My name is Frank Bach.

I serve as the president of the board.

The first item on today's agenda is a call to order.

This March 13th meeting of the Board of City Service Commissioners is called to order.

The next item is a roll call.

Would the executive secretary please call the roll?

Commissioner Miller, present.

Commissioner Cleary.

She's excused.

Commissioner Smith.

Present.

Commissioner Wicksburrow, present.

And President Bach.

Present.

Or present.

Next item, please.

Item three, file number 251743 communication for the approval of the March 10th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Do commissioners have any comments or questions regarding the proposed minutes.

No, I move approval.

I second.

Been moved and seconded to approve the proposed minutes of the March 10th meeting.

I'll pull the commissioners.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Smith.

Yes.

Commissioner Wicksporl.

Yes.

The minutes are approved as submitted.

The next and only item on our agenda is item four.

It is the continuation of the discharge appeal of Omar Barbarena, who was an equal rights specialist with the department of administration.

I see the parties are both present.

Today, the state statutes and our rules allow a city employee to appeal a discharge action.

Today we're hearing an appeal from Omar Barbarena concerning his discharge, which was signed on January 21st, 2026.

The commission will decide whether or not there was cause to discipline the appellant.

And if we find there was cause, the commission will decide the appropriateness of a penalty.

The court reporter who is with us today will swear in the witnesses just prior to their testimony.

I want to remind everyone that only one person can speak at a time because the court reporter has to be able to hear the speaker in order to make a record of the hearing.

The parties stipulated to certain exhibits and other matters, including the fact that Mr.

Barbarina filed a timely appeal.

Now the hearing is this hearing itself will be conducted as follows.

Second, we'll have opening statements by each of the parties.

Third, we'll hear direct testimony from witnesses.

Each witness will be subject to questions from the members of the commission and cross-examine by the other party.

Fourth, we'll have closing statements by each of the parties.

And finally, the commission will deliberate on the matter.

Typically, our deliberations occur in closed session.

Of course, is announced in open session.

At each step in the process, the department goes first, the appellant second.

Staff will work with the parties to select an additional hearing date.

Today, as we continue the review of the exhibits, we'll consider those proposed exhibits which were not stipulated to at the prehearing conference and which were not dealt with at onch 10th.

Just a reminder that there were no joint exhibits.

And are part of the record.

The appellant submitted one exhibit, which was stipulated to by the department.

And that exhibit was marked as A1 and is part of the record in this matter.

The department proposed 15 additional exhibits, which were not stipulated to.

On Tuesday, March 10th, we considered eight of those exhibits.

Six were admitted as exhibits and marked as exhibits D16 through D20.

Two exhibits, DU2 and DU3 are databases, and we're not formally admitted into the hearing, but our information and commissioners are aware of.

At this time, we'll consider the other seven unstipulated proposed departmental exhibits.

The first of those is DU4.

That's a three-page exhibit.

Staff titled this exhibit.

Email, subject ERC and ERC complaints, email in boxes.

In looking at the material, it seemed to me this exhibit is an exchange of emails between Mary Reed, the interim director of the department, and Omar Barbarena, the appellant concerning ERC inboxes.

Mr.

Barbarina, what is your objection to this exhibit?

I don't have any objection.

I will.

I think we're going to take a second and let uh let Mr.

Barberina catch up.

We're looking at what was marked originally as du four.

I said no objection.

No objection.

I believe we left off at D20.

At D21.

Yes.

Then this one would be will be exhibit uh admitted as D22 and made part of the record in this matter.

The next unstipulated exhibit is DU5.

It is a five-page exhibit.

The staff titled this exhibit email subject clarification regarding ERC contact number on H pardon on IHRD event flyer.

The title that staff gave it kind of explains what it is.

It's an exhibit that's an exchange of email involving Mary Reed and Omar Barbarina concerning an event flyer from an IHRD event.

Mr.

Barberina, do you have that item before you?

I do.

What is your objection to this item?

I have no objection.

All right.

Then we're going to mark that one as D23.

The next item is DU eight.

Is a two-page exhibit.

Staff title this exhibit.

Email, subject information requested.

This email consists of this exhibit, pardon me, consists of email between Mary Reed and the information and technology management division.

Mr.

Barberina, do you have that in the four in front of you?

DU8?

DU8.

Yes, I do.

Okay.

Now this one uh was not did not involve you directly.

Uh did have you had a chance to look at it again?

Right now.

I'll be glad to give you a minute.

Yes, please.

Sure.

I I object to it because I don't think there's anything relevant to my I don't need that is uh my next question will be going to the department in looking at this again.

Uh it does not identify the other party that uh and it seems to be uh I'll call it pre-report types of interaction between yourself and somebody over an ITMD.

Is that a fair characterization?

Yes, good morning, uh Mary Reed, temporary systems analyst senior for the city of Milwaukee.

Yes, so this email is the start and basis of exhibit D16 and DU2 and DU3.

So this is the email exchange that resulted in obtaining the evidence from Mr.

Barbarina's device.

Okay, but it's it's not it doesn't commissioners, it doesn't seem to me to go directly to the uh to the case before us.

It's interaction between the department and the computer people about the paperwork that's being that was then generated and used by the department.

Um I don't think this is relevant to Mr.

Barberina's uh discharge.

It's uh it's preliminary paperwork.

The the results of the paperwork that were sent over has been formalized in a series of significant reports which were earlier uh accepted into the um into the record.

Um at this time I'm uh I'm not going to admit the du eight.

The next item is du 11.

This is a two-page exhibit, staff title this exhibit, emails, subject ERC meeting archives, not on ERC web page.

The first page is an email from Ms.

Reed to Mr.

Barbarina asking for ERC agenda minutes for 2023 and 2024.

The second page appears to be a list of 2025 meetings of the ERC.

I'm gonna start this by going to the department first.

Did I characterize this exhibit correctly?

Yes.

All right.

Mr.

Barnett, what's the um what's your objection to DU?

Do you have D first of all?

Do you have DU11 in front of you?

I do.

Do you recall that exhibit?

I do.

Okay.

Uh what's your objection to this item?

I don't have any objection.

All right.

In that case, we're gonna mark this one as D24.

Okay.

Pardon me, but I have to take something out from the files, which I'm a fair amount of paperwork in this case.

I apologize for the delay.

BU twelve is a two-page exhibit, staff titled this exhibit, email subject ERC and ERC complaints email inboxes.

Regarding um the use of cell phones and privately owned devices that are used for conducting city business.

Um DU12.

Yes.

The uh the middle paragraph is titled scope.

No, that's not what RDU is coming up.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry.

Don't have it.

And I don't have it in front of me.

Thank you.

Oh, this one is oh no, this is the um an email from Ms.

Reed to Mr.

Barberina, and it is about that subject that the staff referenced ERC and ERC complaints email inboxes, and there's a question or pardon me.

There's a statement that says uh many of the emails have no response or reply.

And if you if you look at the second page, they are a number of those are listed.

Application, many of them say ERC commissioner application form.

Mr.

Barbarena, do you have that document in front of you?

I do.

Okay.

Do you object to that document?

No, I don't.

All right.

Then that will be D25.

Thank you.

The next item is the three-page exhibit, staff title to exhibit, email subject, individual stop by office.

The first page is an exchange of email between Jacqueline.

She and Ramona Ramos on October 17th.

And uh copies, at least of the um email on page one of this exhibit.

Uh shows copies going to Mr.

Barberina.

Um Jacqueline Chiesy and Mary Reed.

And uh it's from Ramona Ramos who works in the office.

Uh uh.

Mr.

Barbarino, what's your objection to this one?

No objection.

All right, then that's going to be D26.

And then the final one of these departmental unstipulated exhibits is D15, DU15, pardon me.

And that is a one-page exhibit, which staff titled email subject three and thirty weekly touch base with Omar.

This is a and it appears to be using first names.

Uh it appears to be a email from Ms.

Reed to Mr.

Barberina regarding um weekly performance review meetings.

Uh Ms.

Reed, in your opinion, is that summarize it correctly?

Oh, a weekly touch base with the staff.

Weekly.

Mr.

Barbarina, what is your objection to this item?

None.

All right.

Then that will be marked as D27.

We've now gone through the various emails that were submitted by the department and were not initially accepted into the record.

Those have been marked with an exception of what had been du 8.

The others, DU4, DU5, U11, DU12, DU13, and D15 have been marked and received into the record, and they're part of the record in this case.

And uh they can be used uh for testimony during the hearing, uh subject to cross-examination by the appellant and subject to questions by the commissioners.

Some of them are partly self-explanatory, but not completely.

Um at the last on mark, pardon me, on March 10th, I did after we had done gone through once the uh exhibits that were unstipulated to by the department.

Uh I asked both of the parties.

I asked both of the parties if they um had additional exhibits, and both parties at uh on Tuesday said they did not.

There was also an exhibit submitted by the appellant, AU1, which was uh had been initially objected to by the department in a there was a byplay of conversation regarding that exhibit, and it is also a copy of the discharge notice.

Uh there are two of them, and uh my understanding from that brief discussion is that Mr.

Barbarena received both of those documents, A1, pardon me, D G12, I believe it is, and AU1.

And when I heard that that he had received both documents in the course of the discussions, I said at that time that it would become A2.

And so that is part of the record, just as a reminder.

So no additional exhibits.

AU1 becomes A2.

And with that, I believe that the discussion of the exhibits is complete.

Do you have any correction to make about that statement, Ms.

Reed?

No.

Mr.

Barbarena, do you you know you've had a booklet of the records and you've had a chance to look at them?

Do you think we've covered all the exhibits?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you both.

The next step, as I indicated, are opening statements.

Each side will make one, and at each step in the process from now on, the department goes first.

Ms.

Reed, will you be making the opening statement on behalf of the department?

Yes.

All right.

Would you like to do so?

Good morning, honorable commissioners.

My name is Mary Reed.

I'm the temporary systems at uh systems analyst for the city of Milwaukee.

Uh I'm uh today we're addressing the discharge of Mr.

Omar Barbarena and the abuse of city property, a disregard for city policies and guidelines, and an extensive and egregious misappropriation of work time.

Today I will share with you all substantial evidence of a prolonged history of egregious misconduct on the part of Mr.

