Fire and Police Commission Regular Meeting – March 19, 2026

This is the March 19th, 2026 regular meeting of the Fire and Police Commission.

Present are Commissioners Virgos, Evans, Fung, Schneider, Spence, Spencer, World Patterson, and myself, Commissioner Horowitz.

Commissioner Ramey is excused.

Also present are FPC Executive Director Leon Todd and Deputy Director Jay Poussek.

Dector Da Doctor.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We will begin with item number one, public comment.

For those who would like to speak and are here in person, please come up and sit at the front table when your name is called.

If you are appearing virtually and have registered to speak in advance, please use the raise my hand feature in the webinar tools and unmute yourself when called upon to speak.

Each person will be given up to five minutes to speak.

And our first speaker is Emilia Emilio de Torre.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Emilio DeTore.

Uh and I'm the executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, and we are in favor of the proposed changes to SOP 460.

As you were probably aware, I and several other nonprofit leaders who work with immigration education immigrants were invited to speak at the request of the common council members who put forward the ICE out of Milwaukee package, of which this was a part.

We spoke unanimously in support of the package.

The Milwaukee Terraners have trained tens of thousands of immigrants and non-immigrants alike over the past several months.

And I'm here before you this evening after assisting with the training for staff who work with immigrants and refugees earlier this afternoon.

And just today they reported how frightened and dislocated these legal immigrants felt.

I'm hoping that the fire and police commission are in favor of these changes.

At a recent public meeting of the Mitchell Street Library the other month, Congresswoman Gwen Moore was very vocal about the obligation of law enforcement to uphold their duty to intervene and investigate.

Understanding that what that looks like in different circumstances clearly varies, but there are many legal precedents to do the right thing and hold law enforcement agents accountable when they do the wrong thing.

Zafroman showed us all today in his court victory.

We also know that going back at least to 1972's Byrd versus Brischke case, which established in federal appellate court that police officers have an affirmative duty to intervene when witnessing fellow officers using excessive force or violating a person's constitutional rights.

It remains a foundational legal precedent for officer liability under 42 USC section 1983.

And we see this in the successful Bivens actions, which are used to seek damages directly against federal officers like ICE agents who violate their constitutional rights.

And there are many other examples, but we know that failure to act can lead to being charged criminally, sued, or disciplined for failure to protect a victim's constitutional rights, in addition to the horror of witnessing or experiencing all of the terrible things we have watched on the news this past year.

I know that the people don't want this, and I know that the police don't want this, and I know that we need to make it as easy and legal as possible to protect and ensure the dignity of all people in Milwaukee, and I'm hoping that we can continue to count on you to do the correct thing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chard Velez.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Thank you for hearing public comment.

At a prior meeting, I noted that a complaint I filed invoked the procedure under Wisconsin statute 6250 subsection 19.

And I raised a question about how that statutory process operates alongside the commission's current rules.

Subsection 19 establishes a specific mechanism.

An agreed person may file verified charges alleging misconduct, and the commission is required to receive and make position disposition of those charges.

The statute assigns that adjudicatory function to the commission itself.

The concern I'm raising here is structural, not about the merits of any particular complaint.

Based on my review, complaints may be screened or terminated at the staff level without the commission itself receiving docketing or acting on those charges.

Where that occurs, the statutory tribunal designated by legislature does not exercise its function.

Staff is not commissioned.

Staff may assist, investigate, and make recommendations respectfully.

But the statute assigns the adjudicatory function to the commission itself.

So the structural issue is not whether a given complaint succeeds, but whether it ever reaches the body authorized to decide it.

The Supreme Court in Wisconsin addressed the FCC's complaint framework in Casciona v.

Welch.

The court rejected procedures that place barriers between the filing of a complaint and commission adjudication.

In their own words, the complaint procedure should not be an obstacle course that prevents adjudication.

The court recognized that the statute assigns a judicatory responsibility to the commission and that threshold procedures must not prevent complaints from reaching that body.

In Castaneda, the court also identified concerns with restrictive definitions of aggrieved person that excluded witnesses and others with knowledge of misconduct.

Any person may be truly aggrieved, the court wrote.

And whether a complaint qualifies as an aggrieved person under the statute is a question the commission must resolve per the court, not a precondition that staff may rule on.

A similar concern arises where complaint standards function as threshold screens that prevent plausible allegations of fact or misconduct from reaching commission review.

Additionally, there is a delegation question.

Wisconsin law permits staff to perform preliminary ministerial functions, but final adjudicatory authority must remain with the body designated by statute.

A structure in which staff determinations effectively control outcomes, absent commission action raises concerns.

And finally, there is the issue of no record.

When complaints are terminated at the threshold, no commission decision issues.

Without a commission decision, no administrative record is created.

Without a record, judicial review is unavailable.

FPC annual reports indicate that around 774 complaints have been submitted over the past five years, with only a small number, really a handful, preceding the hearing and commission adjudication.

This pattern is not new.

In light of the concerns identified in Casunita and the recent FPC data, four practical questions follow.

Over the past 18 years, how many complaints complainants have received an actual commission determination?

How many complaints were resolved at the threshold under standards not in the statute?

How many were dismissed without commission action despite raising conduct questions that plausibly called for commission review?

And how many complainants received a notice of termination and reasonably understood that the commission had acted, when in fact the commission itself had not.

The commission has had the current complaint framework for many years.

Longevity lends the appearance of subtle practice, but it does not establish legal validity.

Before tonight's meeting, I submitted supporting materials to this commission.

I encourage you to please review those.

They include the Commission's 2000 annual report, 2007, in a report after Castanadia, and as well as the complaint that I submitted in February and the terminal termination letter that I received with some annotations showing some of the legal conclusions that were reached by staff without apparently commission review.

I invite the commission to consider what hundreds of similar such staff termination letters, if they do exist, might indicate about the statutory process being truly available to citizens as a statute requires.

A citizen who invokes a statutory process in good faith and receives no commission action has not only been denied an outcome, they have been denied access to the forum the government itself designated for receiving such grievances.

I respectfully ask the commission to review whether its current practices ensure that verified charges are received and acted upon by the commission itself as the statute requires.

Please note I did make a similar request in February.

This comment adds details for my research and renews that request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Mr.

Vles.

Do you have you you asked that uh your comments be attached?

Do you have can you send me a written copy?

I I did to the FPC you did, uh, but it was like 10 minutes ago.

Then I'm sure we have it.

Uh and I I did receive your um your written request, which is similar to my understanding.

It's still um I still need to review that, and I will do that and uh and take appropriate action.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Paul R.

Smith.

Good evening.

Good afternoon.

Thank you again for your time here today.

Um as a commissioner on the city's Office of Equity and Inclusion, I stand in support of um SOP.

As a Native American, our rights are trampled upon.

Our constant so what some so-called constitutional rights are trampled upon.

Where law enforcement has went against the Constitution and harm citizens with no reproduction at all.

I'm hoping that the police can be on the right side of history in this first time.

So I'm here today as a commissioner and as uh vice president of the Milwaukee Intertribal Circle, and hopefully the police will be there when ICE reaches out and starts violating our rights.

They have procedures for stopping pulling over and shooting people.

We should have procedures for protecting our people, no matter who's doing the harm.

Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Just for clarity's sake, you're referring to SLP 460?

Yes.

Okay.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeremy Driscoll.

Good evening.

Evening.

Let's see.

Look at my face.

I just wanted to express my gratitude for being heard today.

I've I was here in relation to one of the items, but my parking meet is up, so I'm gonna have to go.

But maybe I'll be back.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Okay.

You you can also submit things to us by email.

Yes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Alderman Alex Brower.

Um an alderman, just uh so we're clear it was my intention, uh it is our intention to move item 13 up to the top at following public comment.

And I was uh I'm gonna recommend to the chair that we invite you to pre present as the author at that time if that's more appropriate.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And you won't be limited to five minutes.

Maybe you should be, but you might want to.

Ouch.

All right.

Uh Bridget, do we have anyone appearing virtually for public comment this evening?

