24 2026 meeting of the fire and police commission's oversight and accountability committee.

Present are commissioners Fung, Schneider, Spence, and myself, Commissioner Horowitz.

Commissioner Burgos is excused.

Also present is FBC executive director Leon Todd.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening, everyone.

We will begin with item number one, public comment.

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

Uh, if you are appearing virtually and have registered in advance to speak, 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.

Thank you.

And the first individual for public comment is Casey Serrano.

Good evening.

All right.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um, my name is Casey Serrano.

I'm a member of the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

And I'm here today, first of all, to thank everybody for their hard work and getting this moved so far along.

Um you all are very familiar with our faces.

You know that we've been here much longer for other things that we've wanted done.

And so it feels really great to know that we could get this moved along so quickly to the point where it's at.

Um, at this point, it seems like the next step really is for us to work together to push this hard at the common council level and to get the common counsel to really take this up as well to push for further changes than what Jeffrey Norman's already implemented.

The changes that he's implemented are a good start, but they wouldn't have saved any lives this past summer, because ultimately police can still make that decision to engage in a reckless pursuit and kill people.

And so we would love and we are asking for the common council to continue to work with us on this, and we would especially love support from the FPC to bring the common council along into this work to really get some changes made that would have saved people's lives this past summer that would have that will save people's lives next summer and every summer to come.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Alex Larson.

Good evening.

Good evening, everybody.

Um first of all, I want to thank you all for the draft that's in front of us for this recommendation to the common council.

I think when we initially came together back in September and through the research done on the Perth report, uh NYU, and I know this has been highlighted even John Oliver covered police pursuits.

Like this is a large advancement in us doing the right thing because as it currently stands, we are held up nationally as an example of what not to do.

And I think this is a large step in the right direction.

I just have a few clarifying questions with as it pertains to this draft.

They're based on like feedback from our the last meeting.

There was a question of like those the notes is as it pertains to violent crime, and I know points were raised of like, well, you can call anything violent crime.

And my question is there's that tracker that tracks part one crime, which what we would consider violent crime in those 10 specific categories that MPD, I think I checked it this morning and it was updated through Sunday.

Is there a way just as a public information piece that we can like spread the fact that that exists?

Because I think you know, that some of these discussions, rather based on data and best practices, they turn into arguments over perception.

And I think just us all having a better understanding of like what the facts on the ground are when we engage in these discussions would go a long way.

And I know that that dashboard is you know holds a lot of valuable information for when we have these discussions.

And so, my question is when we that when we talk about violent crime in this um recommendation, are we talking about part one crime?

And then I saw that there's like the exemptions for shots fired and then uh ongoing drug investigations.

I just want clarity.

Like that's what is that what that covers.

So my understanding um, well, I I guess I should say it like this.

Um, whether or not this is included in part one crimes, like for example, if somebody uh flees in a reckless manner and crashes, and that results in someone's death.

Um I don't know if that's included in in part one crimes.

It it may be if it's charged, for example, is some type of reckless homicide, but I I don't know for certain.

Um, I can try to look into it and uh I'm just trying to eliminate gray area for when we talk about like what the exceptions are to you know when a chase can be initiated.

Um I can try to look into it and uh I'm just trying to eliminate gray area for when we talk about like what the exceptions are to you know when a chase can be initiated, I guess is my point on that.

I see.

So when you're talking about a violent felony, the fact that there is fleeing in and of itself would not be considered a violent felony.

Okay.

Okay, that helps with that one.

The second point I saw raised was in reference to SOP five seven five and whether it applies to this SOP.

Now, do the SOPs sort of all speak to each other, like, or does this need an explicit referral saying that you know incidents and police chases are governed under SOP 575?

So the SOPs do speak to each other to a certain degree, and so um SOP 575 looks to another SOP that um defines what is uh an officer involved uh shooting or another or another critical incident, uh, and uses those definitions.

So those are the definitions.

Um, and I I apologize, I don't remember the um the SOP for um critical incidents off the number off the top of my head, but that is the SOP that governs what is or is not considered a critical incident.

Okay.

Because I read through like I read through the definitions this morning, and it seems like as it stands, uh pursuit chase crash would fall under this like definition.

As my I just want to clarify like is that the case if that's the case or not.