Omar Barbarena.

That substantial evidence includes but is not limited to more than 28,000 non-work related personal internet browsing URLs, including but not limited to personal entertainment, inappropriate social media browsing and media images and reels, scantily clothed individuals, personal retail shopping, and several job searches.

As an example, during the week of Monday, December 8th to Friday, December 12th, 2025.

It is it has been documented and noted that Mr.

Barbarena browsed the internet for non-work-related purposes for approximately 35 of the 40 work hours.

This accounts for nearly 87.5% of the work week.

Mr.

Barbarena's actions show that during work hours, he reported working full-time hours while the evidence shows the shows otherwise.

This agregus and prolonged misappropriation of work time is supported by substantial substantially documented evidence over the course of several months, which you all uh have been able to review that evidence, and we will discuss today.

Mr.

Barbarina.

You also have the opportunity to make an opening statement.

Would you like to do so?

Yes.

Please proceed.

Good morning, panel.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my case for this committee.

And I want to tell you who I am.

My name is Omar Barbarena, Equal White Specialist for the Department of Administration, Office of Equity and Inclusion.

I'm here to respectfully appeal the decision regarding my dismissal from my position with the city of Milwaukee.

I take this matter very seriously.

My concern today is not simply the outcome of the decision, but the process by which that decision was made.

The disciplinary action taken against me did not follow the standards required under the civil service rules that govern justice, just cost, progressive discipline, and due process.

In reviewing the circumstances surrounding my dismissal, several inconsistencies raised serious concerns about whether the proper procedures were followed and whether all relevant factors were fairly considered.

First, the principle of progressive discipline was not applied.

Prior to my dismissal, I was not giving documented warnings, corrective action plans, or clear guidance that my conduct was considered a violation that could lead to termination.

Progressive discipline exists to provide employees with notice, an opportunity to correct behavior, and a fair scalation of discipline when necessary.

In my case, those steps were not followed.

Second, there was lack of due process.

Third, important mitigation circumstances were not considered.

Despite taking on these responsibilities, there was no consideration how these additional duties may have affected workload expectations or performance perceptions.

Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the disciplinary timeline.

For example, the dismissal meeting took place immediately following the predischarge meeting.

The next date and the termination was stated to be effective at 9 a.m., raising concerns about whether the outcome has already been predetermined before a full and fair review could occur.

Finally, the allegations related to misuse of work time and internet access must be evaluated within the broader context of modern workplace practices and the absence of prior warnings or documentation violations, documented violations.

If such conduct was believed to be inappropriate, the appropriate curse would have been clear, communicated, guidance, and corrected discipline, rather than immediate termination.

I respectfully submit that actions taken in my case do not fully align with the principles that the civil service civil civil service system is designed to uphold.

Fairness, transparency, and consistent application of disciplinary procedures.

This appeal is not only about my employment, but also about ensuring that standards of just cost and due process are applied as intended.

I appreciate the commitments, the committee's time and carefully consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, and I look forward to presenting the information that supports my appeal.

Does that conclude your remote?

I just wanted to uh also include interrupting.

No, that's okay.

That defense against my termination.

Uh, it's a part of my statement.

During my nearly three years of service with the city of Milwaukee, I consistently performed my duties within dedicated with dedication, professionalism, and initiative.

I have never received any disciplinary action or performance related warnings.

My key achievements are number one building commissioner volunteer expanded the team of volunteers of commissioner from two to ten members.

In fact, the date of my discharge, uh, I mean, the day before my discharge.

Uh I have actually uh able to get two more members that included the ten members, uh, amounted to ten members of the uh commissioners.

I also uh number two, I established weekly Friday meetings, facilitated structural communication with commissioners chair, vice chair, and the complaining liaison as well.

I created and I published monthly agenda and minutes, ensure proper documentation for all commissioners' meetings, publications of approved minutes.

I published minutes, meeting minutes only after commissioners approved, participation in community events.

I represented the commissioners, the commission, the ERC commission in public engagement efforts, website and updates, I maintained accurate timely information online.

Seven, I support and logistics for commissioners' communication.

I provided operational and commissioner support.

I also created a monthly news uh monthly internal newsletter which enhanced internal communication and commissioners' engagement.

I also led program and an executive and act, and I executed internal human rights day annually that demonstrated as an event that we did annually that demonstrated leadership and mission critical programs.

The timelines of events uh when we had uh change in supervisor, the interim supervisor assumed leadership, but there was no formal transitional meeting, no mission statement or team goals established during my weekly meetings.

There was no mention of performance deficiency or job or job jeopardy.

Several meetings were cancelled by the interim supervisor as well.

Verbal uh previous uh the nature of my termination were previously discussed, indicated previous discussion indicated temporary review status, but yet termination was not permanent.

Uh I think I skipped one.

Sorry about that.

I was uh verbally assigned uh the complaint liaison responsibility previously handled by two people.

So there was no documentation or workload adjustment provided.

The allegations raised, concerns related to approximately five percent that uh of overall duties.

This could have been resolved through simple corrective guidance.

The date of the discharge immediately I immediately informed my supervisor of my father's passing, but I was not given the chance for bereavement, leave under city policy.

The discharge meeting, the termination documented stated employment and at nine at 9 a.m.

But the meeting started at 9 a.m.

And the documentation was all signed prior to my meeting.

And it was all signed by the interim supervise.

I was later provided another document signed by another supervise.

So that would show inconsistency of the decision.

Is that our weekly meetings?

Provided no prior notice of performing issues.

I was providing my keep uh KPIs, but meetings that we had, there were no minimum or no talks about my performance or what my KPIs were.

In addition to that, several meetings were canceled by my interim supervisors.

And for now, I just wanted to make those points clear.

Does that conclude your opening statement?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Now we'll hear direct testimony from witnesses.

As I indicated, after the direct examination, the commissioners may ask questions, and then there would be cross-examination by the other party.

Ms.

Reed, does the department intend to call witnesses?

Yes, today we have two uh one witness and also ITMD, who is also considered a witness.

Yes.

Uh so yes, too.

So you have yes.

All right.

Would are they going to appear in person or are they going to appear on uh virtually?

They are virtual.

All right.

Oh, who would be your first witness?

Uh my first witness would be Mr.

Roberto Sarita with ITMD for the City of Milwaukee.

I think I see Mr.

Sarrito on the right hand side of our screen.

Uh I would like I would like him sworn in again today, please.

Would the court reporter please swear in Mr.

Sarrito?

Sir, in the testimony you're about to give under the pains and penalties of perjury of the state of Wisconsin.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I'm sorry, you're muted, sir.

Could you repeat repeat your response?

I do.

Thank you.

I can I was just waiting to let you get to the page you wanted to refer to.

Yes.

Just a moment, let's just take a moment.

Thank you.

So uh Mr.

Sarita, thank you very much for joining us this morning.

Uh, in reference to uh exhibit exhibits who that were not admitted, but we are allowed to reference today.

I exhibits DU2 and DU3, which are a listing of uh URLs from Microsoft Soft Chrome, well, Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge.

Uh could you please uh confirm for us today that those URLs, the 28,000 URLs on Microsoft Edge and the URLs from Google Chrome were in fact derived from Mr.

Barbarena's city issued work device.

Yes, I can confirm that they were.

Sarita.

In your professional opinion, uh, would you consider the 28,000 URLs uh derived from Microsoft Edge from Mr.

Omar Barberina's work device?

Would you consider those to be work related or Mr.

Sarita is not been identified as a manager in your department, and I don't know that he would be in a position to offer opinion about that.

He gathered this information, and and I think it is appropriate that one that you asked him.

Did he generate those reports?

And did he submit them to your department for your consideration?

But I uh and no disrespect to Mr.

Sarita, who is a uh well-established city employee, but I don't think he makes judgments about what's work related.

Um, I mean, some of them obviously are not, but there's an awful lot of items, and I think you or somebody in the department should make should make that observation.

Thank you.

Uh that is my only question for Mr.

Roberto Sarita.

All right.

Commissioners, do you have questions for Mr.

Sarrito?

Just uh this is Commissioner Miller.

It was Microsoft Edge, and what was the other?

Uh it was uh Chrome or Google Chrome.

Oh Google Chrome.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Commissioner Smith.

Okay, Steve Smith, Commissioner, uh, Mr.

Sarita.

Um I believe I had read that you had advised uh Mary Reed that uh the information from the URLs could be inserted in a browser to get additional detail for DU two and three.

Um and then the commissioners received uh a long list uh ofter the URLs were transferred to provide additional columns of detail.

So is that is that correct that you would advise Mary Reed she could get more information if she did some laborious work?

Yes.

Uh okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any any further questions for Mr.

Sarita by the commissioners?

All right.

Um each witness is subject to cross-examination as well.

Mr.

Barberina, you you heard what he said.

Uh he also, of course, was here on Tuesday and testified to some extent.

Do you have any questions for him?

Uh either about the databases which he testified to just now, or about any of those exhibits which were admitted on Tuesday.

I do.

Please proceed.

When this uh investigation took place.

Um it was it was requested for me on January 2nd, the information of 2026.

Thank you.

That's all I am.

That's it.

All right, one more.

Um we're gonna go Commissioner Smith.

First of all, Commissioner Smith has another question.

Commissioner?

Okay, Mr.

Sarita, this may be for you or or Mary Reed.

Um, do you know if these computers, this computer that the opponent was using, is that a computer to be used at work, or is that something you take back and forth the home?

Um I do not know if it was a laptop or a desktop computer.

I'm sorry, it's it's one or the other.

Okay, Mary, Ms.

Reed.

I can answer that.

Well no, it's what are you going to testify as a witness?

Uh I am representing the department.

Right.

Uh okay.

Um can your other witness testify on that question.

Uh as the supervisor, I could answer that question very easily.

Well, I don't I'd like you then to be sorry.

I'd like you to put on the roles and answer it as a witness.

It is a good question.

And Mr.

Sarita acknowledged that he doesn't know whether it's a in-office only or if it's a uh a computer that can be taken where the specialist can be allowed to take it home.

We he doesn't know that answer, and that's appropriate for him to tell the truth.

Uh he just knows that it's that the stuff was on that computer.

He got all of this DU2, DU3 stuff from that computer.