We do not have anyone appearing virtually, Director.

Okay.

And that would conclude public comment, Madam Chair.

Okay.

Uh, based on the uh public interest in in item 13.

Um it's my understanding that we will hear that item uh next out of order.

Uh item 13 is FPC 212453 resolution relating to common counsel file number two five one seven eight eight, a substitute motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedures regarding the duty to intervene, investigate, and report unreasonable uses of force.

Uh and just to give a a brief overview uh of this uh item and its procedural posture.

This, as I'm as the file title indicates, is a motion uh that it has been introduced by the Milwaukee Common Council uh to modify um uh Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure 460, which governs use of force.

Uh the file was then referred to us by the chair of uh at the request of the chair of the public safety and health committee, Alderman Scott Spiker, uh, for the FPC to make a recommendation regarding that file.

Uh it's my understanding that the sponsor is Alderman Alex Brower.

Um and uh Madam Chair, would you like to um hear from the city attorney's office or Alderman Brouwer first?

Well, I think that uh I think that uh we should hear from the city attorney's office first.

Okay.

Um I we know the we know the parameters it's set forth in writing, so we should understand whether or not we have legal advice that changes any process here.

So with that, I will take a motion to uh go into closed session.

So move.

And oh sorry, just a point of clarification that the motion to go into closed session is pursuant to section 19.851 sub-1 sub-G of the Wisconsin statute so that the city attorney's office can render oral or written advice concerning uh legal strategy to be adopted by the board or the city of Milwaukee with respect to litigation in which they are and or are likely to become involved.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries, and we will go into closed session.

Please step.

We are uh going back into open session at this time and taking up item 13.

Um why don't you uh director um cue this up for us?

Certainly.

So the board had an opportunity just now to uh um to go into closed session to hear legal advice on this matter from the city attorney's office.

Um to uh into open session, uh I think it'd be appropriate.

Uh we're back for item 13 to hear from the the sponsor of this item uh within the from the common council, Alderman Alex Brower.

Good evening, Alderman.

Yeah, thank you all so much.

Uh thank you so much uh foreign police commission for hearing this item.

I really do appreciate it.

So this is a motion in the common council.

Um, as you guys said, under Act 12 that allows by a two-thirds vote to modify police standard operating procedure.

This motion modifies um it's a motion modifying police uh department procedure uh 460, uh use of force.

And so this assigns a duty to intervene in situations where a department member observes another department member um or a member of any other law enforcement agency using um excessive force, and what this is coming from here is what we've seen in other cities, Minneapolis, Chicago, other cities, Los Angeles, where ICE agents are using reasonable excessive um and what is the what is the phrase here from the Supremacy Clause?

They have definitely done more than what was necessary and proper uh for them to do um under the Supremacy Clause and it's constitution, and so we are attempting to codify here uh a procedure or modify this procedure, excuse me, to create a standard where uh officers will do something uh when ICE agents act out of um in some cases complete malice towards residents, immigrants, and um and people and bystanders and protesters.

Um additionally, what this calls on them to do is to report noncompliant uses of force as well, regardless of agency.

Uh regardless of the agency as well.

And so in your file, there are there are three versions of this.

There's the original version, there's sub A, there's sub B.

Um, minor modifications were made in all of these to clarify concerns brought by the city attorney's office, but the the the main idea still stands in all versions.

Right now we're, you know, um moving forward ahead with sub B.

Um, but the concern is staying the main the main point still stands with all versions that they will intervene in cases um where the observing officer based on their training believes or knows to be that beyond which is objectively reasonable um actions by any law enforcement officer, including federal, um, including federal ones.

So that's uh that's what we're intending to do with this uh with this motion.

Thank you.

Um we have a representative of the police department here, Heather Hopp.

Would you like to address this issue?

Yes, thank you, um, commissioners, and good evening, Heather Huff, Chief of Staff, Milwaukee Police Department.

I do want to say Chief Norman did and would have liked to be here because this is a very important file.

It is his birthday today, and so the misses and his children um did have longstanding plans.

So um he does send his regrets.

Um and we uh would like to say just a few words.

Um we've met I've met with Alderman Brower on a number of different occasions and the other alders, uh, the chief included about their ICE out or the ICE out package.

And we have been very supportive of the intent of that uh legislative packet.

Um I want to put on the record that we worked with the Alders on an SOP change, making explicit that our officers uh do not wear facial masks to conceal their identity because that's not who MPD is and not what we stand for.

Um and we a shout out to the unions as well.

We did the meet and confer process that we are required to do by CBA.

Uh expedited that both unions were on board with those changes and waived their 30 days um to hold that meet and confer, and we all agreed upon language that is now part of policy.

So we clarified that with a memo, and we're able to work together on those changes.

And I will say for Alderman Brouwer's request to change our use of force policy, we 100% agree with the intent.

As a department, our duty is to protect and serve this community above all else.

And when the things in Minneapolis have unfolded, and there are valid concerns about some of the actions that have been taken by federal law enforcement agents, we understand that one, the Milwaukee police department does not operate like that.

And two, we want to do everything in our power to protect our community, including our protesting community.

But we can only speak for ourselves, and we and we don't have any power or control over the actions of another law enforcement agency.

And we, if we put this into policy, are asking those officers individually to make these very big decisions on their own without the Milwaukee police department being a part of that decision making process.

So for that, I say we've already got some things in place.

So one body worn cams.

Our officers must have their body worn cameras activated when they respond to calls for service.

And we put out a reminder that this is really important if they encounter other law enforcement agents or agencies.

So we've got that.

A second directive we've implemented in recent months is we have requested that if officers respond to anything and there is another law enforcement agency present, they immediately call for a supervisor because the executive command staff wants to know what is happening.

And if you put it in policy, that policy is not what directs the the chief to do something, it's what an officer Joe Smith must do on the ground.

And so our issue isn't an objection to the overall intent of what uh the council and what Alderman Brouwer wants to do.

Our objection is well, this isn't the place to insert that.

And we agree that in these situations, and and you know, we're weach situation is different and unique, and there are multitude of factors to consider, and different entities we would also need to consult.

The district attorney's office, um, the local officials, um, sometimes even other agencies like the sheriff's office, because if we decide to intervene and say arrest, we need to ensure that there's a place to take a person.

And so, with all of that, that initial step to intervene, placing that responsibility solely on an officer by policy is problematic for us as a department because those decisions need to be made from the very um top.

And so our objection is not to the again the intent, but to a change in policy for those.

Another thing I do want to point out for the department is our use of force policy is more restrictive than even other jurisdictions in Wisconsin.

And in part thanks to the FPC.

So chokeholds, for instance, is something that we cannot use by our policy, but a surrounding jurisdiction perhaps can, and that would not be considered excessive force.

Another example is taser use.

Okay.

I mean, I'm okay.

I'm happy to discuss it.

I have a um so uh I think one of the things that uh is troubling me is when we say a duty to intervene.

I have um, you know, from my experience a concept of what uh that means um uh uh in terms of the MPD, which doesn't necessarily mean putting their hands on that officer.

It might be verbal uh direction, it might be um as you say, calling a supervisor or doing something else.

So I I think there's a distinction between doing something that really is not an obstruction of what the uh federal officers doing and doing something that helps protect the citizen, and that would be with you know uh making the making it known this is a I you know you don't need to do that, whatever.

And also reporting it, also documenting it, um also being prepared to be a witness, um, and um and I don't know that from the the command staff they can really make a decision on whether or not there's going to be any like physical interference.

I think that for department members, if they actually need to intervene with a fellow officer and they're not complying with a verbal, that they may be able to make physical activity there.

Am I am I correct?

Yes, but utilizing the language duty to intervene um without definition is problematic for our officers who are making those decisions.

I will say, you know, the you know, hey, you're gonna be a witness, our officers are have that awareness, and I think it's in other policies that that's their role in all of the situations that they encounter where they're going to have to testify or they're going to have to uh you know have their body worn cam available in discovery.

Um and so that what we would need to explore is which policies cover those situations where there is uh you know ensuring you're preserving evidence that I I believe I just so many policies, I don't know which one would cover that.