My understanding is that it would if an officer directly caused a death or great bodily injury, um, but not if somebody else did.

Okay.

So that might be something that I again, I'm just trying to sure hammer out great areas.

The third thing, there was a request, you know, by the public, and I know that the year the audit gets published, and there's recently that resolution that I think it would get discussed at public safety and health.

I think it was every March or every April.

Sorry, I don't remember off the top of my head.

Um, for the like your annual pursuit on it.

Yes, I don't I don't remember the exact date.

My my question is is would it be feasible to do like a six-month check-in, say it like this committee?

How about that?

Thank you.

All right, uh I guess I'll kind of just start again.

Yes, mainly just to just reiterate the people that are you know who told their stories here that have been impacted, like Genesia Rhodes, who has said her husband lost her husband, Hassan Rhodes in September 2025 to a police chase.

He's an innocent bystander.

Uh I've my comrade Tiffany and Rosie here who have been impacted uh by police chases as well in their lives.

Tiffany who lost the father of her child who lost his quality of life and then lost, died to complications from a police chase and Rosie, whose kids were impacted when she was living on the south side.

So this is a very important SOP, and I appreciate y'all talking about it and all the progress that it's made, like everyone has said.

From what uh Commissioner Spencer has proposed.

Um, and these changes would just be more helpful for public safety to hold MPD accountable and for transparency for the residents uh to start you know, trusting in the police department after everything we've seen over the last few months, and just these deaths that uh I'd mention any also a bunch of other ones.

Um and I'll think a lot of these stories wouldn't have changed with the policy that was uh that's in effect right now from Commissioner Norman and the one that Spencer has uh proposed as well, even though it's a good change.

I think that the pre-place changes uh and drive-offs is the perfect start for decreasing the number of chases due to minor offenses.

However, this uh only accounts for a small number of the chases and does not address another blaring dangerous condition for increased escalation to police chases, which is officer discretion.

Uh, the proposed change has the filing language.

Vehicle pursuits are justified when the occupant has committed is committing or is about to commit a violent felony.

Uh, and uh I think we'd all like to see that the wording would be excluded.

That's or the wording we'd want the wording to exclude or is about to commit a violent felony as this relies on individual offers or discretion.

Um these chases are dangerous, high stress situations.

Let's take away the choice from the heat of the moment from these officers and allow for more safety on the road for all.

Also, uh with the new policy, there's still a life-threatening, there still will still be life-threatening situations where chases are carried out and ultimately incidents will happen.

These chases aren't routine and are very dangerous, according to our you know, common uh common sense and the NPD's own wording in the SOP.

So these chases need to be called what they are, which is critical incidents, and thus they must adhere to SOP 575 and the releasing of the video to the families in public is outlined in that SOP.

Finally, the residents of Milwaukee deserve transparency and data from MPD around these uh Delhi pursuits.

Data around police chases for 2024 was only made available to the public in an FPC meeting in October 2025.

MPD needs to provide the public with data via FPA FPC and shared elsewhere on a more regular basis.

The MPD must uh give this uh give reports on all pursuit data they gather, including but not limited to the total number of pursuits, number of accidents, injuries, and deaths, and all the costs related to lawsuits brought to the MPD because of these officers' dangerous pursuits.

The FPC and the residents of Milwaukee must uh be informed of the numbers in case of future changes to SOP are needed, and if the SOP is even being followed by MPD, because as we've all seen with the Flock MPD or the Flock SOP, um if when there's no transparency uh for or by MPD, this leads to abuses and exploitation.

Uh again, I'd like to thank you all for your time and your openness for discussing this.

And I'm very optimistic and hopeful that you all, common council can work together to make a safer SOP 660.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Arthur Bolis.

Good evening.

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you uh for your time today and hearing public comment on this issue.

Um, my name is Arthur Bolis.

I'm a resident of Milwaukee, a member of the Milwaukee Alliance.

Um, so I'm here today again to talk about SOP 660 as it is being discussed after the last FPC meetings um changes and discussion amongst the uh commissioners.

I know there were some folks on the committee that um said they may not like to follow the the data on some of this stuff, but um instead of vibe checking this, I wanted to just point out a report that I uh read through recently from the police executive research forum from 2023.