But what the rules are in your department regarding the use of that computer has to come from your department.

Um is that satisfy you, Commissioner Smith?

Fine.

And then she'll be under order.

Yes, she will.

Uh but I I want to know if there's well.

I'm gonna just ask a pro forma question.

Uh Mr.

Sarita said he he doesn't know the answer to that question, but since Commissioner Smith asked it, I'm gonna ask Ms.

Reed on behalf of the department.

Do you have any follow-up to that question?

I do.

I have a response to that question.

So yes.

As testimony, or is a question for Mr.

Sarita?

As testimony.

Then we'll hold on.

You don't have a question at this point.

Mr.

Barberina, you heard his answer.

Is that uh he doesn't know what the rule is?

Do you have any question about that?

Whether he doesn't know, okay.

I mean, it's I just I just have to give the parties a chance to ask about additional testimony.

It doesn't seem to me that either side would have any questions because he doesn't know the answer to it, but this is a pro forma question.

I don't have any additional questions.

So um any other questions for Mr.

Sarita?

No.

Uh Mr.

Sarita, say thank you for being here today.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Uh okay, that takes care of our first witness.

Did Ms.

Reed, did you indicate you have a second witness?

Yes, uh, the second witness is Miss Ramona Ramos with the City of Milwaukee.

Is she with us virtually?

Yes, she is.

Uh can we get that exhibit off the screen?

All right.

We uh I would like the court reporter to swear in Ms.

Ramos, and she will then I well, she will identify herself both by name and by job title.

Court reporter, please proceed.

And the testimony you're about to give out of the pains and penalties of perjury of the state of Wisconsin.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

My name is Ramona Ramos during the time in question.

My position with uh Department of Equity and Inclusion was the equal rights complaints liaison.

Good.

Um just to embellish on the uh your assignment, you were with the work group when it was a division in the department of administration.

Is that true?

Yes, sir.

And you're still in the in the same work group, but now part of an independent department.

Is that true?

Yes, sir.

Office of equity and inclusion prior under department of administration.

All right.

Uh thank you.

Uh with that, I'm gonna turn you over to Ms.

Reed, who has some direct uh questions for you.

Ms.

Ramos, thank you for your time and thank you for being here this morning.

Uh at any time, uh Ms.

Ramos, had you ever seen or witnessed any uh inappropriate what you perceive to be inappropriate or non-work-related uh content on Mr.

Barbarina's work device during work hours?

Yes, I did.

Uh follow-up question.

Uh would you care to elaborate what that contact consisted of?

Um one occasion, I believe it was in July of 25.

There was a woman in the blue bikini.

Um another time it was South Park, a few times it was media news.

Um it was consistent and regular, and I observed it um in office at City Hall and my Babarena's tubicle while on his work computer.

Thank you.

That is the all I have for Ms.

Ramos.

Ms.

Ramos, is the uh reference to South Park?

Is that that uh uh TV uh cartoon show?

Yes, sir.

All right, uh thank you.

Um commissioners, do you have questions for Ms.

Ramos?

Uh I do.

Commissioner Miller.

Uh Ms.

Ramos, so I'm trying to picture in my mind.

How were you able to see what was on his computer?

Where were you sitting from him, or did you pass by and see this?

Uh I'm trying to figure out how were you able to see what was on his computer.

So the my work location was next to his in 603, sixth floor of this of City Hall.

Upon we work closely together as the equal rights specialist and equal rights complaint liaison.

Uh often we have to go in each other's cubicles to communicate about work related tasks, and I would enter into his cubicle and the way his cubicle is positioned.

It would be when you enter, immediately look right, and you see the three screens, laptop in the center, two larger screens here.

Uh, and you could clearly see with he would be with his headset, and you could clearly see what um was on the screen, whether I wanted to see it or not.

It was clean, clear as day.

In your opinion, would you say that you noticed that frequently or just in your mind, how would you categorize the the quantity of how often you saw something that would be considered not work-related on uh him watching on the computer?

Frequently.

Are you I'm done?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Smith.

Okay, Steve Smith, Commissioner.

Ums Ramos.

Um did you also respond to ERC complaints yourself?

Excuse me, I couldn't hear the question.

Were you uh personally?

Did you respond to some PRC complaints or did the appellant just respond to complaints?

I was the complaints liaison, so I processed complaints.

I created a system.

Um I monitored uh for the timing question that was mentioned earlier about uh Omar Babaran and processing claim complaints.

That was not done entirely by him alone.

I monitored, I assisted, I followed up uh during the time from October to December.

They were not processed, and there a backlog was created.

So I came back into the work in December because I was cross-training and had to clean up all of the complaints work that was not being done.

That included calls and emails.

So I was in regular communication and actively still working on complaints, both inbox ERC at Milwaukee.gov and ERC complaints at Milwaukee.gov.

Could I draw your attention to uh exhibit D5?

Um it's a um a long transcript of uh maybe 35 minute conversations with uh caller three and uh the appellant and Ms.

Reed D5.

I can see it on the screen, yes.

Are you um are you caller three?

I believe I am.

I'm just going to check my calendar quickly for that date, but I'm um pretty sure I was in that meeting.

Um so I I went I read through the um the conversation, uh the initial part of it uh didn't involve uh you, but then later on uh there was quite a bit of uh commentary uh about the appropriate way to handle ERC complaints and um some observations that they weren't being responded to uh correctly in the format that you advised.

So um I just wanted to uh verify that you were caller three, and on pages 21, 24, 25, and 29, there are comments that uh the work performance in terms of how to respond to ERC complaints was uh deficient.

Is that true?

That is correct, and I am caller three.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioners, any other call uh questions for Ms.

Ramos?

Yeah, all right.

Um gonna let Mr.

Barbarenum.

Uh do you have questions for Ms.

Ramos uh and her testimony?

I do.

Uh please proceed.

Uh Ms.

Ramos, you mentioned that you were the complaint liaison specialist, is that right?

Equal rights complaints liaison.

Okay.

So it equal rights complaints less.

So were you in charge of handling the calls at that time?

While I was in that position, yes.

And there was a period where we were under new leadership, cross training, so we can cover for other departments and other staff.

And I believe it's also written into the equal rights specialist job description, the same process of processing complaints timely.

Do you know what the percentage of the equal rights specialists to handle calls as the job description?

I actually do, and I actually can report what the oh excuse me.

You said the specialist, yes, the equal rights.

No, I do not.

Okay, you also mentioned that uh you cleaned up all the complaints, and there was a backlog during that period of time.

And you mentioned the uh there was from I believe this was uh if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong.

Uh October through December.

Yes.

Okay, and how many complaints were recorded at that time?

Phone calls that you mentioned that you had to clean up all the complaints back load.

That's a great question because I actually you and I had conversations about that.

There were 13 complaints that were not processed.

So prior to taking over, excuse me, I'm just gonna answer the question.

Um 13 complaints from mid-October until early December when I started processing again.

Prior to you processing the complaints, um, you were fully trained for a period of three weeks, one of which you missed.

Uh on the processing procedures, you were given PowerPoints, you were given uh SOPs, you were given a cheat sheet of how to record the data and how to process the complaint.

I can tell you off the top of my head because we had numerous conversations that there were 13 complaints.

If you would like me to pull the number of calls, um how many go ahead.

How many complaints were there?

And you mentioned there were about 13 complaints, right?

There was exactly 13 complaints that were not processed from October through through uh January through December.

So okay.

And when you say it about backlogs, when were those calls made, or when was the uh the date of the backlog?

Was it something that it was don't before I started transitioning into the duties that were not necessarily um uh uh written in a form for me to become the complaint liaison as well?

No, they were during the time when you started processing the complaints.

Um, if you would like the specific dates, I would need a moment to pull them up, and I can go through what dates those complaints were submitted and should have been processed.

And per chapter 109, we have a five-day turnaround of making contact uh with the complaint, which was not being upheld, and that's when I stepped back in December, and when I said cleaned it up, I had to contact those complaintants and explain why they were not process timely at that time as well.

Was I the only one handling the complaints, or there was another individual handling the complaints as I was transitioning to that position?

You were the lead, you were the lead, and then there was an assistant.

No, no, I'm asking you.

I'm not asking you whether I was the lead, I was asking you whether there was somebody else.

Well, she has answered the question that her answer is that there apparently were two of you, and then she considered you the lead of the two people.

Okay, okay.

Oh, wait, there was two.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

That's all the questions that I have.

Ms.

Reed, you heard the questions from the commissioners, and you also heard the last questions here from Mr.

Barbarina.

Do you have any redirect regarding those questions by these parties?

I have no follow-up questions, but I could provide clarity if allowed.

Well, if you want to do that in testimony from your perspective as the manager before it's fine, but that would be testimony by you.

Um so with that uh I'd I'd like to thank Ms.

Ramos for uh appearing today.

Uh thank you.

Um at this time you're excused, but I would like you to uh to kind of watch your phone and be available if Ms.

Reed chooses to call you back for some purpose, but I I want to excuse you so that you can continue your work in the division.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a good day, Commissioner Bott.

Um I thought of a question that I wanted to ask Mr.

Sarita after he left off.

Is it possible to get him back at some point later to ask him a question?

Is are you saying I see his picture, but I don't know if he's around.

But I don't know.

The director is informing us that he is present.

Um Mr.

Sarita, are you present?

I did see a picture.

Yes, I am all right.

Um of the commissioners has a question for you.

Uh we will let the commissioner ask her question first, and then there will be a chance for both Ms.

Reed and Mr.

Barberina to follow up in that order on whatever your new testimony is.

Commissioner Miller, Mr.

Sarita, were you the person that actually did this search and saw all of these URLs on this computer, or was it somebody else?

I did the work.

You did that?

Yes.

And how much how much time did you spend compiling all that?

I was just curious.

Um I would say a couple hours at the most.

Um couple of hours, right?

A couple of hours.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

As I indicated, uh both parties will get a chance to follow up on the commissioner's question.

First, I'll start with Ms.

Reed.

You heard what the question and answer were.

Do you have any follow-up?

No.

Mr.

Barberina, you heard what the question was and what the answer was.

Do you have any follow-up?

Yes, I do.

Mr.

Barberina, please ask the question.