I'm happy to bring that back to this body.

Um yes, intervention, you know, all of our officers are able trained, for instance, and that is could be a soft intervention, just a spoken word in some situations to their fellow officer and their and their co-workers.

Um but the issue is even with it a soft intervention, we can't guarantee the actions of another law enforcement agency and how they might react to even that.

And so that is why we prefer that any type of intervention be on the leadership level and involvement on the leadership level to make those decisions.

But yes, calling a supervisor is a form of intervention, so to speak, and we've already issued that directive where there's other law enforcement agencies when you're responding um to a you know a call or an incident, uh, immediately call a supervisor.

Just to comment and qu comment more than a question.

Um it's really critical that we sit down and talk to each other, so that the common council Alden Brower and um somebody put it in the other one, they understand what our what the police limitations are and um and abilities.

I mean, so that we can talk to each other so that we don't uh we don't have to agree.

We don't have to agree, but we understand where intervention means.

All right.

Um we we don't want any ugly situations when guns are pointing at each other kind of thing.

And we there has to be because we have to discuss this and be prepared.

I mean, not that I'm I'm the child of immigrants, and I got family who are huge uh uh terrified to leave the house.

So I understand the situation, but I understand from the police side also that we need to talk.

We need to discuss this, we need to organize so that we understand what we what the police are gonna do, what the common council wants the police to do, and what the Fire and Police Commission wants our our members to do.

It's really important um that we talk about this stuff and communicate.

We don't have to agree, and we're not gonna agree on everything.

Um so that we understand what intervention means and from the police side of it.

And uh, because if we start forcing things on each other, then uh we all lose.

We have to be prepared for the worst or the best.

Hope for the best, right?

And that's why we gotta talk to each other and be ready for whatever comes along.

Nothing's probably gonna be happening till after the elections.

Um that's the political reality.

Nothing's gonna happen till then, but this is happening, and we need to um prepare and let's communicate with each other so that we're on the same page, at least understanding each other and not condemning each other.

Down the world.

Okay, I see some hands up on the screen.

Uh Commissioner Evans, why don't you have their hand up?

No, God, I saw hands up uh uh Madam Chair, yes.

Fair enough, it's really far away and it is hard to see.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Better to see it fairly.

So, yeah, I have a I have a few things.

Um is uh I guess I'll start just quickly with a process issue.

So when this body prior to Act 12 and even post Act 12, like when we have taken up an issue of policy, like a policy question, we have been very, very deliberative to the point it annoys people, but also I think it is essential feature because police policy is really critical for officers understanding how to operate day to day, it has big implications.

And so, like I I will just say now, like I am absolutely not prepared to vote on this tonight.

This is the first time I've seen this at an FPC meeting, and so like I I have a lot of questions, I have more things I want to look into.

So, and I and I know that the vote of this commission does not restrict the vote of the common council, and I think that's important to to know as well.

Um but so there's that process thing.

I would at least like a communication file first, conversation, hearing about it, fact-finding, and then um potentially uh, you know, even if we're moving very quickly, then maybe the next meeting that it comes up, it's a resolution.

But I think first meeting being a resolution file is too fast for to make for me.

Um I want to say a few things too.

So I think um, you know, uh we're we're not new to the bluster from law enforcement agencies when policy modifications are on the table.

That's a thing.

I learned a lot from the passage of SOPs up 575.

I learned a lot about what people said was gonna be a problem before and then after passage and how different the environment was before and after.

I mean uh I didn't say at the time, I think it's important to say, like we got threats from uh law enforcement agencies out of the city that said they wouldn't render aid in the city of Milwaukee if we passed that policy.

Turned out to be complete bullshit, but we just call it what it is.

But I think that like that's part of the bluster I'm kind of talking about.

So I just want to name that.

That that makes it hard sometimes to like properly assess uh the pushback.

What if it is real, what if it isn't.

Um it's clear to me that one good thing about the ICE out package is that it really demonstrates that the common council isn't thinking, and not just common council, our partner, like community partners, everybody, that like police are not the end all be all public safety.

There is too much put on their shoulders, and there's too much expectation uh for what is possible for them to do.

So I think like that that's acknowledged by thinking about outside the box about like hey, uh we can't ice can't be staging on city land and like things like that.

I I think that that's a really good thing.

I also think the goal of this policy, I think, and I want to ask you about this, Alderman Brower, like is to stop or prevent, stop, prevent Fed uh officers, like ICE agents and and any Fed from abusing, injuring and killing Milwaukeeans extrajudiciously extrajudiciously.

That's court.

Yeah.

Um I'm not sure that this as written gets us there.

Um, which is one of the reasons why, like, I think talking about it more and like having time to be deliberative is important.

Um I also think it's really important to say, like policing in America is isn't like what police are allowed to do is way too permissible in this country, and it's built in with qualified immunity and all these other issues.

Um that we are not gonna be able to fix with an SOP adjustment.

And so, like, I think that's a really hard thing, like figuring out like it is both infuriating, it is always infuriating, actually.

Let me re let me adjust that.

It's it is infuriating.

Um, but figuring out like what is the proper lever to pull at SOP level is like one of the questions I have for something like this.

And I really want to be clear that I'm not at all worried that MPD officers are gonna overintervene on the feds.

That is not a worry that I have.

I'm not worried about MPD holding too many officers accountable and disciplining the heck out of them because of this policy being put in place.

So that is also not a concern I have.

Um I do have some like practical questions, which are like, what will happen with our um Milwaukee area um investigative team mate agreements.

Um the city of Milwaukee has a higher use of force standard than the DOJ than the national standard.

That's a good thing about Milwaukee, but it does uh the chokehold question is like a really good one because they're not allowed here under any circumstance, and the DOJ use of force allows it when deadly force is allowable.

That's a really different policy.

What does that mean?

Um I also and I think this could be a broader question about how the city wants to pr uh deal with this stuff, but there's also federal partnerships that exist now in the city with the Haida program, the um high-intensity drug trafficking area with the fusion center, like there are other ways that there's partnership happening between the police department and the feds.

So, like, what would a policy like this, how would it impact?

I've also got a couple qu like this is already in the policy, this isn't something you guys added, it's already in there that talks about how um statute numbers shall reasonably attempt to intervene to prevent the use of such excessive force.

If the observing officer is in a position to do so ideally before the situation escalates, and then this is the part I want to emphasize, and if any such intervention does not jeopardize safety.

And I think like that is there's like a loophole built into the policy in that way.

Um, because as we know a primary driving factor of guilt or innocence for officers is when they personally felt that they were in jeopardy.

Um you know, so the things you point out, Heather about like um, and I don't mean to be too informal.

Oh that's that's um about body worm cameras being on, like I like that that's being emphasized that calling supervisor scene, all that's fine, but it in no way will do the thing that the common council is trying to get done, which is to prevent at the point of violence and damage, have intervention.

And so I guess I just wanted to name that and say, um, I think some kind of policy that could help us get there is a good idea.

I just don't think we're there yet.

Um, in terms of like if you're asking me, which you are, because I'm a fire police commissioner, so that's that's that's where I'm at with it.

Yeah.

Very good.

Madam Chair, sure.

Um I think uh I think it's really important that we understand the gravity of the situation that we're in right now.

Um I think it it's clear, Alderman Brower, based on um sort of where you said the intent of this policy came from from these extreme cases, like Renee Good, like Alex Predi, um, that people are already being sort of extrajudicially murdered in the streets.

Um so I I consider that heavily when I um looking at um at this recommendation, like this is not these are not hypothetical situations, they have already happened, people have already been murdered.

They have already happened.

People have already been murdered.

Um even though that hasn't happened in Milwaukee, and I do not want it to happen in Milwaukee, um, it weighs on me heavily the idea that it could happen in Milwaukee.

Um I think one thing that I'm really struggling with is the critique that we can't entrust our officers to do split second decision making.

I think we already entrust our officers to make split second decisions that are life or death decisions all the time, and that um that is a part of their job.