Um it shows that the restrictive policies do not lead to a spike in crime or increase in reckless danger.

Um the report also uses MPD's policy as it stands and as it as it has changed over the past decade or so as a use case showing how harmful a more relaxed policy is.

Uh they also used Houston as kind of the opposite side of that coin, um, showing that after putting in place a more restrictive policy in 2024, they saw no spike in crime.

Um I just want um everyone to understand that you know there is a paradox here that much of the reckless driving we see is often initiated or made worse by police intervention uh itself.

Um the report I mentioned before shows that on average a driver that was being chased by a cop will slow down within two minutes after the officer stops their chase, and will also obviously not engage in reckless driving unless they see those sirens.

Um I would also just like to point out a couple of the asks from the previous meeting to reiterate reiterate them.

Um, and that is um having some accountability for incidents resulting from police pursuit and have it adhere to the rules of SOP 575 releasing video footage in a timely manner, and also asking for MPD to provide regularly comprehensive data on police pursuit data.

Uh thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Russian.

Oh, is it Rosie?

I'm sorry.

Rosie.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Rosie Garcia.

I am resident of the South Side of Milwaukee and a member of the Milwaukee Alliance against racism and political repression.

First, I wanted to thank you for listening to us and continuing the conversation regarding SOP 660.

At the last FPC meeting, many of you heard our voices and agreed that car chases are dangerous to everyone involved, including bystanders, officers, and the community.

Many also agreed that the recommended changes to SOP 660 are simply not enough, and that more data is necessary to evaluate the true impact of car chases.

I am here today to continue advocating for the addition of stricter guidelines for car chases in SOP 660, the removal of the statement giving officers discretion to begin a car chase, and increased and speedy provision of data to the effects or of the effects of SOP 660 in the community.

I am also here to provide examples of car chase policies other cities and states in the U.S.

have implemented that align with our recommendations.

Just like Milwaukee, these places have experienced the same disastrous consequences of car chases and have successfully implemented stricter policies in response to community pushback.

Therefore, I will now list examples of how these places have instituted the changes we are asking for.

I hope you consider them as you continue to discuss the policy changes to SOP 660.

Chicago, Atlanta, Cincinnati, and Baltimore have limited chases to violent felonies only.

New Jersey implemented a statewide policy limiting pursuits to extreme cases such as murder, sexual assault, and kidnapping.

New York implemented stricter guidelines banning chases for traffic infractions and nonviolent misdemeanors.

This change alone resulted in a massive 66% reduction in chases within just two weeks, proving that safety and enforcement can coexist.

Many of these locations also removed giving officers discretion for car chases by specifying exactly which crimes justify a pursuit.

Others have limited where chases can occur to protect the public.

New York prohibits chases in rental residential areas, parks, and school areas, while Chicago prohibits them in alleys where polices cannot be located.

Oakland limited the speed of car chases to 50 miles per hour, which decreased deaths in car chases to zero.

Although they have relaxed the policy to allow car chases at higher speeds, but only with the approval of a supervisor.

Cities like Oakland and New York, New Orleans now requires supervisor permission or collaboration before an officer can even begin a pursuit.

Again, these are just a few examples of what has been implemented in the U.S.

More examples are easily found if you look for them.

Finally, I want to share the sentiment that we are not advocating for those who commit crimes or drive recklessly to go without consequences.

I want to echo the statement by an FPC member of the at the last meeting.

No car chases does not mean no consequences.

There must be consequences for those who break the law or endanger others.

But the way we are or they are apprehended or we are apprehended, must not put those involved and the community in an even greater danger.

The data shows that the majority of Milwaukee's car chases begin over low level offenses.

Yet they frequently escalate into public safety crisis that result in trauma and death.

We hope to continue this conversation and agree on policy changes that truly protect us all.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Tiffany Stark.

Good evening.

All right.

Hello, my name is Tiffany Stark.

I am a Milwaukee Alliance member, acute mental health social worker, and a community activist.

I'm very thankful and excited to hear what we will be discussing within this committee to make changes to 660 SOP for better for the better and save more innocent lives that should still be here with the current reckless policy we have now.

If you remember, I came before you at all the FPC meetings held in September, October, December, January, February, March, plus the ones with 575.

Um so in the uh we want to increase the deaths resulting from police vehicle chase pursuits from SOP 660.

