like yeah thanks for telling me but like I don't have the option of hiring an attorney.

So um so but having an option like the uh clinical program might be it might help those folks understand like oh it's not just going to be sitting around uh a a table having an informal discussion this is more structured um and let's be real I mean it to navigate that structure effectively sometimes you need to have some training and and experience uh as an attorney of some kind of so thank you well I I think we started this you know kind of talking about the DEC one DEC employee right and that that's a little different animal as well hey that's Portuguese word animal different person than uh fire and police right with their strong unions and then citizens of course that's an that's a whole nother yeah genre there.

So police and fire I while I don't it's not wrong and I if we offer this we're offering it to everybody but I think police and fire they already know if their union's not if their union's not backing them they're providing the attorney the union is already telling them yeah we're not throwing the money at this because it's yeah we don't see this as a winnable case.

That that is just I think the reality of of the unions again they can have that option.

So I I don't see this necessarily as a huge help to police and fire but definitely to the others.

And I doesn't say I'm against it I am for it but I think that's the reality is we're when we're talking about all the entities here.

Excellent point any others well then um yeah I I certainly um I mean to wrap it up I guess I'll say you know I'll keep um digging on this and and get some answers from Marquette.

And if I need to go to UW I'll do that and you know we'll keep following it if if I need to go beyond that as well.

But I certainly can report back um on this when I have more information.

Thanks.

Yes, good.

Director please proceed with the agenda.

The fifth item on the agenda is FPC 212546 communicating communication relating to referrals for citizen complaint trials and this was the file that I was uh referencing a little earlier um so I I've uh for a while operated uh on under a uh assumption uh kind of comparing citizen complaints to uh the disciplinary appeal trials if uh there is uh a suspension of more than five days or a demotion or a termination on um uh on the appeal side uh or or the depart the internal uh discipline side within the departments department members have a right to an appeal to the FPC board.

If it's five days or less, uh they can grieve it, uh, but they can't appeal to the FPC board.

Um I I have, and this isn't uh an apples to apples comparison, but I I do kind of divide cases into uh three three broad buckets.

Uh one, if it's something that's not disciplinary, they will uh get a policy review or counseling, which I have the authority to order under uh our rules.

Um, if it's discipline, that would be five days or more.

Something's that serious, uh that's a likely going to be a very good candidate for a citizen complaint trial referral.

If it's something that I feel uh might be a little bit more uh uh weighty than a policy review, such as a uh uh a reprimand or uh one or two or three days suspension, something in that bucket.

Um those are the cases that I I don't want to say I've struggled with, but they it can be a little bit more difficult to decide what to do.

Uh do I refer that to uh a citizen complaint trial?

If it's uh not really that serious, um it's not necessarily a great option.

Uh I can uh I could always still give a uh a policy review, but that's not a great option because then you're giving uh a non-disciplinary corrective action when it probably should be split disciplinary.

Uh and the third option is that I can refer something to IED with my own recommendation that I think you know this falls kind of in this range.

Uh, but then it's really up to MPD to uh decide what to do with it.

And and as I indicated previously, if someone has specifically chosen to file a complaint with the fire and police commission, uh my assumption at least is that they wanted the FPC to handle it as uh an independent oversight body, not necessarily MPD.

Uh so that's not a great option in my mind either.

Um, so I guess I wanted to bring this um and there's a few other categories of cases.

Um, you know, for example, um uh incidents that are flagged through our audits, which are generally referred to to IED.

Um there may be some legal issues there with having a citizen complaint trial um without a complainant, but uh uh for the most part I I just wanted to uh uh bring this issue uh up for discussion and uh and get some feedback if kind of how I've been operating with these three different broad buckets is in alignment with uh with what you would prefer um and do you have a preference for you know this intermediate bucket?

Hey, send us everything or you know, use your discretion or no, send it all to MPD.

Um I just kind of wanted to get your thoughts on this.

Questions, comments.

Do you know what the executive directors have uh have done in this case what's been practice?