I understand that there is no way for them to know sort of what is in a federal law enforcement officer's head, um, but there's also no way for them to know what is in a fellow law enforcement officer's head or um in a subject that they're chasing down's head.

So I think in a lot of ways we are already asking um our officers to make those types of decisions a lot of the time, and I think to Chair Horowitz's point, um it doesn't seem practical to me for the determination to be sort of with command staff that are um away from the scene, especially in um a situation that is tense or rapidly evolving.

Um our officers are already making these dynamic decisions all the time.

Um I guess based on what you said earlier, Alderman Brouwer, it doesn't seem like the intent of your recommendation is such that MPD officers would like follow ICE around all the time and see if they're doing something a little bad.

It would be to give them clear instructions in sort of the most egregious of situations.

Um but I will note that our sort of potential liabilities around use of forced decisions um and like potential loss of life, like those already exist in day-to-day policing all of the time.

So that's not new.

Um I understand that this is a new um process to us in Milwaukee.

Um and so that requires kind of all of us to s sit down and work out the kinks together, I think.

Um I noticed that in the file um that there are documents um relating to what's happening in Cook County, and I was wondering, Alderman Brouwer, if you can just elaborate um on sort of what is happening over there and the determination that law enforcement that it's sort of law enforcement's responsibility um to at least collect and document evidence and maybe potentially um investigate in some way.

I know we've been talking about the intervention part a lot.

I just wanted to talk about the investigation concept.

If I may, Mm.

Chair, thank you.

Yeah.

No, I'm really appreciating bringing that up, Commissioner.

So what's in the file is a Chicago Tribune article, which um the headline being prosecutor uh circulates policy outlining process for charging federal immigration agents, and then also the other document in the file is the actual uh Cook County State's attorney, which is their version of a of a district attorney um in Illinois Federal Immigration Enforcement Action Response Protocol.

And these are um the article from the Chicago Tribunal is dated February twentieth, and the uh the document is approved um was approved on February nineteenth of this year.

So with this, they're just outlining um that their intent to um you know that they have prosecutorial duties that like you know that they do need to uh you know um you know the do includes they're outlining here that the um Illinois rules of professional conduct, which I'm assuming we have something similar or kin, you know, includes the duty to seek justice and refrain from prosecutor charge, the prosecutor knows is not supported by um a probable cause and they all you know were refrain from making making uh extrajudicial comments, and so they're just um outlining this here, and they also you know outlining the conditions under which they would um bring charges and then additionally just outlining the fact that I pointed out um in a in a previous comment earlier that under the supremacy clause um a federal officer is only granted immunity um the offer when the officer did uh no more than what was necessary and proper for them to do so, and that's and that's cited in the document as Kentucky versus Long and Wyoming versus Livingston.

Um so I guess yeah, to your to your question, one of the things that I think they're outlining is that there is opportunity should there be an egregious use of force or a murder or something of that nature, that is a criminal action by an ICE agent that there is some grounds.

I mean, granted, limited because of the supremacy clause, but there is some grounds for prosecution um of an ICE agent by a local um by a DA.

And so I that's that's why I put those things in the file because there's I wanted to demonstrate um and this was based on I believe some back and forth between the Cook County C State's attorney's office and mayor Brandon Johnson's office about whether they should or shouldn't prosecute.

And so that's what this is uh that's just what this outlines that there is precedent in other jurisdictions for there to be something, some kind of standard that's being established under which they can prosecute.

May I just add I do want to put on the record the distinction between this guidance from a district attorney versus a policing policy?

Um so this is distinct in that it is a a legal opinion and it's guidance from the district attorney to say this is here's how you need to get to this type of charge.

Are are policies distinct and different from that?

Sure, of course.

I just think it it's helpful for me because we're in I hate to use this word because it's so tiring, we're in such unprecedented times, all of us, that it's just helpful for me to know sort of what are any legal opinions or any possible avenues to protect people that are happening nationwide, whether that's in Cook County um or in Philly.

Um thank you uh for for getting into that a little bit in in a little bit more detail.

Um I think I I am open to um I guess further conversation if there are like s language tweaks that um that sort of need to be worked out, but in terms of um the intent here, um I do think that there this moment in history calls on us to be brave.

Um and because we are in an in press unprecedented situation, in some cases, um we will be whether it's the common council or the FPC, you know, if anyone wants to take any action, these actions will be sort of new things that may be a little bit difficult to work out.

Um but I just want to note that I think it's it's really important that we take them seriously um and and somewhat urgently and that we figure out how to work them out.

Madam Chair.

Um I'm looking at this from a variety through a variety of lenses.

The issue of personal liability on a police officer is something that weighs heavily on me.

Uh and I'm not sure how we get around that in an SOP.

Actually, to me, that's a city policy uh that needs to be figured out.

Are we gonna take on that liability?

Uh uh and in actually find ways to waive that liability for the individual police officer.

We we don't necessarily do that in an SOP.

That's that's a different vehicle in my mind.

Not sure what it looks like, but it's a different vehicle.

Um and whether or not uh the citizens of Milwaukee have an appetite to take on that additional liability.

I think it's a bigger discussion.

Um I'm not suggesting that we not do anything.

We have to do something.

But I'm not sure if it can all be covered in the SOP.

I wish I could give you greater guidance on that, but um I I think it's something that we have to do a little bit of studying on to figure out.

What multitude of steps need to be taken to protect uh our citizens who disagree with something that is coming down from the federal level.

Go ahead.

And I I also just want um to add something to the facts that we know um based on media reports.

We know that in the two situations where individuals lost their lives, uh the local police department wasn't there.

Um and in those circumstances, even whether we had an SOP change or not, and if similar the exact same things happened here, there wasn't uh an opportunity to intervene because local law enforcement wasn't a part of those two situations.

What we have seen, and um, you know, what what the chief has gathered from a lot of different jurisdictions is that local police are on scene when say there are protests occurring, um, and impromptu protests when federal law enforcement agencies are um conducting you know different types of activities in um in spaces.

What we have seen, and um, you know, what what the chief has gathered from a lot of different jurisdictions is that local police are on scene when say there are protests occurring um and impromptu protests when federal law enforcement agencies are um conducting you know different types of activities in um in spaces and in those cases you know we have the ability to de-escalate situations based on our normal protocol that we utilize in all types of protest situations here in Milwaukee, and we've navigated that space quite well in the past.

Um so I I put that out there to say the police department is reluctant to make uh a policy change that makes no guarantees to prevent the situations that happen in Minneapolis here.

Um and also we are concerned about our individual officers, and you know, the responsibility imposes on them to then understand and navigate these situations in a bubble.

Um so that was just a distinction I wanted to make.

Okay.

Um any other commissioners okay.

Well, procedurally, you know, we have this.

Did it was there a hand up?

No.

Procedurally, we have this um uh before us as a resolution, but I I agree with uh vice chair that um I'm not prepared to like vote on it because it's the first time we have been um approached with it, and uh I think we would entertain a motion to um uh well let me ask this.

What what would you see as the next appropriate step Madam Chair?

Yes, yeah, um I'm not sure if we can hold this over, because this hasn't gone through a committee.

Right.

This is no, it hasn't.

To come directly to the full commission.

Um in my mind, the correct well, I don't want to table it because that makes no sense.

It would essentially kill it, but I want to drive conversation on this.

And so I'm trying to figure out well, we could hold it to the call, hold it for the call of the chair, and uh then we can figure out a strategy to work on it.

It may be that the staff uh should take a whack at drafting something, whether it's a SOP change or a memorandum or something that gives clear guidance to uh officers to what they should do if they're confronted with these situations.

Um so, but I uh you know I can't make the motion.

Is there a motion?

Yeah, I I can I can give offer a few examples um uh of possible um uh pass forward here if if that's helpful.

So so procedurally uh as as you indicated, Madam Chair, you could do a motion to hold this to the call of the chair and then take it up at at the next meeting.