Um at that time, I shared what happened to my daughter's father who was involved with the police vehicle uh chase pursuit on June 9th, 2024.

The vehicle that was being chased by police slammed in my child's father's vehicle, causing him to have a spinal cord injury, which left him paralyzed from the neck down for 16 months.

Unfortunately, um he passed away October 24, 2025 from complications from the police vehicle chase pursuit.

Um and this was confirmed by the medical examiner's report.

Unfortunately, the young man at the time that was 16 years old that was involved that was being chased by the police, had a learner's permit, and he had no prior record and was charged in September 2025 for causing bodily harm.

And now the charges have been issued for him for second degree reckless homicide.

I think there's loss here in all of it.

You know, it was a young man, never had a record.

He made a bad decision.

My daughter's father was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You know, it just sucks.

So I'm kind of echoing the same demands we had last time.

I would like more data check-ins um, like every six months.

I also want to see if we can get 575 to be part of 660 for incidents involving police police pursuit, especially with deaths.

Um, I also would like to get um that wording changed um when it comes to um someone that's about to commit a violent felony and propose a wording to exclude or is about to commit a violent felony as this relies on the individual officers' discretion.

I want accountability or accountability as we can get.

Um also, you know, lawsuits is costing a lot of money, and we deserve to know what's going on and to fix this problem because it's ultimately the taxpayers that are paying for this, plus the loss of life.

So I really again thank you guys and look forward to working with you.

It's just great.

It's been really hard.

I've been having dreams.

I look at my daughter, and she's never gonna be able to see our jan again.

So I'm here because I don't want this to happen to anyone else.

It was preventable being at the wrong place.

It could happen to any one of your family members just being at the wrong place at the wrong time, didn't do anything.

You could be going to work, boom, your life is over.

This is real.

So I really want to work with you guys.

Feel free to ever reach out and ask questions.

I want to be able to get something and get more information, and I want to get this together so you guys can make a recommendation because we need to change this.

So I appreciate you guys listening to us over and over, and we'll keep coming back until we get what we need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Angela Lang.

Good evening.

Good evening.

First of all, I want to say thank you for taking the time to make sure that the community is heard on these important matters.

And I want to um not only send my condolences, but my default love and gratitude and strength for folks that have been able to be directly impacted and still have the courage, um, like Tiffany to speak here and talk about what it means for their communities.

Um I'm not gonna take too much time.

Angela Lang, she her from co-executive director of Block Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, and we stand in solid.

We stand in solidarity with the Milwaukee Alliance.

We understand that um police reckless driving and pursuits do not keep our community safe.

Uh we have long been an advocate and a proponent for alternatives, making sure that our young people and anyone that needs it has access to things like driver's ed.

Um how are we designing our streets in a way that curbs things like reckless driving?

But also at the same time, I have deep concerns knowing that it's law enforcement that is choosing to decide when to have a vehicle pursuit, and knowing, especially in the last year and in the last several years, the amount of innocent people that have been seen as unfortunate collateral damage because of these vehicle pursuits.

And we need to make sure that we are looking for alternatives if we are actually serious about reckless driving or anything in that nature, that we are actually having conversations with what it looks like.

And one of the things I I think that we always talk about is how are we getting to the root cause, which is why I talk about things like driver's ed and how we design our streets.

And I have huge concerns.

Um, and I speak for this organization, especially now under this current administration, and that there is deep distrust with law enforcement.

Um good, bad or otherwise.

I think that there's something to be said that right now that there is not a healthy trust of law enforcement, and what does it look like to actually have a community that is thriving, but also not jumping immediately to violence to reckless driving and pursuits that put not only other people in danger but the whole city in danger.

And I think that there are more opportunities and more solutions, and I'm not claiming to be the one that has all of the answers, but I know that this isn't the way.

And so we stand as Block as an organization in solidarity uh with the Milwaukee Alliance in figuring out how we continue to work with you all to make sure that we keep our city safe.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Bridget, do we have anyone uh registered uh virtually for public comment?

I do not have anyone registered for Jacob.

It is.

Okay.

Then there being no further comments, this concludes the public comment portion of the meeting.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The second item on the agenda is FPC 212461 resolution relating to the January 27th, 2026 meeting minutes.