Roberto, uh what's your title on the IT department?

Information services manager.

So you are the manager, right?

So when you see uh some uh per se inappropriate use or excessive use of um computer uh uh supposedly uh not related to to the work uh uh at hand would you say that you would contact the individual and provide him with advice or warning about the usage?

Is that part of your duty?

No, it is not what I see on the guidance of the internet use is that are you referring to a document, Mr.

Barberina?

I'm referring to the internet use guidelines guidelines.

And could you give us a number?

What exhibit that is?

I don't think David.

That's that's not in our materials.

Well, I'm I'm trying to identify what document you're referring to here in the testimony.

Okay, um I'm just uh an additional document that I was presented to me when I was dismissed about the internet use guidelines.

I just presented to every employee in the city of Milwaukee.

President Bach, perhaps would that be DL would that be DL11?

I have D11, it looks like D11.

All right, just give us a moment to get to D11, please.

Oh before you proceed with the question, uh I have a question for Mr.

Sarita, Mr.

Sarita, do you have D11 in front of you?

Uh no, but I do see it on this on the screen.

All right.

Uh with that, I'm gonna let Mr.

Barberina repeat his question.

So my question is since you mentioned that you are a manager for the IT department on their new title.

Um you see that employees are uh supposedly using uh excessively uh personal computers to um other things that are not related to work, apparently.

Would you provide a warning to that individual to rectify it and fix the issue?

Is that something that you do as the IT department?

Uh answering the question directly, I would I I do not or we do not provide that information directly to an employee.

The um internet use guidelines speak for themselves, and I'd also just like to mention that the city does not monitor every single person's use of the internet if a departmental uh supervisor manager came to the uh department and said we are seeing some inappropriate use, that is when we would take action.

And I'd also just like to mention that the city does not monitor every single person's use of the internet if a departmental uh supervisor manager came to the uh department and said we are seeing some inappropriate use, that is when we would take action.

And in this case, did you take any action when the manager called it was requested to me by the department um uh uh interim director, uh Mary Reed.

But you weren't requested to take any actions regarding the use of I was I was requested to take the action of finding um the information that's been presented in um the uh uh spreadsheet that uh that's been presented already.

I provided that information to uh Miss Reed upon her request.

Okay, but you were not requested to take action.

Mr.

Barberina, he isn't in the department, he's in a different department.

Okay, and he provided the information uh to Ms.

Reed who worked in your department.

Uh so and he he testified you notify the individuals, and he said no.

Okay, and he's he doesn't monitor, he also said he doesn't monitor uh misuse of the computers, but he will respond to requests for information from department, which he did in this case.

That's my that's my understanding of the testimony.

That is exactly correct.

That's all the questions then.

That's all right.

Uh uh, thank you again, Mr.

Sernito.

You're welcome.

We'll uh it's uh it's 1050 roughly.

Um does anybody uh need to take a short break or not?

No, I don't uh would you like a short break?

Yes, please.

Uh we are we are excused for 10 minutes.

We'll see you back here at 11 o'clock.

You have a little more paper.

Uh yeah, more paper than normal.

I know.

We uh yeah, I just thought if you slide down a little bit and prank it more.

Yeah, right.

I'm sorry.

It's just uh no, no, it's not that's fine.

It's Janet isn't here, so we have a little more space, but it works out fine.

She'll have to uh abstent herself more often.

Well, I can slide down first.

No, I just thought, yeah, just move yourself.

This was uh a lot of paperwork.

Yeah, yeah.

The only one that exceeds this one is uh one in the health department where we got a hundred exhibits and we had a day a full day devoted to just exhibit well they had attorneys on both sides, and that was not good.

Yeah, we have five days a year.

Oh yeah, yeah.

Uh no offense, Heidi.

But the attorneys do add some, you know.

They had a dementia.

And it's yeah, yeah, not necessarily especially if it's billable ours is uh, you know, the one uh cross, you know, he's he's got all sorts of questions that you know.

I don't know how he's been paid, but we had to we have the media in the back watching, yeah.

So this is on uh cable twenty-five.

Have you ever watched the uh table twenty-five?

I have okay.

The attorney did a good job with what he had.

And Joe Glassman said, you know, a lot of ours aren't that familiar with the details of the Department of Transportation, you know, all of that.

Yeah.

So, you know, it there's a there's a lot in there.

And so anyway, so he had yes or no answers when appropriate, and elaborated when it was helpful.

So I thought that was nice.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, I guess that'd be an occasion, but we're finding that important.

Yeah.

Oh my god.

This wasn't even a protective.

This wasn't even a firefighter or a police officer.

We can proceed.

Yes.

Yes, we can proceed.

Yes, sir, I did.

Ms.

Reed, we've heard from the two witnesses.

I assume those were the ones you were referring to at the start of the meeting, Mr.

Sarita and Ms.

Ramos?

Correct.

Okay.

Based on the conversation we've had so far this morning.

Is it would you be uh testifying on behalf of the department?

Yes.

All right.

Um I should ask you first, do you have any other witnesses besides the two we've heard from and yourself?

No.

Okay.

Then I'd like the court reporter to swear in Ms.

Reed.

If you could raise your right hand, please in the testimony you're about to give under the pains and penalties of perjury of the state of Wisconsin.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Um I'd um I want to start your uh well, no, I'm gonna let you uh testify in regards to the considering the exhibits that we've received and focusing to some extent on the issues that are laid out on department 10.

We have the way I look at it, there's three elements that uh are being cited in terms of the substance.

I I know there's a concern that's been raised by Mr.

Barbarena that this was signed on such and such a date the same day as a hearing.

That's a separate matter.

I want you to focus your testimony, and you can testify about other things as well, but uh the first area is the you've cited the commission rules uh violating Rule 14, Section 12 paragraphs L and Q of the rules, that's one thing.

Then immediately below that we have the description of offense, one sentence prolonged and sustained misappropriation, and then the follow-up sentence, which gives the details 28,000 plus.

And I mentioned the year because the discharge took place a couple weeks later in 2026.

But uh, if there were any forms or warning notices for any of those four, please cite them with that guidance.

You don't have to do it the way I suggested, but I think I I'm telling you in advance, uh, and one of the commissioners that uh I would like at least some reference to these substantive portions of the uh discharge notice.

And with that, uh you've been uh you've been sworn in, correct?

Yes.

All right.

So uh why don't you beg give your testimony?

This is not a closing statement.

This is a testimony about the facts and meetings.

Uh the and how did you uh did you request did you request some of this information?

Did you or someone else in uh at that time uh oh no, you're an independent department as when this occurred, the discharge.

No, we were uh division under the department of administration.

We still were okay.

Well, then with that, um would you please testify regarding this matter?

Yes.

Uh the uh activity that led up to the discharge notice issued to Mr.

Barbarena on January 21st, uh, were uh multitude of performance issues uh with Mr.

Barbarena, which were discussed at his weekly one-on-ones and at the recorded uh Teams meeting that took place on December 2nd and is recorded as exhibit D5.

In addition, multiple reports of employees stating that they have had witnessed inappropriate content on Mr.

Barbarena's work device during work hours and while here at work.

That prompted me to uh do an investigation and one schedule the meeting that took place on 12.2 with Mr.

Barbarena to discuss his job responsibilities, his job duties, including his job description, uh, the deficiencies within his work, uh, and also it prompted me to reach out to ITMD for the city of Milwaukee to get verification that in fact there was inappropriate activity uh taking place on Mr.

Barbarena's work device.

At that point, I I was not aware I needed to find out.

So I reached out to ITMD.

I had no idea what the results would be, but I asked if they were able to uh search his device to find his browsing history, and a short time after that, uh they did provide me with that browsing history that was noted in exhibit DU8, but it was not admitted today.

So I received two Excel files, one for Microsoft Chrome and the Microsoft Edge, and the other for Google Chrome of uh browsing materials on Mr.

Barbarena's device that span the period of at least October 10th, 2025 to January 2nd, 2026.

It did take me some time to review all of that uh material as uh you noted uh President Bach on March 10th.

The information and evidence is voluminous.

So if printed, the uh Microsoft Edge browsing material spans over 28,000 active URLs that are date stamped, uh, which indicates active browsing activity.

Uh, if printed, that would account for 814 pages of material.

And in part, that is why uh that information was not printed today, but it is provided to us in electronic form.

So I took that information and it took me quite some time to review it all uh because a lot of the material is non-work related, and I could not be sure what those links would lead to or if they could bring back malware or a virus to my work device.

I put in a request and a subsequent request to ITMD for a loaner laptop device so that I could uh I there was no way to look at all 28,000 plus URL links, but I took a sample of those links, and that information is what we see uh documented in exhibits D20 and let's see here D19.

Uh I provided just some examples of that browsing activity.

Uh when I looked at all of the date stamps and the volume of the material, I then prepared a summary document that you all have as exhibit D16.

That summary document uh lists just one sample week, not the full 12 weeks of material uncovered, but one sample week from December 8th to December 12th of 2025.

And I'd like to go through that sample week here.

These are work days.

I compared these dates to my work calendar and Mr.

Barbarena's work schedule.

He was in fact scheduled to be at work and he did report that he worked regular hours during these dates and times.

On December 8th, 2025, from the start time of 9.22 a.m.

to the time of 3.29 p.m., it was uncovered that Mr.

Barbarena personally browsed the internet on his work device for personal nonwork related reasons for approximately five to six hours.

On Tuesday, December 9th, 2025, from the time period of 817 a.m.

to 524 p.m., it was documented that Mr.

Barbarena browse personally browsed the internet for more than eight hours.

On Wednesday, December 10th, 2025, from the timestamp of 857 a.m.

to 440 p.m.

And a follow-up start picking back up at 1006 p.m.

to 1106 p.m.

It is documented that Mr.

Barbarena personally browsed his the internet on his work device for seven to eight hours.

This testimony, I hope it provides follow-up context that uh Mr.

Barbarena was issued a laptop.

Uh individuals with a work laptop use that one device while at work, and they are allowed to take that device home as needed.

Uh following up on Thursday, December 11th, 2025, from starting at the time 1220 a.m.

to 1239 a.m.

And picking back up at 8 13 a.m.

to 5 07 p.m.