Uh the intent behind that doesn't have to be to uh just delay for delay's sake, it can be so um you or the vice chair or any other commissioner can consult with staff and ask uh FPC staff to to draft something to do further research, um uh get additional information, uh anything that you think would be helpful to come back at uh the next meeting or a subsequent meeting and make it in a more informed choice.

In my in my humble opinion, I I think that is a an eminently reasonable course of action and and not inappropriate.

Um you could refer it to a committee um like like the oversight and accountability committee, um which meets next Tuesday.

Um I I would say that uh one consideration is if you want to keep this before the entire board versus you know a group of four or five com individual commissioners to um uh to do the heavy lifting, it would also likely take additional time since these uh committees meet only uh every other month, and I don't know that they're gonna be in a position to make a substantive decision on Tuesday any more than you are here today.

Um so I mean that that's just a consideration regarding that.

Um if you were to make a substitutive motion, um, which again I think there's reasonable uh um uh considerations that would uh way against doing that potentially.

I mean, really I see three broad options um uh a motion uh recommending passage, a motion recommending passage with some changes, uh that can that could take a lot of forms, or a motion recommending against passage.

Um again, I do I I I agree that it would be a uh certainly a reasonable position uh to hold this uh to get additional information or um to weigh options, even um for a reasonable period of time.

Okay, that being said, you now all know what motion is possible, and if you want to make one, madam chair, yes.

Um my hope is that there is enough dialogue between the sponsors of the resolution with the city attorney's office, um, to figure out those really big issues that are gonna come back to us without resolution.

Uh really making any sort of action we take sort of meaningless because it's gonna get caught up in this whole discussion on whether or not the bodies that are going to be involved in driving this can do any policy change with a level of fidelity that will make the public happy.

That that's my issue with this.

Um there being lack of options.

I'm gonna make a motion to hold at the chair's discretion.

Is there a second second?

Okay, there's a motion to hold to the call of the chair in a second.

Uh I guess we'll take a voice vote.

Um, can I ask a question?

Sure.

So I think I think what would help me um understand how to vote is if we had uh a time when we were expecting to hear this back on the agenda.

So is that and I would recommend it be in one week or not one week, just kidding, two weeks when our next meeting is, or but what like one of the meetings in April.

Oh, yeah.

Uh can we put that on you know is that okay?

Well it friendly amendment, yes.

Well, I can I guess but it's up to the chair, yeah.

Yeah, I I don't think you really need to put it into the motion.

Okay, I think you know that um first of all I have every intention of acting on it quickly.

And second of all, if I fail to do that, uh rules allow any two uh commissioners to add to the agenda or to call a special meeting.

So uh I don't think I don't think that'll be a problem.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, can I also ask a procedural question that will help inform my vote?

Um is the com is is common counsel action on this item actually held up by our decision for recommendation, or this is a separate process.

It is my understanding that while it's not at present required, uh the chair of the public safety and health committee, Alderman Spiker, requested that this be referred to FPC to make a recommendation before his committee takes action.

So they are requesting a recommendation.

Um that doesn't prevent them from moving forward um uh concurrently, but my expectation is that that will not happen and that they'll be waiting for you to act.

That's correct.

Okay, to make a recommendation, I should say.

Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Okay, so good news there.

Um do we have do we have any other qu uh discussion on the motion to hold to the call of the chair?

Okay, then I will take a vote.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

The motion carries.

Thank you very much for coming from Alderman, and we will you will certainly be hearing from us.

And city attorney and emputy.

And to the city attorney's office and to the MP.

Thank you.

Okay, director, please proceed with the agenda so we can get out of here.

Yes.

I will now read the items on the consent agenda after I do.

Any commissioner may remove any item to the regular agenda for discussion or appropriate action.

Items not removed may be adopted by general consent without debate.

Item two, FPC 212440, resolution relating to the March 5th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Item 3, FPC 212441.

Resolution rescinding the appointment to the maintenance assistant position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 4, FPC 212442.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the maintenance assistant position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 5, FPC 21-2443.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the police district administrative assistant position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 6, FPC 21-2444.

Resolution relating to the appointment of the police services specialist investigator position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 7, FPC 21, 2445.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the video systems specialist position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 8, FPC 21, 2446.

Resolution relating to the request to refer to the Department of Employee Relations, a request for an examination and eligible list for the painter one position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

And item 9, FPC 21-2447.

Resolution relating to the approval of the management account senior position job announcement bulletin for the Department of Emergency Communications.

This concludes the consent agenda.

Would any of the commissioners like to remove any of these items from the consent agenda to the regular agenda?

If there are no objections, the items on the consent agenda will be adopted by general consent.

Are there any objections?

Hearing no objections, these items are adopted.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

I will now read the items under examination starting with item 10, FPC 212458.

Resolution relating to the police officer eligible list.

And this is an eligible list for the class that will start in August of this year.

Um we have any questions or comments concerning that?

Or do we need any information from the from the staff?

I don't believe so.

Okay.

All right.

We will approval.

Second.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

Uh abstentions.

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item 11, FPC 212459.

Resolution relating to the police aid eligible list.

Do any commissioners have any comments or questions?

I will entertain a motion.

Okay.

Second.

I'll take a voice vote.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Uh moving on to new business.

Uh item 12, FPC 21248.

Communication relating to the reappointment of Fire Chief Aaron Lipsky.

Okay, I will uh say that we did have an executive session uh uh earlier in the evening and uh um gained a lot of information uh about uh Chief Lipsky's uh um position with the department.

I think that we are in a position where we would like to get some public input from uh the community before we formally make a decision on reappointment, although it is clear to me that the commission as a whole is in favor of reappointment.

So um procedurally again, um I think no voice vote will be taken on this.

However, we do anticipate scheduling a final vote at a near future meeting.

And uh with that, any commissioners have any other comments?

Yes, just just quickly, I think it's fair to tell the public that we've had very positive uh the chief has had very positive evaluations by this body.

And so yes, that's right.

That being said, I think that there is consensus that we'd want to enter negotiations with this chief.

Yes, that's true.

And so that is what I'm sure will happen.

Right.

We are I guess we're interested in making sure that our view of Chief Lipskey's performance is uh shared by the community, and uh it never hurts to have some public input to uh very important appointment of a four-year term of a chief uh of a safety uh department such as the fire department.

So uh that being said, uh we will uh take this up uh again very soon.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Madam Chair, one last thing.

I think it's important to stress when the term right, right, right.

So just to give the public a sense as to what timeline.

Yes.

Uh Chief as the chair mentioned, Chief Lipsky is nearing the end of his four-year term, which uh is set to expire on May 17th of this year.

Yeah.

So we're gonna move expeditiously.

Uh Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Next item is item 14, FPC 212449.

Resolution seeking waiver from the law enforcement standards board relating to the physical readiness test for the police officer position.

And uh, Madam Chair, if uh uh if it's all right with you, I will just give a brief overview of this item and then I'm happy to answer any questions commissioners have.

Okay.

Uh so uh we are uh proposing and seeking um the board's uh endorsement uh to seek a one-year waiver uh from the uh state law enforcement standards board or LESB uh relating to the uh physical readiness test standards for entry into uh the Milwaukee Police Academy.

I want to emphasize we are not uh proposing or asking uh um that you authorize uh uh seeking a waiver uh for the PRT exit standards.

And so there are different standards to enter a police academy versus uh the exit standards you need in order to graduate from the academy and become a uh a law enforcement officer in the state of Wisconsin.

Again, um we are seeking a one-year, we're proposing uh seeking a one-year waiver uh for the entrance standards.

Um and if granted a waiver by the LESB board, um we would intend to use an alternative tiered scoring system uh that's described in the letter that's uh in the file.

We have discussed uh the proposal with MPD's command staff as well as their training academy.

Uh we worked with the training, our staff worked with the training staff uh to create this alternative scoring system, um, which was largely uh uh the result in the from the input of the training academy backed by their experience and data from past MPD uh recruit classes.

Uh our really our goal here is to create uh uh an entrance standard that will help us increase the size of our current academy classes, which um are currently in the last two years really have been about half full.

Increase academy uh class sizes while still ensuring that uh new recruits meet a minimum uh starting fitness standard that will allow them to be successful in the academy and ultimately pass the PRT exit standards.