My understanding is that there was a lot of referrals to MPD to handle from the jump um rather than FPC investigations, which I don't necessarily love.

Yeah, but they didn't have the statute to know for investigation.

Uh I'm not sure.

I know um there were two investigators under my immediate predecessor, and I I do know that she was interested in doing more investigations in-house rather than referral.

Um how far back that goes, I'm not really sure.

But the audit staff is much bigger, right?

Yes.

Yeah, but that's the the audit staff is newer as well.

Right, right, right.

What is the communication like with the complainants when um, or I guess first I'll say um I think I agree with your line of thinking that if someone makes a complaint to the FPC, they generally did that on purpose and probably want the FPC um to be the investigator.

But what's the uh what is a communication like with the complainant in the instances in which you have to refer to IAD?

Like, do they get a letter or is it a phone call and a conversation?

I guess I'm just curious what it's like from their perspective.

Generally speaking, they would get, I mean, there are some cases uh where different options are are discussed with them but in other cases you know I I have felt that that is the appropriate action is to refer it to MPD so it's not necessarily uh a conversation in advance and asking for their input but um notification of that's essentially the disposition uh that this has been referred to the department for XYZ reasons.

Now a lot of times it's a deconflicting uh situation where there's complaints filed with both and um you know for example like we haven't been able yet to to verify the you know if there's a filing delay that there's good cause whereas MPD has already started its investigation and doesn't have uh the file or the uh sort of a statute of limitations for lack of a better term or presumptive statute of limitations so some of those are just um not less discretionary I guess than than other cases but um yeah and is that is is that the most common situation in which you're referring to IAD it's just that somebody has sort of either simultaneously or in a certain order made dupe duplicate ish complaints.

I think so um there are some cases when it's filed with by a department member where it's really more in the nature of a uh HR or personnel complaint against a supervisor not necessarily something that rises to the level of misconduct but more of a personnel issue I would say that that's the next most common and then there are uh some cases and there's not a great many but uh there's certainly some where you know uh it seems to me that it's a little bit more than or should be a little bit more than counseling but not something that is in the in the nature of five or more days of suspension maybe a reprimand or at most one or two days um there's uh a small subset where uh it involves uh you know the where the complainant's also a um a victim or a potential victim of a sensitive crime which wouldn't be a great candidate for a a public citizen complaint trial um but that's fairly rare as well okay thank you that's helpful um sorry no go ahead I I saw the report we just saw before there are only two that you refer to IED in the last the first quarter of this year and so that's not doesn't happen a lot yes so we're talking as a very small number it's relatively small is that is that consistent yes okay so okay um so that's that's good we're still handling them mostly I mean there might be again like one or two where I was you know on the on the fence between a policy review or a reprimand and it might have just fallen in the nature of a policy review but it would have been a close call anyway.

If it's criminal we automatically send it over to IED?

Yes.

Okay.

That's all any other questions from the commissioners?

I guess I'm just trying to better understand maybe what you're asking like what specifically you're asking for feedback on.

I guess I'm looking to see if I'm generally doing what you want.

Like if if your expectation was that hey no anything that you think is more of a policy review you want it to send it to us for a citizen complaint trial even if it's really a lower level type discipline like at most you're getting a written reprimand or a one day suspension my my assumption has always been that those are not appropriate for a citizen complaint trial, that it really should be closer to something that would be appealable discipline if it was coming to the chief.

But if I'm off base on that I I'm looking for you to tell me.

Can I just say that I I don't have an issue with how you're disposing of these.

My bigger issue recently is whether or not you're getting enough information through an investigation to handle the proper disposal of the situation.

And it just goes back to okay.

How are we um how are we training those who are doing the investigations?

And is it consistent?

We may have one senior investigator who's more thorough than a junior investigator.

Sure.

And how do you handle um the the differences in thoroughness?

And I'm I'm not sure if it is, but I can tell you there was one recently where we were concerned that there wasn't enough follow-up to ensure that you had enough information to make a good decision.