And then again at 9 14 p.m.

to 1159 p.m., it is documented that Mr.

Barbarena personally browsed the internet on his work device for more than eight hours during that day.

And then again, lastly on the sample week, Friday, December 12th, 2025, it was documented that Mr.

Barbarena personally browsed the internet on his work device from 12 a.m.

to 1223 a.m.

And then again from 845 a.m.

to 414 p.m.

And then again from 9.30 p.m.

to 1111 p.m., which accounts for more than seven hours of personally browsing the internet on his work device.

In total, these account for approximately in at least 35 documented work day hours that Mr.

Barbarena perused the internet for his own uh personal interest in entertainment.

Uh furthermore, in the summary document, exhibit D16.

It is has been noted that of those URLs obtained from the exhibits from the evidence obtained from ITMD, there were at least 37 job searches on Mr.

Barbarena's device.

In exhibit D21, you will see a sample, just a sample of seven job searches that Mr.

Barbarena conducted on his work device.

Those are internal and external job searches.

In addition, it was found that there are over 17,000 Facebook URL occurrences on his device, 37 TMU shopping URLs, over 260 Facebook reels URLs, and over 220 Craigslist URLs.

Again, I would like to reiterate that this is merely a sample.

This it by no means uh fully encompasses all of the non-work related activity on Mr.

Barbarena's work device.

I'd also like to point out that uh we were only able to gather about three months worth of browsing activity.

This is indicative that uh it is very well probable that this browsing activity spanned a much longer time frame than what we have the evidence for.

Uh moving uh, I guess would you like me to just move on to the next area?

I'm sure.

Should I move on to the next area or the next point?

Okay.

Uh to Mr.

Barbarena's point that he was not responsible for equal rights complaints.

I would like to point out that in exhibit D14, there is Mr.

In addition to the public job announcement that was made available publicly on the city's website prior to Mr.

Barbarena applying for the position.

That job announcement, and I'll just read one sentence.

As a part of the job announcement, it says screen and process discrimination complaints pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances.

This demonstrates that Mr.

Barbarena would have been clearly made aware of all of the responsibilities of the equal rights specialist even before applying for the job, and yet he applied for the job with the understanding that complaints was a part of that role.

As a follow-up, the job description in exhibit D14 states that for at least 15% of the time for this position, again, it is documented, duly documented that the position screens and processes discrimination complaints.

This job description was reviewed with Mr.

Barbarena during his weekly one-on-ones.

In addition, we reviewed his monthly KPIs, his work performance, which prompted me to schedule training for Mr.

Barbarena.

Since he state stated that he needed uh assistance or training or clarification on how to process complaints, I connected Mr.

Barbarena with the witness we had earlier, Miss Ramona Ramos.

She thoroughly trained Mr.

Barbarena for more than three weeks on processing ERC complaints.

That is documented in exhibit D15.

It is an 87-page exhibit that out fully outlines all of the very thorough training uh material provided to and reviewed multiple times with Mr.

Barbarena.

With regard to Mr.

Barbarena's uh statement on progressive discipline, I would like to note that uh in exhibit D8, Mr.

Barbarena was issued a warning email for not reporting to work during his scheduled in-office work day, an additional example of the misappropriation of time on the account of Mr.

Barbarena.

In addition, other exhibits, exhibits D1 through D, let's see here, exhibits D1, D2, D3, Exhibit D22, Exhibit D23, all document clear efforts to uh provide Mr.

Barbarena with guidance and uh progressive uh action uh trying to communicate to get his work performance to a place that would be acceptable.

Uh also letting Mr.

Barbarena know repeatedly where the deficiencies lie and how to correct them.

You will note that in those exhibits, not only is there verbal uh written context, there are also screenshots that clearly outline where the issues lie, how to correct them, and at our weekly one-on-ones, we would review how to correct those.

Also, as a resource, he was paired with Ms.

Ramona Ramos for guidance on how to correct deficiencies.

I would like to note that in exhibit D7, you will see uh emails between myself and Mr.

Barbarena, where the initial predisciplinary pre-discharge meeting was scheduled for January 12th.

Uh, but to accommodate Mr.

Barbarena and upon his request, that initial uh disciplinary meeting was rescheduled to January 16th.

Subsequently, Mr.

Barbarena again requested that the meeting be postponed and to accommodate his request, we again reschedule the predisciplinary meeting for January 20th.

So there was uh definitely due process in that email.

Uh it is clearly uh identified the civil service rules that were violated in Section 12, Civil Service Rule L is careless or negligent, or makes unauthorized use of or permits the unauthorized use of proper of the property of the city that being his work device, and uh rule Q has refused or failed to comply with departmental work rules, policies, or procedures, those being the rule the policies and guidelines that Mr.

Barbarena himself stipulated in exhibits D11, D12, and D13.

Today you will note that Mr.

Barbarena acknowledged that those were policies provided to all employees.

So Mr.

Barbarina uh is fully had been fully made aware of the city of Milwaukee's policies on internet usage guidelines, uh mobile device policies and personal social media policies.

Uh he decided to uh shirk off those policies and guidelines uh and proceed in his own path of uh not abiding by those rules and guidelines.

In addition, uh he also uh did not take uh seriously the city service rules, uh section 12 uh Q L and Q as we have demonstrated today.

Uh I'd like to mention that the discharge, although we had the meeting with Mr.

Barbarena on January 20th, Mr.

Barbarena was dismissed and provided with the discharge notice on January 21st.

And that uh decision was made uh because there was an extreme and prolonged time frame of a misappropriation of city resources and time, which warranted separation.

That is all I have for now, but uh as needed, I would welcome the opportunity to provide clarity and context as needed.

So far, the next step would be to ask the commissioners if they have questions of Ms.

Reed regarding her testimony as a witness, and then we'll have cross-examination by Mr.

Barbarena.

Commissioner Smith.

Okay, Steve Smith, Commissioner.

Um let's see.

You you had stated that the devices provided to your employees can be taken home.

So um, some of this um Craigslist, Monards, Temu, and so on could have been done on his own time at home, or were you corroborating work time with the use?

Yes.

Uh, there's both.

I am directly corroborating work time with this browsing.

The browsing is explicit explicitly time stamped.

Each UR, each of the 28,000 plus URLs have a date and a timestamp that coincide with dates and times that Mr.

Barbarena stated he was working and should have been working.

Okay.

Um that's helpful.

Is it permissible to be using the device for personal use or should that city device just be used for city business, whether you're at work?

Uh according to the internet use guidelines and the mobile device policies, city issued work devices should be used for city work and city business only.

They should not be used for personal browsing reasons.

Uh that would open up the device and the city network to be attacked by malware uh and also viruses.

I'd also like to note that the city of Milwaukee depart uh ITMD IT department, we all employees are required to take uh safe internet browsing uh training throughout the year.

So all staff are uh fully made aware of the dangers of clicking on URLs that are not work related or personally browsing the internet for non work related purposes.

Okay, the increased vulnerability of all of our devices uh is widely publicized.

So you didn't want any viruses on your computer, you borrowed one from Bob Sarita.

Uh not from Bob Sarita, but from ITMD.

You're right.

I did not, I there's no way to know uh if those uh those URL links were malicious or not.

So you are correct.

I did not want that history on my city issued work device.

I let uh ITMD know that I would need to click these links.

I have no idea where they were they would be going to.

I was instructed to you to not plug in to the city's network when searching these URLs because of that danger.

I was instructed to use the Wi-Fi that is made available publicly throughout the building.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the commissioners to Ms.

Reed regarding her testimony?

Yeah, just one more commission.

So the media supervisor for a span of time prior to that, the supervisor is that person still in your currently department, previously a division.

No, uh that individual resigned August of 2025.

When that individual resigned, I assume the interim duties.

And um, did you happen to have any communication with the previous supervisor regarding performance matters?

So uh we did discuss his work performance and how that could be addressed.

Uh there was no inkling at all uh to the uh internet browsing activity at that time.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Ms.

Reed from the commissioners?

Uh okay.

Uh Mr.

Barberina, you heard the direct testimony of Ms.

Reed as a witness, and you also heard the questions from the commissioner.

Do you have cross-examination for Ms.

Reed?

I do.

Please proceed.

Ms.

Sweet, you mentioned that uh uh you provided me with warning emails in regards to my performance.

Uh but did you ever place me in a performance improvement plan?

No, you were not placing a performance improvement plan.

Instead, what I did was I offered you thorough training.

I definitely wanted to give you the opportunity to improve your work performance.

I'd like to make clear that your uh uh separate personal internet browsing activity all is as a separate matter, uh, but it appears to uh imply that that is in part part of the reason why your performance was suffering.

Okay, but implying does not necessarily mean that you follow the proper steps for the department uh or someone who has not been called upon uh performance and have not put into provision prior to you uh joining the team as a supervisor.

So and when we were having the weekly one-on-one meetings, I mean did you discuss with me thoroughly in regard to my KPIs, whether I was missing something other than you mentioned the emails that you sent, but were not clearly clearly stated to me.

And that's why uh going back to the same question.

Why didn't you put me in the performance improvement plan uh we by the department?

Uh if you know uh in exhibit D5, there's a recorded Teams meeting between you I and caller three where we discussed in great length your performance, uh, the concerns we had concerning your performance, how to correct those areas and uh the consequences of what could happen if your performance did not improve.

So you were in fact uh documented uh your performance uh was documented with you and discussed with you on multiple occasions very well, but there was no performance improvement plan.

She answered that question after the discussions that we had uh according to you uh and with the other individuals for the training.

Did you see any improvement on the handling of the call where you go back?

Did you go back to the uh tracking sheets of all the calls that they were handled afterwards?

Yes, thank you.

And when were they improved?

Uh there was very little to no improvement.

You will also note that in the emails uh share it with you.

See here.

I'm just going to find the exhibits.

And uh let's see here in subsequent emails to you, Mr.

Barbara Marina.

Uh, it was noted that there was very little to no improvement, uh, but that you still had the opportunity to continue to work towards improving uh your performance with regards to equal rights complaints.

Would you be able to show the dates from that uh uh sheet that you have of the recorded calls that uh they were uh answered by me in regards to the in you mentioned little improvement, how many calls were handled, how many calls were answered, and how many calls were actually uh recorded on the sheet.