Uh so we're not simply uh uh requesting that uh the uh the standards be lowered.

Um we are um proposing this tiered point system where uh uh you can get different points for different um uh results in the different standards uh or events for the PRT.

Uh you would need to get a a minimum of three points in any specific uh individual event, and you'd need to get at least 23 points total.

Uh that works out to just uh slightly less than an average of four points.

Um the five-point scale is identical to the current entrance PRT standard.

So this would allow some flexibility uh if you underperformed in certain categories.

Um you know, if you got threes in certain categories and underperformed and did slightly uh lower than what uh the current PRT standards are.

Uh you could make up for that if you get fives in other categories and and thereby get an average of four.

Uh I and we think that this um standard will allow us to still get candidates uh that can be successful after going through the the the 720 program and the training academy with proper support from uh the training staff uh that we can get more police officers to graduate the academy, pass the PRT exit standard and become uh law enforcement officers uh in the state of Wisconsin.

There's a number uh you are uh are well aware of this, but there's a number of challenges that Milwaukee faces that I think uh really warrant uh um your serious consideration of this proposal.

As you know, um Act 12 imposes significant uh requirements, staffing requirements on the City of Milwaukee, and even more uh stiffer financial penalties if we fail to meet those standards.

Uh our our recruiters and our testing staff are really just uh uh running um 24-7 continuous recruitment.

Um they've done a lot of innovation, they've they've put forth a lot of effort and create creativity, and even with all that, they hired over a hundred officers last year, or we hired the city hired over a hundred officers last year, a hundred and fourteen, yet we only um um exceeded um you know the average swore in strength in 2025, it was only uh 1.4 uh average officers higher than the previous year.

So very close.

Uh that is a significant concern.

Under Collins, we also have a uh uh a requirement to recruit, hire and promote a diverse uh corps of officers at all levels.

And um we are significantly challenged in in hiring women officers in particular.

Um I think in the last uh uh for the 20 well I'll say for the 2024 applicants, um, most of whom were hired in 2025, um approximately um over 80 percent of uh male applicants pass the PRT, but uh uh just under 20 percent of women uh pass the PRT.

So a very stark difference.

Just and just specifically, I um if I could Director Todd like uh to make it clear what's happening, at least based on my conversations with the staff, um, is that you have uh female candidates who are doing pretty good on almost the entire test and then failing the push-ups or failing push-ups and sit-ups or something, like a couple of things.

Yes, not all the things.

So push-ups and sit-ups I bought are but uh uh are by far the the biggest two areas where people fail.

Uh push-ups comes first in the process as opposed to and specifically for women push-ups, right?

Yes, so sit-ups uh do take a lot of people out, both men and women.

Proportionally, though, more women fail uh related to the the push-up test.

Right.

Um I I just cannot be convinced that someone who can do eight push-ups, not eighteen, means that they're gonna be a bad cop before they even go into the academy.

Yes.

Um and the academy is telling us that they think uh with this this staff with these levels, this scoring matrix that they can get these people ready uh to pass the exit standards by the 720 deadline.

That this this new approach for the uh for the rubric is going like I I just want to be clear from having looked at it.

Uh you cannot be a zero fitness physical readiness, like and pass this test, even the one we're asking for the adjustment to.

That's correct.

This is just trying to build a bridge for folks who are mid to mid-high level fitness who are having trouble with a couple of the pieces.

Yes.

And that's who the academy trainers are like, those candidates who were losing because of push-ups.

Yes, uh, we can get them to the exit standard with the four months or however long they have in the academy.

Yes, that that is exactly right.

Um we're not asking to lower standards across the board.

Um, it's but recognizing that some people can be physically fit, generally speaking, but might underperform in certain areas like push-ups or sit-ups, but we believe we can get them there if they enter the academy if they are if they can meet the general um, you know, at least three points in any specific category and a total of 23 points.

Um and and ultimately um we want good people and people that can make it through, and uh if we are losing potential people that can be good officers, that's bad for MPD, it's bad for public safety in the city.

Uh that's what this proposal is uh is asking you to consider.

Uh I would note that um this would require if you do endorse this, we would send this the proposed letter to the LESB board.

Uh they meet next in June, I believe.

Um and and it will be ultimately up to LESB to grant the waiver, so there's no guarantee that they will.

Um I I think the vote the vote may be close just based on my understanding, but I I think there is at least a reasonable possibility that they will consider this and grant it, uh, but no guarantees.

Uh I'm happy to answer any questions.

So have you reached out to LESB board prior to this?

Um yes, uh Deputy Director uh Jay Pusick uh did meet with uh uh the LES board and and um uh sort of presented some of the challenges we're facing uh and wanted to gauge um their thoughts on potential modifications uh specific to Milwaukee, uh but it wasn't a a formal proposal uh and and guidance we got from the LES board was that uh uh we should submit a formal proposal in writing, ideally uh that's backed by um this board and MPD.

Because I did reach out today to members of the uh LESB board.

And there's been some talk about this exact situation.

Yes and uh they were he wasn't sure if this would this would be passed, but he said it not negative.

Um that was my question.

Well what was what the LESB board think about it up because I've well put my opinion that opinion that I'm against uh any changing of the standards.

And um the question that was brought up that I ask was it we have a pass fail on the on the PRT, right?

Yes, that's correct.

And I was asking and they asked me why don't you just retest them?

They fail, give them another month to test.

Why don't we we why do we have a pass fail and then not no retest to train them to test them to to get past the original standards?

Well we do a well that uh about back up.

So there are some logistical challenges with that because we're not a uh MPD obviously is not a small law enforcement agency where there's just a handful of of candidates to retest.

You know, for example, we did the uh uh the physical readiness test on Saturday and Sunday this past weekend.

Uh over a hundred people um registered to or signed up to take the test.

I think about a hundred, just slightly under, showed up.

Um, and so they're running a significant number of candidates through the test.

I think about 20 to 30 of those candidates did fail.

So there are um uh still a significant number of candidates that you're talking about, and um we do have other testing uh requirements that that we have to push them through in terms of uh background investigation, pre-employment, it can be hard to catch up with that, and there could be a cost.

Now that said I know background, I've done the background investigations.

So um now you only got 20 or 30 people to test.

What's wrong with what's hard about doing 30 people in the test?

Well, we do run them, we do invite them to take the test again.

Six months later, but why wait?

Remember though, like one of the one of the issues and one of the reasons why we we're different than some smaller agencies is we're running three academies every year.

And so, you know, we that means we do the PRT three times, and that PRT fits very precisely into a testing schedule.

So doing it again, let's say a month later may not provide an opportunity to do the the rest of the pre-employment checks, and they would have to wait till the next academy anyway.

And if I can just to uh just to be honest, i I think it would be an additional strain on FPC staff uh that is already doing a a goodly amount of work.

I'm not I'm not I totally agree that the FB staff I'm not dis disparaging the FPC staff at all.

Okay.

I'm just saying we have to get by Act 12 these numbers in.

That means we have to do whatever it takes to get there.

And I'm not I'm not like lowering the standards of people.

I'm not the academy.

And I don't believe we should lower the standards to get into this academy to get the people in there.

Okay.

Is it is a measure of character?

It's a measure of commitment that if you want this, this is what you gotta do.

Um it's uh wellness.

I mean, physical fitness is part of what this is a physical job sometimes.

Mental stress.

You gotta have some wellness in there to address this issue.

Um I'm not saying you know, if they passed four or five of these three of these uh uh points, events, and then don't don't even get three points on is that an automatic failure?

Yes.

Okay, so I mean at a minimum of three on all of like plus more.

But we're still I mean, we're changing the standards.

Now LESB is that they they've gone through this before, um, and they didn't do it before, but the new group is in there and they're more acceptable to um adjusting standards, especially at entry.

Uh and that's what we're doing by entry.

Um I have a series of reservations.

Having talked to somebody today also from the academy, uh they are doing good jobs there.

Yes.

One off one recruit lost 40 pounds, one recruit, another one lost 25 pounds.