No, and I I don't disagree with that, and I think that was uh if it's the case I'm thinking of it was you know, going back and looking at uh that I was not happy with the way one that that was documented, but also um it certainly was reasonable conclusion that there could have been more follow-up.

Um I think that um for the next investigator uh that is hired, I do think that some more hands-on training.

Uh we do have other uh including the deputy director and our audit manager who are former law enforcement officers and have investigatory experience.

So I do think some uh some more detailed training uh will be in order.

Yeah.

I just not that you don't have broad shelters and you can't handle it, but it's like, well, did he get enough information to make that's certainly important, plausible call call on itself.

Any other comments questions?

I guess I'm still maybe struggling to understand the middle category.

Is it is it a case where there's nothing, there's not a clear line in statute or the rules what makes it up to us?

There is not.

Um so and I I think that the citizen complaint intake guidelines are probably ripe for a uh a review and and updating.

Um, and those list out the different types of dispositions that are available, uh, one of which is a citizen complaint trial.

Uh and it doesn't provide uh a lot of specificity.

Um and partly this, there is no no rule that specifically says, oh, it has to be more than you know, five days or in that ballpark to to refer for a citizen complaint trial.

But my general understanding has always been that is not a very typical process, it's one that's reserved for, you know, fairly severe cases that at a minimum would not at a minimum, but generally speaking, would be in the same ballpark as a disciplinary appeal, but there's nothing in writing saying.

Okay.

Um I think it's a little hard for me to put my thoughts into perspective on this because I have not experienced a citizen complaint trial at all.

And so I'm not sure, clearly they're infrequent.

I'm not sure how infrequent they are, and that makes it difficult for me to assess how infrequent I think they should be.

Um but I guess I I'm not necessarily trying to sign everyone up for more trials as someone who recently sat in the four-day trial.

Um at the same time, I do I guess want to make sure that we're sort of not that they're not being taken seriously, but that's maybe some of these middle cases are still have a little bit more gravity.

Um and there is something to be said.

I think there is something to be said, even if the number of days um isn't going to end up that high.

There is some gravity, I think, for the complainant with the trial, and some sort of more, you know, public weighing of the evidence.

And so that can be a public trust thing.

Clearly, based on the number of complaints and the way that the dispositions lie, I don't imagine that if we looked more closely at this middle category, that it would mean we're doing trials every day.

Yes.

Do we have a sense of how many sort of how many in the middle category we're looking at?

It probably would be less than five a year.

I mean, part another another thing that's floating around in the background to this is, you know, unless until we get something up and running as far as an advocate, you know, you'd be essentially telling these people, okay, we think that there was a violation here that warrants potential discipline.

Now go prosecute that before the board and administrative hearing yourself, um, which is not a great way to, you know, well, may not be a great way to handle discipline in the first instance.

Yeah, I think I agree with that.

So is this potentially something that we might consider revisiting if and or when a program is in place?

We certainly could.

I think it's like anything else where if you're continuously reviewing and trying to improve it.

Times change, process might change.

Um we don't know.

I'm not looking to, I personally am not looking to solve problems that don't exist.

I'm looking to solve problems that exist.

So until you see that, you won't know what remedies need to be put into place.

Anything else on the commissioners?

Good discussion.

We can continue this again.

More information.

Excellent.

Uh Dr.

Cowage, uh Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item six, uh FPC 212547 communication from FPC staff relating to the FPC's 2025 use of force report.

The report is in the file.

Just a quick uh overview.

In 2025, there were 1,871 use of force incidents.

Um almost a thousand of which 986 involve pointing and or displaying a firearm only or other non-physical uses of force, which leaves a remainder of 855 incidents uh let's see.

All right, either hands-on physical force or the discharge of a firearm.

Um that is slightly down from uh 2024 when there were 917 such incidents.

Um the most common type of force used by officers was bodily force only.