As testified earlier, there was a backlog of 13 complaints that were not handled by you.

Is that what you're referencing?

No, I'm referencing after the meeting that we had mentioned that uh meeting was to fix what uh was that what apparently was not done in a timely manner, and remember there was another individual handling also the call, so there was a little bit of a confusion between not clearly stated uh who was handling what calls, because I remembered uh uh one time, and I can't have the date here that I asked you whether the other person was handling the call, and you said, Oh, by the way, she's no longer doing it.

So is that a question, Mr.

Bob?

Yeah, I was not the only one uh handling the calls, was I?

So in fact, although your job description states that you are solely responsible for equal rights complaints, we provided you with help and support.

Uh with regards to the backlog of 13 complaints, you did none of them.

As Ms.

Ramona Ramos testified earlier today, she had to go and clean up all of the complaints, reach out to all of the complaintants, and document those.

So you in fact did not follow up, nor did you resolve any of the complaints as you were required to do so by your job description.

If I recall, uh I have a conversation with uh uh Ms.

Ramos as well, and it doesn't show in any of the exhibits, but uh and I wasn't able to pull them out because I was uh they go with uh the opportunity to show that I can uh exhibit uh discussion with their she handled some of the calls because I remembered that we discussed about this, and I handle some of the calls as well.

So but that's that's testimony from you, which you'll need to give when you uh testify a little later, but what we're looking for here are your questions to Ms.

Reed about her testimony and about the exhibits.

Yes.

So let's try to have questions for her.

Okay.

Uh my job description fell that I'm only responsible for five percent of the uh new uh additional workload that I had as uh uh liaison uh specialist that is not what that means.

So uh there the section in your job description actually says that yes, exhibit D14.

Uh so I think what I hear you saying, Mr.

Barberina, is that you believe that you're only responsible for five percent of the complaints?

That is not accurate.

That is you have a misunderstanding of that.

Uh actually your job description states that at least 15% of your job includes processing discrimination complaints.

It doesn't mean that you only do five percent of complaints.

Where does it say that uh it is fifteen percent?

I'm not trying to uh uh think of the responsibility of my job description, but according to the job description that he was providing to me, and is a look on the percentage of each one of them that is breaking down.

I think it was submitted here.

Uh, what exhibit are you looking at, Mr.

Barberina?

The job description.

This ours is D fourteen.

So what are you looking at?

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

D fourteen.

I I'm looking at D fourteen page two.

Oh, yeah.

And it's towards the top of the page.

It's the section I'm looking at is titled 15% housing and employment discrimination.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, it's here, but it this one's it's so on this page.

This is no, I was looking at the actual job description when I live.

You make the break that it breaks down the possibility.

I don't have that.

Page four of D fourteen.

Sorry.

Uh the job four job, the job announcement is also included in D fourteen.

And it it should be uh look at pages three and four.

Actually, I have them double.

If you keep scrolling, you will see the job announcement in D fourteen.

I have page six, D fourteen page six.

Thank you.

There is no percentage, but under the subheading housing and employment discrimination.

Uh page seven of that exhibit.

Thank you.

And the same material that's found that I I read from the job description.

That same stuff is at the middle of page seven.

It doesn't say either one.

It doesn't have percentages.

It just includes it as a responsibility of this position.

Correct.

So it doesn't support either argument on that page.

The argument the department presented is on page two of the actual job description.

Do you have additional questions for Ms.

Reed?

I do.

Please proceed.

When you assume the leadership position of the supervisor role, was there a formal transition meeting with the team to establish expectation goals or new performance standards?

Absolutely, there was.

Okay.

So when you looked at everybody's KPIs, but my KPIs, did you see any uh performance indicator that I was not doing what I'm supposed to be doing, or did you mention that to me at any way to fix the issue so we can move forward in a better situation?

I'm sorry.

Do you have uh I I don't know which KPI you're referencing?

I don't have any.

I mean, you you were provided in a monthly basis.

My KPIs, right?

Yes.

So when we had the one-on-one meetings, there was there any indication that I was doing something and that yes, and so your KPIs are just a summary report of the work you worked on the prior month.

However, uh throughout all the work days, if I find deficiencies or areas in need of improvement, I don't wait to get your KPIs or wait to discuss your KPIs.

I address address the matter immediately, uh, which is why we had our uh the email correspondences about the deficiencies, which is why we had the recorded teams call and exhibit D5.

Uh, and which is why I paired you with Ms.

Ramos for extensive uh training uh that is documented in exhibit D 15.

So, yes, uh all of those things were precipitated because your performance was suffering.

But she never so let's not say okay.

No farther.

Uh I won't tell Ms.

Reed that she's excused because she is she's the presenter on that.

Okay, Ms.

Reed regarding D eleven.

Did you provide it?

No, I was not asked for authorization for any incidental use, and therefore I would not have been given the opportunity to review such a request.

Do you have any questions about the question and answer?

I do not.

Yes, yes, President Buck.

We uh we have uh I believe we have everyone present.

So we will resume the commission meeting, which involves the hearing of Omar Barberina regarding his discharge.

No.

Mr.

Barbarina.

But more importantly, I think being your own witness.

Okay.

I think at this point, um the court reporter should swear in Mr.

Barbarina.

He will testify on his own behalf.

Sir, if you could raise your right hand, please.

And the testimony you're about to give under the pains and penalties of perjury of the state of Wisconsin.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Very good.

Thank you.

Please proceed, Mr.

Barbarina.

This is the testimony portion.

So you would be uh looking at the exhibits and uh giving us facts from your point of view.

You would also uh respond perhaps to some of the testimony of the city witnesses and give your recollection of those meetings as to what did or did not occur.

And uh then we will have, of course, commission questions from the commissioners.

There'll be cross-examination from Ms.

Reed, but then we will go to closing arguments, and that's where both Ms.

Reed and you get to make a closing argument, giving both facts and opinions regarding the case.

And when it comes to closing arguments, she'll go first, but you get the last word, you'll be the final um in the hearings uh prior to us deliberating.

So at this point, you're a witness, and I'd like you to give us your uh information regarding the facts that have been testified to, and your view of the or your understanding, pardon me, your knowledge of the uh facts as they relate to both the exhibits and the testimony.

Mr.

Barbarina?

Yes, and are you do you want me to refer to the specific exhibits?

Well, if you're if you're if you're talking about it, yes.

Like if there is something about uh any one of these exhibits, you could say uh my recollection is different, and uh, I'm talking about exhibit such and such, and then you give the number, and you can say my understanding or my remembrance is this.

Uh so yes, you would if you're referring to an exhibit, refer to it by number.

If you're referring to Ms.

Reed's testimony, say um my recollection is different than Ms.

Reed's uh regarding such and such.

So give it a try.

Okay.

Okay, my recollection of uh was being said in regards to uh my uh uh uh my uh warnings before being dismissed.

It's not what uh took place in a way that it should have been officially.

There were some uh I believe uh uh emails exchanges, but uh I again uh like to refer to my KPIs and my uh one-on-one meetings that we had that uh some of them were not necessarily uh conducive to a clear guidance of what needs to be done uh in regards to my performance, and also uh my recollection as well is that uh there were several meetings that were canceled on and you know one-on-one meetings had and they were not rescheduled, and and what uh I understand of what the meetings was that remember uh asking if I wanted to create an agenda for the meetings, and I was told that it was not necessary.

So for me, uh that was a clear indication that uh you know the the meetings uh were not conducive to uh talk about so much about performance, but about overall of what uh uh the scope of my job was uh most of what's been said here and the allegations that they're being provided, uh, as you can see, is only a small portion of what the scope of my job is.

We didn't mention about the 40 percent or 25 percent on every everything else about what I've I've been doing since I started uh two years ago, and it was not uh uh mentioned anything about you know the uh my uh skills and abilities to to uh uh provide a uh not only logistical support but uh uh other support for commissioners as well, and uh you know, creating agendas, creating minutes, uh weekly meetings that I had with commissioners, uh the vice chair and the president at the chair, uh, and also with uh uh BS and specialist.

In addition to that, uh you know, uh I think uh you know, uh as you can see, there's only a small portion of what I'm having been doing.

Uh I would say the 100% is being mentioned, but not the rest of what the scope of my jobs uh consist of.

So yeah, that's uh all I have to say because I mean some of the I don't know uh some of the emails that uh they were presented, and I kinda pinpoint exactly which one they were just take a moment is only one of them okay that concerns you.

Okay, so here and and in D eight.

I'm sorry, D eight D eight page three is a good example of I believe uh that clear communication when I was uh it was suggested to me that uh the pre-discipline discharge uh can be can be postponed for the second time.

You know, if you look at uh page three, it was stated here is you need a second postponed mean, the meeting can be rescheduled no later than Tuesday, January 2026.

So I took it upon that suggestion and postponed it.

You know, it wasn't because you know it's something that I thought of, it was something that I thought it was a suggestion for me to do so.

So well the P eight, but eventually the you did have the meeting.

Yeah.

And there was it was initially delayed.

Was it partly due to a request from you?

The first one was yes.

And then the other second one, you're kind of in what I'm hearing you say is that you misinterpreted a little bit, and you don't think you wanted it delayed.

You assume the department wanted it to correct.

Is that what you're telling me?

Okay, that's that's fine.

That's your testimony.

And then but then in fact, on both of those dates, uh, there was no meeting, and then later on a third date, you met.

Is that fair?

That's correct.

All right, well, uh, okay.

That's uh, and D8, as you point out, that's part of the record.

Um, and then what do you think that means?

Or why are you bringing that up?

Because I think it was suggested that I I purposely was trying to delay the meeting.

Okay, but you've just testified that no, you asked for the first delay, yeah, and you did not ask for the second delay.

That's your testimony.

Correct.

Okay, that's that's what we're looking for, and uh we understand that's your your testimony on the record under oath.

So uh the commissioners understand that um you have a point about one of the other exhibits, yeah.

And some of the exhibits, you know, uh like in DU10 or D21, so it was stated that I was applying for jobs, you know, but that is not necessarily the case for me.

I mean just looking at chat description that sometimes people sent to me as I am uh uh public uh servant, people asking me to provide uh maybe least for other individuals, you know.