Um they're losing weight because of the physical fitness at the academy.

I get that.

Um there are people that probably still won't fit past the PRT exec exit stuff because they haven't committed.

Well that's relatively rare, right?

Just to add to that, um, my understanding is in the last decade or so, only five recruits have failed the PRT exit standard at for the Milwaukee Academy.

Uh and again, um I I do want to emphasize well, I want to add that it's my understanding that the LES board currently voted to to do a review of um the PRT standards, and there's going to be staff that are going to do a research and a study and and ultimately potentially recommend changes.

So it's something that's already under consideration, and you could read implicitly in there that there is some recognition that it's uh we they think it's at least worth looking at whether or not the standards should be updated.

Uh now that may take a year or two um uh or some unknown amount of time, and so this proposal is really uh designed to be a temporary proposal, uh seeking a waiver um that uh you know, in the meantime, can we modify this slightly uh with the goal of getting more candidates into the academy that we think will still pass the exit standards?

Um, I do understand your reservations, Commissioner, and certainly respect them.

Um, but um uh I do think in my opinion that that this is something that that is worth trying, and I I do recommend uh adoption or endorsement by the board.

Just a clarifying question, this is a one-year waiver.

Uh it would at least begin as a one-year waiver, and then uh at a minimum we would have to go and and request an extension of it if we wanted, but if there was some intervening uh change in the PRT standards, uh I'm assuming that we would go with the modified standards.

Um, so we could presumably essentially try this for one year, see if it results in a bunch of people failing out at the exit standards with or not relatively less harm since the classes are not full, that's correct.

That's correct, they're about half full right now over the last two years.

I think uh uh let me also have that.

Commissioner World Patterson have your hand raised.

Um yes, um my question was to in line with Commissioner Burgles.

I was thinking about the retesting also.

I I brought up at the last meeting the military standard, and if you don't pass the physical fitness the first time, but you're committed to being a soldier, then you continue your you stay behind, but you still work on your physical fitness.

So it just to bring it up, you don't lose anything but that time, and it works.

I mean, then the next year part of the next class, but you get your fitness up, we need uh police officers that are fit.

So they would just stay in the training cycle to become fit to pass the test.

So I think while we have these options and we're presenting them to that board, let's consider that.

It keeps them excited, gets them uh physically trained, and we don't lose anyone.

From one soldier to another.

A question related to Commissioner World Patterson's comment.

Are there ongoing fitness requirements for officers?

No.

Or is this only to only enter and exit the academy?

And exit the academy.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Um so my understanding is that the exit standards don't change.

That's correct.

That's correct.

So it's so then to Commissioner Spencer's point, I I I agree with this that you know we're not we're not changing that, so it's not being watered down.

And w we're giving again, given the examples, and I don't I know we don't have all the numbers in front of us, but if we had all the numbers, I I I'm assuming as hard as our the FPC staff works, you've looked through this and said, hey, you know, this is sort of missing, they're missing by this much, and you mentioned specifically sit-ups and push-ups.

So yeah, they they if they're hitting everything else, they'll they'll get through those with that staff.

And honestly, the that's a benefit to the smaller class sizes too.

A little more uh individualized attention.

But yeah, I I think it's I think it's worthwhile.

And but in the meantime, I also think it's worthwhile looking at some other options that we have too, because uh either A, the LESB says no, this isn't happening, yeah, or you we get it for a year, but then next year, like no, okay, we're now we're done with that.

And I don't know if again it's a different animal, but of course the CPAT is administered outside, and you you you can go get that and bring it with you.

You can certainly take it through the process, but you can get that CPAT and carry it with you, and it's good for a year.

So if there's a something we could look at as far as that goes, where hey, we can have the same physical exam, and people can take it as many times as they want if they're determined and dedicated, and that's what happens obviously with our cadets who we'd pay for two, but some of them get four or five kicks at the can before they can they can get it.

So, you know, again, it's just some options as we're moving forward.

It's it's a good idea, something to keep in mind is we used to accept outside certification of this test and had to stop because um the results were not good that we were we learned that the test administration was not uh they weren't administering it properly.

And so we had a situation when I looked into the data with the training academy where somebody who was tested by an outside agency allegedly passed with 18 push-ups and then was tested by the academy when they started to get a baseline and could only do two.

So it you know they didn't get 18 before.

Right.

And it may be a possibility.

So so the CPAT, we looked into this both in my time as captain and as chief, but it's just so expensive because of the equipment that's needed for it.

The equipment isn't needed for this, right?

I mean a couple of things, but yeah.

You it's it's relatively minor, and it could actually be done, it has to be nice weather because that's the only track is outside around the parking lot at the academy, but it it could theoretically be administered by whether that's other police officers, whether that's staff, but you know, be our own people that we could know that it's it's uh being done validly, but anyway, just some food for thought.

No, I think that's a good idea, and we'll certainly look at uh potential alternatives.

Commissioner, yeah, I just I I just really want to emphasize like uh women do most of the caretaking in our society, which means that there's a lot of women in their early 20s who are taking care of themselves and children and or family members and do not have a ton of time to go pump iron, okay.

And so we also know that generally speaking, women have a harder time with upper body strength.

Uh I'll put my legs up against anybody and kick their ass, but my arm not so much, okay.

Like that's real.

So I think like given I I just really want to emphasize and kind of in response to what you said, Commissioner Murgos, like for me, uh how many push-ups you can do is not a measure of your character.

And if you are committed to being an officer and you're coming and you're meeting these other standards enough to pass this version of the test, I have every confidence in our very good uh MPD trainers at the academy to get you exit standard ready.

And um, any human body when you're working out, if you're working out every day for five, you know, five days a week for four months, like your fitness will go up.

It's just what's going to happen.

So I think that's really important.

Um, especially when we know that female officers, there's been tons of research on this, use force less often, are better at de-escalating.

Like, we want female officers in our um department.

And this is one of the ways we can do it.

I also have to say, I really think Act 12 was set up for us to fail.

That is the point.

And so, like, being thoughtful, I was really, really pleased to see this come through, and I really appreciate the work that the um FPC has done on this.

Uh, it's a surgical adjustment to get a better result without without lowering the quality and standards of the folks going into the department.

So thank you for that.

Um chair, just just quickly, I I echo uh Commissioner Spencer's thoughts on this.

Okay.

Um your legs can beat anybody but not your arms.

Well we'll have that discussion at a later date.

But the old the old adage of um it's insane to do the same thing and end up with the same results.

That's right.

Yeah, yeah.

We especially if you believe that we're being set up, we need to think really creatively about how we can get those numbers up.

It's disturbing to see that we're just treading water right now.

Yeah, yeah.

And time is running out.

And working really hard to be able to tread that water.

Time is running out, and so we need to really be creative about how we can get people successfully through the process so that we can get good police officers out on the streets.

I think the fact that the classes are not full is also a really important factor here.

We're not letting folks who are sort of theoretically less fit take someone's spot that is quote unquote more deserving.

We're just giving more folks chances to make it all the way through.

I think Commissioner Well Patterson also has our hands.

Go ahead.

I just want to extend again that if we're being open to suggestions, please take a look at the way the military does it.

Um or age and just have one standard that uh is a tiered point.

Um, in my opinion, that that is more likely to garner support.

Okay.

Okay, in the interest of moving along, is there a chair motion?

I move.

Approval.

Second.

Okay.

Yeah, it's a big change.

Uh Commissioner Burgos.

Abstain.

Abstain.

Oh, that's no.

Commissioner Evans.

Ah.

Commissioner Fung.

Aye.

Commissioner Snyder.

I Commissioner Spence.

Aye.

Commissioner Spencer.

Commissioner World Patterson.

I and the chair votes I.

Motion carries.

Since I'm chair, I get to say this.

I need a five minute break.

Okay.

Oh my gosh.

Yeah.

Yeah.

May I please see the communications regarding the research that has been done in that area?

I'd like to see what you all have been considering.