Um there were 13 incidents that involved a firearm discharge at a person and five of those incidents, a subject uh sustained uh a fatal injury.

Um police district seven and three had the most uses of force and combined accounted for about 39% of all use of force incidents.

Um there were 17 use of force incidents that prompted investigations.

Uh that's just a very brief summary, and I'm I'm happy to answer any questions you have on this report.

This is the audit report.

No, this is the report by um Barbara Cooley about um just statistics and uh uh how those relate uh to different years and uh and different aspects of use of force.

Do they have the numbers of contacts, arrests?

So that you know out of 50,000 contacts we had 20,000 arrests.

Out of those 20,000 arrests we had a thousand.

Yes.

So of the 855 uh principal use of force incidents, a total of 820 people were arrested in 715 incidents.

Uh so the use of force is highly correlated with uh arrests.

Is this been publicized or uh is it just now it didn't really open?

Uh it was recently uh put on our website.

Nobody's here.

That's the question that's why I don't know why no one's here.

Um any other questions from the committee from the commissioners.

I'm certainly not trying to beat a dead horse, but I guess I do want to point out that now that we are no longer tracking separately draw or display of a firearm and pointing, I almost feel like it's had the opposite effect where now it looks like there's so much pointing.

And so I will just briefly note that I think that this would have been more helpful to track separately.

Um I think Commissioner Horowitz was actually trying to speak before I spoke though, so that's okay.

Um what I'm wondering, do we have any analysis of um what happens to the officers involved in these incidents?

How many have received um discipline or you know, up to and including discharge?

I mean, because this is just kind of a bucket full of uh data, but you know, one use of force in the category might be very egregious compared to another, but they both qualify as being a use of force.

So I don't, you know, that does the sheer number mean very much to us.

Well uh uh and that's certainly a point well taken, but uh this is a report that is uh analyzing the trends and the number of use as a force incidents.

Uh MPD does do a uh a quarterly report on uh their formal discipline that they put out.

So it is certainly tracked there.

Uh let's if I'm if you give me one moment I can take a quick look.

No, this does not go into the specific um outcomes of those investigations, I don't think.

Okay.

Okay.

Um all right.

Well, that was my curiosity, but i you think that in another set of reports we might have more information about, you know, how many use of force instances that we that were just bodily contact only.

Was there anything untoward?

You know, did the officer do anything that was egregious as opposed to the mere fact that they used the force, right?

Because this is all use of force, regardless of whether somebody complained about it or regardless of whether any discipline resulted from it, it's just all use of force as broadly as that's defined.

Yes, that's correct.

And there's at least two other uh reports that that would contain that information.

MPD does a quarterly uh um they have a use of force committee that that does uh an analysis primarily of outlier uh or officers that have a higher or an outlier uh number of uh uh a high number of use of force incidents where they review each of those uh use of force incidents to determine if there's anything inconsistent with policy, and then every quarter they um uh publish the uh the discipline from uh from that quarter, uh, which would include not only um potential use of force incidents but any other type of incident that resulted in official discipline.

Okay, yeah, one can I cut you off?

No, no, go ahead.

Um it says here the 13 incidents of or a somebody discharge their firearm at a person, uh something like that.

Maybe we need some more information on uh if they're firing if they're shooting their guns at somebody other than hitting them and use deadly force, they're using deadly force, so maybe more information on that.

Someone along the line would be really interested because that is deadly force where they use it and what happened.

I mean, I'm sure there's still the major incident command with that that policy review board, they have a major incidents that's still on the open, but um that might that's 13 incidents somebody's gonna ask a question about.

Sure.

And I do know that they they're I mean they obviously uh those are considered critical incidents, so there would be a uh uh a report.

Sometimes they have been delayed, but uh understood.

Yes, but what do we could get?

So we can answer questions when people communities ask it.

Okay, any other questions?

And madam chair, I did uh uh in the last paragraph on page 12, it does say um of the allegations or the the incidents that were investigated.