But that doesn't mean that I I've been applying for other jobs, you know, while I'm in uh office.

So some of them were for people who were asking for information, and some were for your own use.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, it's a mixed bag, it's a mixed, yeah.

All right, well, that's that's your that's testimony.

That's what we're looking for.

So clarification on an exhibit.

So mixed.

I got that.

Yeah, and that's all I want to tested.

That's that concludes your testimony, yes.

Okay.

Um we're going to uh take it in the same order that we've done so far.

We're going to have um allow questions from the commissioners to you.

Um primarily focused on your testimony.

Uh commissioners, do you have questions for Mr.

Barberina?

Mr.

Barberina, Steve Smith, Commissioner.

So I think you were stating that when you look at the entire scope of your job, there were some parts of the job where you didn't have performance related deficiencies.

I mean, the department has specified some areas where your performance was not what they wanted, but you're saying that there are other parts of the job that um you felt were executed correctly.

Is that true?

That is true.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Barbarena regarding his testimony?

In that case, uh thank you, Commissioners.

Uh just like the department witnesses, including Ms.

Reed, were subject to cross-examination.

Uh you are subject to cross-examination by the other side.

Ms.

Reed, do you have some questions to Mr.

Barbarino?

I do.

Oh, why don't you proceed?

Uh Mr.

Barberina, with regard to exhibit D8, the postponement of the disciplinary meetings.

You mentioned that you postponed one, but the other the second postponement you did not.

Are we allowed to look at uh page two of exhibit D8 so that Mr.

Barberena can uh clarify for us so that we can see exactly who in fact requested both postponements?

So uh Mr.

Barberina, do you see on page two of exhibit D8?

I'll let them get there first.

Okay, I'm I'm now on page two of exhibit D8.

Thank you.

Is that correct?

Yes.

All right, are you there, Mr.

Barbarina?

Yes, I am all right.

Now please repeat the question.

Okay, so uh exhib it page two of exhibit z8 shows a communication between myself and Mr.

Barbarina regarding the second postponement of the disciplinary hearing.

Uh Mr.

Barberina, from what you see here, the email exchange between you and I.

Uh, who would you say initiated and requested the second postponement?

I don't know what you mean who initiated, but I can tell you when I read if you need a second postponement, which is something that you sent to me.

The meeting can be rescheduled to no later than Tuesday, January 2026.

For me, that was a suggestion.

That's how I interpret it.

That's a suggestion that you were asking.

Or suggesting, oh, you see one postpone it.

Well, let's go ahead and postpone it.

But if you scroll down, if you scroll down on page two, you will see here an email from yep, you had it just scrolled.

Yeah.

Uh down further, please.

Yes.

Here you will see an email from Mr.

Barbarena to myself, where Mr.

Barberina is in fact requesting the second postponement.

So I want to make it clear that uh the the uh claim that the second postponement was not on his accord.

We have we have the document, yes, and we have the citation at the this is the bottom half of page two, and that's that's on the record, and Mr.

Barbarina's testimony is how he interpreted the back and forth, uh, and that's also on the record.

And commission has to uh take both of those into account.

Thank you.

Uh well then moving on.

I would like to move to exhibit D 22.

D22 is regarding and excuse me, which number was it before you?

Um yes, it was DU4.

Thank you.

And it is now the four D U4.

All right.

Okay, and that's uh that's a three-page document.

Yes, it is.

All right, I have it in front of me.

Do you have it, Mr.

Barber?

I know I'm looking for it.

Okay, well, wait a moment.

DU4.

Okay, it is renamed D22.

Correct.

And it was cited as such uh by the department.

D22.

Just to confirm.

This is a uh the first email on page one.

It was an email from Ms.

Reed to Mr.

Barbarina.

And it begins, hi Omar, please bring your laptop to our meeting today.

I want to review the ERC inboxes with you.

Are we all on the same page?

Yes.

All right.

Ms.

Reed.

Page two of this email, Mr.

Barberina.

Would you say that any of the uh emails, the complaints emails received were responded to?

I would say uh I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I can tell you that I responded to those emails.

I have no idea they were actually recorded appropriately on the tip.

Are you saying that Outlook did not report the responses?

No, I'm saying that they were not uh uh because when you look at the second page, I mean that's kind of confusing, but it doesn't show uh and then look at oh what I responded.

I received emails ERC inboxes and the Cold Let's U respond because it looks like what is a discrimination complaint fall, no reply, and I remember talking to you about it, and I think that they needed to be because there were uh a little bit of a confusion between the spreadsheet that was created and what reflects on the response website from the city.

Uh as you can see as well, you know, it's just the no reply for ERC commissioners application.

Each of those applications have been uh uh responded, but it doesn't reflect in this sheet.

It's the same that happens with the discrimination complaint form, although it appears that they're not uh necessarily recorded on this sheet, but each of them were actually answered.

So uh Mr.

Barbarina, how how do you respond to equal rights complaints?

When they when a complaint enters the email inbox and outlook, what how does what does that look like?

How do you respond to that email?

Well, I'll look at their email, they come to me or they come to this site, and there was a confusion in how we were responding to them, and some of them I would answer uh through the no reply, no reply uh button that we would press, and sometimes I wouldn't have been I would have replied through my email.

So and that was something that it was fixed in the future shortly after because it was brought into my attention that you know there were not we were not using or I was not using that response appropriately now, but they were definitely uh responding, but it doesn't show any so you were not responding appropriately.

Okay.

Uh there were some time that was part of the learning process, you know, because there were other types too that other people were not responding uh the way it should be, but it wasn't doing it because I was negligent doing.

I'd like to move on to exhibit D24, which was exhibit DU11.

It is now D24.

And the second page of this, thank you.

Yes, it was DU11.

That looks like it right there.

Second page of that.

I can see the U11.

That's it.

I'm waiting.

You have D11 in front of you?

Yeah.

All right.

Please ask the question.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

You will pardon me.

Do you D24, correct?

Current.

Yes.

So Mr.

Barberina, you uh stated earlier that uh other areas of your work performance were done well.

Uh are you responsible for managing the Equal Rights Commission web page that we see here on page two of D24?

Um I'm partly responsible to the section for ERC, yes.

Okay.

Uh do you see the archive section that has the highlight uh in the lower right hand corner with the arrow point to it?

It says meetings, and then it has the years 2021.

Uh how often are you expected to upload the meeting agendas and minutes to the archives?

This section of the the web page is the archives.

I mean, for the archive, I don't know how much often can we upload what was done even before I was uh uh the equal rights specialist, but that is something that it was done in conjunction with the ERC commissioners who were present way before I was here, and I was collecting all that information for them to provide that to me so it can be then uploaded to the system or the archives.

When did you begin what year did you begin employment with the city of Milwaukee?

I believe it was uh two and a half years ago.

What year was that?

Well 220 uh 26.

I mean I will have to remember that in that late 2023 in March 2020.

Uh yeah, March 2023, I believe.

So this email is dated November 2025.

Can you tell us why the archives are uh delay multiple years?

Sure.

I was hoping that uh working in conjunction with uh the ERC commissions uh commissioners that they will be uh providing that information to me.

Uh follow-up question to that.

So here the body of this em of this uh email page, you have 2025, the current well last year, with the agendas and the minutes.

Who uploads them to this here chart that we see?

I did because I was uh able to get all that information when I was present working for, and there was no uh I would say that anything that would prevent me from downloading them.

So you have ownership, you create, you stated, you create and maintain ownership of the ERC meeting agendas and minutes.

Is that correct?

Within the scope of what yes, uh I can do from the moment that I started.

In 2024, would you say 2023, 2024?

So you would have you they would come from you.

You would have for 2324, you would have access to the minutes and agendas.

Is that accurate?

Yeah.

So what would what would exactly would you be waiting for to upload the archives?

For the commissioners, because way before me, there was no agenda, there were no minutes, they were created.

And uh the commissioners, the chair and the vice chair were uh in charge of providing me with that information, so I can then uh be in a sense looking at them and be able to individually go through each what each each of those years and each of those months and create an agenda and and create a minutes that were provided, and then I would have to then submit it back to the commissioners to see if there can be approved or not.

So it was a process, not something that I can just download and click, download and click.

Is 2024 before you or uh during the time you were the equal rights?

Some of them but before me because I started in March 24, I believe.

Thank you for that.

Uh I'd like to now move on to exhibits D17 through D20, they're all related, they're all uh social media and internet browsing exhibits, D17, 18, 19, and 20.

Okay.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Barbarina, uh can you describe the relation of this page to your work as an equal rights specialist?

The relation of this content.

Um I I can see that when it says white many non-whites want to be white or accepted by whites, uh, a cage.

I mean that relates to discrimination, you know, and it's something that uh information that I can get out of uh to do you more uh uh uh of more on uh the idea of equal rights discrimination.

So uh that's all I can tell you.

You know the other ones, I mean, I don't necessarily spend time on is it something that you just click?

I mean, if you look at the broader spectrum of what the internet is, you know, when sometimes I get and it doesn't even show the time here, but it uh we see I don't see it.

I mean uh a lot of information just come and click, come and click, and it comes in uh in a way that you know just click on it and it goes by so you click that that's an action, is that accurate?

I would yeah, because they would come and then just click and just get it out of the way just to clear that up.

All right, is so this up here I think is D17.

Can we move on to D 19?

Okay, and likewise, Mr.

Barbarina, can you um help to describe um how this content uh relates to your work as an equal rights specialist?

You're talking about D19?

Yes, do you know what the instellar hand zimmer is?

I mean, that is a uh music that is used to relax and to make it more creative for you.

I would just clicking on it so I can do my work, so but that's what I would relate to it, you know, because oftentimes uh you look for something that it can relax you and do your job better, and that's what I was doing on that.

Uh can we move on to exhibit D20?

And like and the same with the other uh social media browsing, Mr.

Can you uh share how this content relates to your work as an equal rights specialist?

Well, yeah, it's just racism, you know, uh is something that I constantly need to be learning about uh the idea of what racism is as we do work as the equal rights specialists in the so that something that I relate to.

So you use uh YouTube as your source, your reliable source of information to to gain insight on racism to look at perspective, not as a reliable thing uh uh source, but look at perspective or what out there, but it's not something that I would spend necessarily time on it again.