The next item is item fifteen, FPC two one two four five zero resolution to amend the FPC rules to add promotional preference points for volunteer service uh or as uh as commissioner um Spencer has recommended um CoCroft points uh in honor of former uh FPC Commissioner um uh Everett Coft, thank you.

I'm firefighter.

Yes, yes.

Um so this would add uh as the as the title suggests, this would add a um uh different points for volunteer service uh depending upon the amount of service.

Um there is uh just very briefly for a hundred and twenty hours of serve volunteer service, you would get a three additional preference points for a hundred and eighty um six preference points or two hundred and forty hours, nine preference points.

Uh I do want to add that uh a per FPC rules, um uh action on proposed rule change shall be deferred to at least the next regular special meeting, provided at least ten calendar days elapses.

Uh so we uh cannot take uh an exact vote on this.

Uh our staffing services manager, um Molly Keith or Steele uh has a child care issue today, but but would like to address the commission as well on this, uh, specifically regarding um the number of points and how that might actually affect different um uh different individuals depending on where they they fall on uh on an eligible list.

Uh I think we can provide uh uh the spreadsheets that actually break down the scores so you can see that and she could give some context at the next meeting.

But I'm happy to answer any questions uh right now.

Are we going to designate any specific volunteer services?

Are the religious based uh social services?

But it's saying it's adhering to kind of like the the DER uh volunteer standard.

Oh it does have to be a five oh one C three uh in good standing or a public school.

It's my understanding that all churches are five automatically five oh one.

Uh it does say that we'd exclude political activities, uh organizations that discriminate based on legally protected classes and then services uh for solely religious purposes where the only recipient is uh the constituents of the church, so like painting uh a church building or serving on a church board wouldn't count, but if you do something that uh uh is still connected to a religious organization, but that meets church does a back to school event.

Yeah.

Food pantry, kitchen, clothing drive, that would all count.

So if it's associated with a church.

And speaking of schools, so it says public school, but obviously, you know, we have a lot of parochial schools in the the majority in Milwaukee are so you have choice schools in the I mean again, not just it's not just serving uh a religious organization.

You could be tutoring or reading to the kids or doing whatever, so I would suggest maybe that would be included there as well that parochial schools in the city is more private, private or yeah, yeah, right.

Is that okay?

Yeah, I don't have an objection or I think that's a good idea.

I guess if it's a registered 501c3, is the is that's the standard.

Um certainly would be, but I guess you'd have yeah, a private school I would think also is, but yeah, I can look at that, yeah.

Okay.

I mean, if it's a for-profit school for children, I don't know.

I mean, there are such a right, so that's where the 501c3 does matter.

Yeah, but that's where the 501c3 is the designation.

Okay, yeah.

Because a for-profit school wouldn't have that's a very good uh catch.

Okay.

All right.

Um any other discussion on this item.

Otherwise, we will entertain a motion to hold this item until the next board meeting.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor, please say aye.

Uh aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries director, please proceed with the agenda.

Item 16, FPC 212451 resolution to amend the FPC rules relating to police aids.

Uh just very briefly, this would um this is a proposal from both uh the police department and FPC staff, which would reduce the length uh the minimum length of the police aid program from two years to one, and also reduce the maximum age from 21 to 20.

Uh and the idea behind this is that you know, many years ago we had more demand than we had space for uh police officer positions, and um you know it made sense if you were a young person not 21 years old.

You could get uh your foot in the door by uh applying and being a member of the police aid program, and you got preference when uh you did the two years.

Now we have a situation where you know if you're 21 and you apply, um, and you can pass all the the testing, you're gonna get hired in less than a year.

Um so police aides who reach the age of 21.

Um I don't see a good reason if they've served at least a year in the police aid program to keep them in there and not let them move forward uh and become police officers.

Um so this is uh a request to modify the rules accordingly.

Okay.

You do have to hold it for one meeting like the last time.

Um for the rule change.

That being said, yes.

Yeah, okay.

All right, just a clarifying question.

This also is removing uh college credit requirement.

I don't that isn't necessarily change my opinion, but I wanted to clarify.

Uh and and that's because um, you know, right now it it the the credit requirement is that they would do uh I think six credits a semester uh or twelve credits a year.

So um they wouldn't really have an opportunity to do 24 credits if they're they're only there for a year, but we would continue the requirement that they do I believe it was six credits per semester.

Uh Jay, does that sound right?

Like that would still be part of the program requirements.

Yes, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, do I have a motion to hold this until the next regular board meeting?

We'll move.

Second.

Okay.

I will take a voice vote.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

All right, I'm hopeful we can move very fast now.

Item 17, FPC 212454 communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to recent changes to MPD standard operating procedures or standard operating instructions.

Uh the changes include one one policy, uh, SOP 747, body worn cameras.

Okay.

I think Heather's okay.

Please, please who is it?

I believe uh Chief of Staff is okay, okay.

Uh will you uh give the department's uh view on this change?

Sure.

So these are administrative in nature.

Um we're changing a term evidence sync to a generic evidence application as the term changed a few times um a while ago, and so the SOP will match the new term.

Adding documentation of a damaged body worn cam does not need to be sent to the body worn camera coordinators unless it is requested because Axon uh does not need the documentation typically to suspend spare parts or replacements, updating the number of digits and the CAD number to correspond with the new CAD system and updating the name of the inspection section to the compliance management section so it matches our current organizational chart.

Okay.

Any questions?

Commissioners.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Uh Chief of Staff.

And uh that being a communication file, director.

Please proceed with the agenda.

Item 18, FPC 212455.

Communication from the executive director relating to fire and police commission staffing and operations.

Uh I've submitted excuse me.

I've submitted my report.

It is in the file, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Are there any questions?

No, your reports are always so clear and concise.

Especially at 830, yes.

Well, I've got to put it first on the agenda.

I just do want to quickly mention, like I think the questions we had tonight from open comment um were relevant about the the complaint process.

And I know that that's something you always mention in your report.

Um how many complaints, what were the dispositions, whatever.

And so I just wanted to, I guess, flag that that's something I'd be interested in us learning more about and thinking about if there are ways to improve it.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good point.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

I will now read the item under the fire department, which is item 19, FPC 212456.

Resolution relating to the promotions of Alberto Uzconga and Lamont Anderson to the fire lieutenant position.

Do any commissioners have any questions or comments?

I think uh Chief Parrish might Hi Chief Parrish.

What can you tell us about these uh promotions?

Good evening, Madam Chair.

Well, unfortunately she doesn't want able to make the rest of the meeting, but I am happy to uh enthusiastically recommend uh both of these gentlemen.

They are uh incredibly well-versed, uh members of the department, and they are going to do an amazing job in their respective positions.

Um as always, you know, we are uh enthusiastic from their promotions and happy to answer uh any questions that you may have for them, or for me rather because they are here.

Any questions?

Is there a motion?

So move.

Second.

As this is a promotion, I will take a rough roll call vote in alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos, aye, Commissioner Evans, aye, Commissioner Fung.

Aye, Commissioner Snyder, aye, commissioner Spence, aye, Commissioner Spencer, aye, Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye, and the chair votes aye.

Motion carries director, please proceed with the agenda.

I'm moving on to the police department item 20, FPC 212460, resolution relating to the reappointment of a former recruit police officer.

Okay.

Um any commissioners have any comments or questions on this item?

She's just recycling back to the next class that starts.

Yeah.

Yes.

Uh is there a motion on this matter?

Driving evacuate.

So move.

Second.

Okay.

Then I will take a voice vote on this item.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Excuse me.

Anyway, excuse me.

Okay.

It says recruit police officer.

Are we still under fire or is this police?

This is police.

Police.

Oh, did I say uh it is police?

Did I say for the police?

It's under fire and it says police.

Mine says under police.

It well, I think a prior version may have uh said uh may have neglected to put in that this is under the police department.

But it is a police recruit officer.

Okay.

Okay.

Very good.

Uh any other questions.

All right.

Then I'll go to the voice vote on this item.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

That concludes the agenda.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Move it, Chairman.

I'll second it.

Okay.

By by unanimous consent.

We are adjourned.