It looks like in all but one incident in which the officer received a reprimand, allegations were not sustained, unfounded, or findings were of exoneration or no code of conduct violation.

Okay, okay.

Well that's that's of interest, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments, questions?

Just want to echo the chair's desire to see a little more detail on the deadly force.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, director, please proceed with the agenda, seventh item on the agenda is FPC 212548 communication from FPC staff relating to the Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 911 call wait time reports.

And movement in both quarters, uh the DEC met or exceeded um uh both the 90% uh call answer threshold.

Uh, that they answer 15.

I'm sorry, 90% of all incoming calls within 15 seconds and 95% of all incoming 911 calls within 20 seconds in Q1 of this year uh nine essentially 99% uh of calls were answered within both of those time frames, and 100% of calls were answered within 90 seconds.

Um the number of calls um that were answered in more than 180 seconds, markedly decreased um both in Q4 of 25 and Q1 of uh 2026.

Uh in Q1 of this year, there were no uh outlier uh or calls answered uh more than 180 seconds, uh no emergency calls at least and only nine 91 non-emergency or administrative calls.

Um, so in short, uh the DEC is doing very well and can make continuing to make improvements.

Okay, questions, comments?

Just happy to see these numbers.

Very anecdotally.

I for some reason have had to call 911 several times this year, and it's always they're ready to talk before I'm ready to talk.

So much appreciated.

Management staff's doing a good job.

Yeah, you're all case.

So luckily not perfect, but okay.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The next item on the agenda is item eight, FPC 212549 communication from FPC staff relating to Q1 and 2 2025 MPD and MFD response times.

There's also a report in this uh in the file.

Um the long and the short of this is is that the response times were virtually unchanged in Q1 and two of last.

I'm sorry, Q1 and two of last year compared to uh the previous two quarters uh for high priority uh MPD calls.

Uh the median amount of time uh was uh for call to on scene was 10 minutes, the mean was 15 minutes.

Um I won't bore you with uh reciting all the the details of the report um for MS EMS response times um the mean was uh the trip for MFD records it a little bit differently.

There's the call processing time and then the travel time travel time uh the mean is 4.9 minutes, median 4.3 minutes.

And then for uh fire response, um essentially you know two minutes and change for travel time, which is similar to the previous two quarters.

Um happy to answer any questions on this though.

My question is, these are numbers.

Just numbers, what is is there a standard?

Is there um is I mean priority one, two response within two minutes or three minutes, you know, it's twenty thousand of them.

Well, is is our is the standard for responding to it to a priority one or two call in three minutes appropriate?

I mean that's is you know, are we doing the right jobs?

I mean, is that that's the only question?

These numbers look good, sure, but what is this is there a standard?

Do we have a standard?

Does DEC or anybody identify a standard that they should be responding to?

And um priority one, twos.

Uh I know in the summertime goes up, but uh is is there norms or standards that we can hold the police department?

You know, why are you taking six minutes to get to a we in progress kind of stuff?

So I don't know the exact answer to that.

Uh Jay, do you have any insight on that?

I think it depends on the department and resources, but you know, are you aware of any national standards for this?

I am not okay.

I can do some research on this.

IACP I'm sure would have something, but uh I just know that in the past, you know, uh our response time was two minutes.

Fire department was less than a minute.

And you know, what how is it changed?

How is it different?

Uh I always knew when we get the shooting, there's the fire department staging.

So you know, I thought that was good.

And these numbers look a little bit different.

I don't know.

Is there a standard?

Certainly do some research on that.

Oh question.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh the risk of admitting that I haven't read this report as thoroughly as I would want.

Is there any analysis of these incidents by uh either zip code or aldermanic district?

So that we know, you know, comparatively, that one part of the city is getting better response times than another.

It is broken down by police district for.

Sorry, one moment.

I believe for priority zero, priority one and two calls.

They are broken down by police district.

Um but those districts do include a number of different neighborhoods.