I would just click on see what's there all right.

Uh D18, please.

It is titled Facebook images, Mr.

Barberina.

Can you share with us how this content uh is relevant to your uh work as an equal rights specialist?

I just I I don't think it relates to anything again.

This is just a way that you know uh I would get uh uh as we do have uh Facebook from the Equal Rights Commission that I was also part of uh uh the person who'd be updating it, you know.

I would get this and I would just click on it and then move on so to get rid of them.

So Mr.

Barberina, with all of this uh email browsing, do you think this is an appropriate use of work time?

I don't know if you would call it work time because if you know it was mentioned that I would spend countless hours, you know, it would be uh creating the idea that I do not do any work because there were other stuff uh there uh the same time they were created.

I know that uh and and some of the uh dates that you mentioned uh December 12th that I spent eight hours uh working on them.

Uh you also mentioned uh some of the times at 12 a.m.

or 1 a.m.

And also uh you know, doing that period of time, I mean doing on that day, uh you know, I as well conducted uh uh weekly meetings with commissioners.

But you do not dispute that all of this uh browsing content uh is where you spent a bulk of your work time.

A bulk of my time, yes, I dispute that.

Uh any amount of your work time.

I would, you know, yeah, like anything else, I would just you know click and some of the stuff, you know, and some of the stuff were pertaining to be part of the idea to have uh to have a better idea of what uh uh the scope of what the equal rights commission is in a sense when you can look at uh racism and we can look at you know uh me just listening to uh to relax music so I can work uh on it so I can be more relaxed doing my work.

Can we go back to D19, please?

It's YouTube, uh it's like YouTube browsing.

I'm sorry, what was that?

Uh can you keep scrolling up looking for one in particular?

It could also it could also be D17.

Um, but there is one.

Yeah, D17.

Yeah, okay.

Here, this one.

Scroll back up to the top of D17.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, do you see the title on this YouTube video, Mr.

Barberina?

Yeah, it's a very job.

Oh, right, so yeah.

Can you uh explain how or describe the relation of this content to your work as an equal rights specialist?

Well yeah.

Yes.

So again, it doesn't necessarily direct the relate to you know the job of what the Equal Rights Commission.

Does but it relates to the idea of getting uh uh minors exposed as we work with uh other uh agencies to learn more about what exposure of uh girls are in order for them not to be trapped.

So that would be something that I will relate to.

Is there any other source or means that you could have sought to gain that insight aside from this particular YouTube video that references I'm sure there are, and I'm sure I did look for them as well.

Okay.

Um right, uh I those are all the questions I have.

Does that conclude the questions?

Yes, do you have uh any additional questions for the for the witness based on this last series of answer of target?

His answers based on the questions from Ms.

Reid.

No, no.

All right.

Um, you're excused as a witness.

Um you're not calling any other person to testify on your behalf, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Um if we're not going to have any more witnesses, and that's what I'm hearing from both parties, then uh we would look for closing statements.

And as I indicated at the outset, the department always goes first.

So, Ms.

Reed, on behalf of the department, would you like to make a closing statement?

I would, yes.

Please proceed.

Uh good afternoon, honorable commissioners of the city service commission.

I thank you all for your time and efforts today in hearing uh our testimony and this case brought before you.

I would like to uh reiterate that the reason we are here today is because we have uh a substantial amount of egregious documentation of misconduct on behalf of Mr.

Omar Barbarina.

These are not allegations.

This evidence has been thoroughly substantiated, and Mr.

Barbarina does not dispute the evidence that has been brought before us today.

Not only is the evidence is it once in a while or once a week, the evidence shows us a prolonged and consistent day after day, hour after hour, to the minute of non-stop clicking non-work-related internet browsing activity on Mr.

Barberena's work device.

He did not have the authority, or he did not seek permission, nor is it advised or appropriate or allowed for City of Milwaukee employees to use their work device for personal purposes.

City issued work devices are for work purposes only.

If he is to take his device home, it is so that he is working from home doing work activity.

However, this evidence shows just the contrary.

We're talking about almost 9010 split, where almost 90% of his time is personally perusing inappropriate internet activity.

The other 10% is questionable.

We can't account for that, but the majority of his time, that is an egregious amount of misconduct and misappropriation of City of Milwaukee, uh, taxpayer and city of Milwaukee, resources, and work time.

It is my duty and responsibility as a supervisor and manager to ensure that there is a safe, productive and professional work environment for myself and my entire team.

As such, as a manager, as a supervisor, I could not turn a blind eye to all of the evidence that was provided to me.

Action was necessary and action was taken, and that is why we are here today.

In addition, Mr.

Barbarena testified himself, as we saw in multiple exhibits, that his work was in fact not being done.

Very few of the evidence brought before us today, the exhibits showed that he was being productive.

And I think today we learned why he was not being productive.

It is because he had his own personal agenda to peruse the internet as he saw fit.

So I ask that you, honorable commissioners, uphold the city service rules, section 12 that were cited in Mr.

Barbarina's separation.

I thank you for your time, and that is the end of my closing argument.

Mr.

Barberina, the last word goes to you.

You also get to make a closing statement.

Would you like to make one?

Yes.

Please proceed.

Members of the commission.

Throughout my nearly three years of service, I have consistently performed my duties, worked diligently to strengthen and strengthen his operations and uh of the commission and increased participation.

My record reflected my KPI KPIs and the absence of any prior disciplinary actions, speak to my commitment to this organization.

However, the decision to terminate my employment was not a reflection of my performance, but rather the result of an unjust process.

I'm here today to respectfully ask you to examine not just the allegations, but the process by which this decision reached when measured against established seventh tests of just cost the termination, the termination fails every critical juncture.

Notice one question.

Was the employee clearly informed that certain conduct could lead to disciplinary or termination?

In my case, I was never given clear notice or guidance that my actions were considered violations that could result in termination.

During my weekly uh one in one minutes with the uh supervisor, interim supervisor, there were no warnings indicating that my performance or conduct placed my job in jeopardy.

Reasonable rule of expectation.

While workplace policies are important, the concerns cited in my case heavily relate to a very small portion of my overall duties, which is about we mentioned five percent, or maybe even less than that, it doesn't even show up of my responsibilities as stated in my job description.

If concern existed, they could have been addressed through clarification, not just emails, or corrective guidance rather than immediate termination.

As well that it could have been taking place.

The investigation, to my knowledge, no formal or comprehensive investigation took place prior to my termination decision.

I was not even interviewed in advance or given the opportunity to provide context before the discharge was made.

Fair investigation.

The timing of event raises about fairness, concerns about fairness.

The discharge documented indicated that my termination would be effective at 9 a.m.

As it shows in some of the exhibit, which was the same time as the discharge meeting.

Because the document has already been signed beforehand.

This suggests that the outcome may have been predetermined before the meeting occurred.

I was later given an updated document of my discharge with signatures of another supervisor of the interim supervisor.

So that then I believe it's not consistent with the decision.

The allegations appear to be focused on small component of my duties without the consideration of the overall performance.

Equal treatment.

From my perspective, the decision to move directly to termination without progressive discipline does not appear consistent with how workplace concerns are typically addressed.

Employees are normally given warnings and the opportunity to correct issues before the most severe disciplinary action is taken.

No PIP, nor written warnings of my performance.

Appropriate penalty, the termination, I believe is the most severe from discipline in my case.

Again, I had no prior discipline record indicating serious misconduct.

I have taken an additional responsibility as a complaint liaison, which has which had previously been handled by two individuals.

Prior to hiring the complaint liaison person, I was performing as an equal rights specialist and also as a complaint liaison person.

So I actually helped uh train the new uh complaint liaison person before she came in.

Prior to hiring, I mean, I had no not given correct guidance or performance improvement plan.

Because of these factors, the penalty appears disproportionate to the alleged issue.

Now, there's an important mitigation circumstance here.

Immediately before the discharge meeting, I informed my interim supervisor that my father had passed away.

Despite this circumstance, the termination process continued without a pause, and I was not given the opportunity to take bereavement.

Is that how it's readment lead?

This significant personal situation was not considered a mitigation factor in the decision.

When I actually found out that my father passed away early morning as I was dropping my kid up at the daycare center, I could have made the decision to call my supervisor and said I'm not coming in because my father passed away.

Nevertheless, because we have we we had an important meeting for the following day for the ERC monthly meeting.

I was actually typing a note to my supervisor when I was called for the discharge meeting.

So I was not able to finish it.

So when this seventh applied to the fact of my case of my case, it raises serious concern about whether the disciplinary process follow the standards of just cause progressive discipline and do process aspected with the civil service system of the film.

A second.

Commissioner Smith, yes.

Commissioner Wixborrel.

Yes.

Uh, we are going into closed session.

Uh that means that all of the parties in the room, other than the commissioners and staff, uh, should leave and be available to come back in a period of time, and we'll announce our decision in open session.

Uh also uh our administrative staff should uh uh seal off the uh computer the virtual access to this meeting.

Um that's done uh then we'll actually begin our discussions, Commissioners.

I feel we'll see you in a bit.

All right, President Bach.

Or has this live, excuse me?

Whenever you're it's two oh eight.

Um the commission for the record, the commission voted uh to come back into open session in regards to the discharge appeal of Omar Barbarena.

As I indicated at the outset, there are two issues, or the issue can be divided into two parts, pardon me.

The first is whether or not there was cause to take disciplinary action.

Is there a motion in that regard?

I have a motion that I move based upon the preponderance of the evidence that the department did have cause to discipline the appellant.

I second that motion.

Based on the preponderance of the evidence.

Commissioner Wicksporl.

Yes.

And the chair also votes yes.

Yes.

My motion is based on the proponents of the evidence that the commission oppose the discharge of the appellate.

It's been moved and seconded.

I'll pull the commissioners.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Smith.

Yes.

Commissioner Wick Sparles.

Yes.

And the chair also holds, yes.

What that means, Mr.

Barbarena, is that your appeal has been denied.

I move that we adjourn the hearing a second.

I'll pull the commissioners.

Commissioner Miller.

Yes.

Commissioner Smith.

Yes.

Commissioner Wicksborough.

Yes.

We are adjourned.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.