It's not broken down by zip code.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that's uh, you know, I don't know what what's what it would reveal, but to the extent that citizens uh feel that um the police response time in uh the predominantly African American sections of the of the city is worse than you know, like the east side or the south side or some other part of the city.

Um I think it would be good for us to know that.

Okay.

That's all.

I think I just had Commissioner Horowitz's same question, but on the fire side, which maybe isn't that useful to look at by zip code, but I understand that for example, the number of runs that they're going on is so much greater than it used to be, but with less houses, for example, and less equipment.

So I would be curious.

I don't know exactly how you would do the mapping and what the mapping would look like, maybe some sort of heat map that's uh it's it doesn't necessarily have to be that, but I would be curious to see something that would potentially show sort of um the like the response time and service in almost a hyperlocalized area.

That sounds like a good project for our next research and policy analyst.

Yes.

Good questions.

Any other comments or questions?

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The next item is item eight, FPC two one two five four nine communication from FPC staff relating.

Nope, I already did that, didn't I?

The ninth item is FPC 21250 communication from FPC staff relating to the 2025 FPC annual policy review.

Um so this is uh the review that's required pursuant to uh state statute 6250, and then also uh a newer common council ordinance.

Um essentially this lists all the areas or all the policies that were uh reviewed and modified in 2025.

Um I believe there was an attachment, but maybe it didn't show up in the in the version that I attached that had all the memos that you've received throughout the the year in 2025 giving a summary of the specific um uh specific policy changes.

So this is just a summary of that.

Um I just wanted to uh uh present it to the board and see if there were any questions.

This is more for the common council.

Yes.

That's it.

We get these, yes.

Yes, you do get them.

Yeah.

Every meeting almost, yes.

Okay.

Comments, questions.

Is that a hand or is that a previous hand?

Oh no, no, it's it's a previous year.

Oh, okay.

Uh I guess I guess my only I guess I'm understanding this document to be more of a summary of what we've already received.

I guess in my mind, when I think about what a policy review is or could be, I would maybe be looking for something more substantive as to whether sort of our policies are in line with best practices, for example.

Um, it's it's I guess I understand the common council wants this, but for for the commission, because we've already seen this, it's not necessarily particularly useful to see just the same documents again.

Um but to see something more substantive, heavy on the review, I think would be nice in the future, all right.

Wow, that would be a real dig.

Yeah.

Yes.

Well, I think and perhaps you know, something that you know obviously wouldn't you wouldn't have to necessarily go through every specific policy change and say that.

I mean, because a lot of this is is technical in nature, but uh, you know, with regard to some of the more for lack of a better term, newsworthy SOPs, like on uh surveillance technology or use of force or vehicle pursuits.

Um, and we can talk offline if there's any others that you'd like to see on that list, but maybe a little bit more substance for those particular SOPs.

Yeah, yeah, because I understand most of the changes that take place over the course of the year are very small edits, changing the name of something, those aren't the ones I would really be concerned about.

So hopefully it's not the deepest dive.

Okay.

I really don't want a 500-page report.

I'd read it, but everyone else would hate me.

I really don't have a problem with the report as it was intended.

But I do get it that um analysis more analysis would be good as we're reviewing these.

I that's that's my whole issue is if it's if it's a big enough issue for us to take up, what mechanisms do we have for review to ensure that all parties are looking at this from a perspective that would give us greater insights into whether or not the policy is effective.

This is all after the fact and it's for the common council, and that's fine, but we're in the moment, or we should be in the moment.

So, okay, okay.

I was looking at pet oxygen masks.

Do a deep dive on pet oxygen masks.

That's what I'm requesting.

Yeah, pet pet oxygen mask.

I was like, what is that?

Yes, it's an SOG for the EMS.

Okay, I was like, that's why I asked.

What is that?

We'll we'll get into that one.

Okay, no, I just uh I just caught my attention.

Any questions or the comments?

I like direct to please see what the agenda and that concludes the agenda, Mr.

Chair.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

You do move.

Okay.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Stay at a