So the uh minutes are posted.

Yes.

Do any of the commissioners have any uh corrections or additions that should be placed into the minutes?

If not, then I'll entertain a motion to um approve the minutes.

So move.

Second.

Okay, we take a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The third item on the agenda is FPC 212462 communication relating to FPC citizen complaints in 2025 and year to date in 2026.

And uh, we do have uh uh one of our FPC investigators with us uh here this evening, Mark Banks.

Uh good evening.

And there is a uh a report in the file.

Um we scheduled this item.

I I know that um some of this information was included previously in my uh monthly uh executive director reports, but uh as you know, sometimes there's other pressing matters and uh perhaps uh this information uh there isn't time to get uh give it the attention it may deserve at some of the regular board meetings.

So I thought I would uh place it again in one document, um, a summary of the 2025 uh citizen complaint information uh as well as year-to-date uh 2026.

Um this is a partial summary.

We will, of course, have uh a more detailed uh uh report um when our research and policy analyst prepares the 2025 annual report for citizen complaints.

Uh but just uh give a few uh high-level uh uh points.

Uh in 2025, we had a total at the FPC of 202 citizen complaints, uh about a hundred and well, 134 of those uh involved the police department, four involved DEC, 15 involved uh the fire department, and then another 49 um uh uh alleged matters that were outside the FPC's jurisdiction.

Uh those can include uh things when uh it might be the sheriff's office or the jail or um or just something else that's not within our jurisdiction pertaining to police fire or emergency communications.

Uh the vast majority of or at least the majority of complaints are for department services.

Um and immediately below that there's a breakdown of uh uh the dispositions for and the different types of complaints for police fire and DEC.

Uh year to date um in 2026, we've received a total of 47 complaints, 31 of which uh involve uh the police department.

Mark, was there anything uh you wanted to add?

Uh no, sir.

All right, and uh happy to answer questions.

Okay.

So when you say department services as a category, what does that cover?

What is that encompass?

Mark, can you uh department services could be anything from filing of reports, um could be um uh the citizen feels that the uh uh officer failed to fully investigate the matter?

Um any type of servers that they came into the uh station to make a complaint and feel the member was rude, things like that.

Well, there's separate for discourtesy, disparate treatment, and use of force.

So those obviously tie into some of the services.

So is department services more of a catch-all to everything else that might be yes.

Okay, so um, and department procedure, what would that encompass?

Department procedure would be let's say uh traffic stops, it could be um arrests, it could be search warrants, uh the procedures that the department members go through in the um the job functions.

Okay.

Are are any of our uh data?

Is it quantified by constitutional rights, like the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, uh First Amendment rights, anything like that that could we could categorize a citizen's complaint as touching on a specific uh constitutional right?

I would say the department procedure probably would be the category that that would fall.

Okay.

Well, Mark, don't we have um um categories in AIM or benchmark that talk about whether or not it's an alleged unreasonable search or frisk or fewer.

Yeah, that is part of the allegation.

That would be what the citizen, you know, they had no right to search this, no right to do this.

So no, I I understand that.

I'm wondering if that data can then be aggregated by those categories as opposed to these categories which are not very useful, actually.

I don't know.

That would happen.

We can look at that.

Okay, all right.

I I don't necessarily disagree, but that uh is um a very broad category.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think people would want to know where the complaints are.

Uh yeah, I mean, for at some point the department was uh really in trouble over unreasonable searches, strip searches, body cavity searches, and all kinds of stuff.

Um so it makes a difference whether there's complaints that you know are accumulating uh intensely on a particular egregious set of circumstances.

And it's and so I would really like to see us be able to flesh out the information that way.

I think that's a good idea.

And this isn't uh a very good in part we do that now.

Um uh striking with a baton, use of force, uh thrown to the ground, you know, use of force or uh procedure um uh unfair stop or frisk or search warrant.

So it is broken down, but for this cat this report, we just put it under the category and we'll give examples of it could be this, this, this, or this.

Okay, but to fine-tune it in a report form we haven't done thus far, but we do track it.

Okay, so if the data is there, then it's a question of retrieval and inclusion in the report.

Yes.

Okay.

So and I think that's a good idea.

Um this isn't a good uh necessarily a good answer, but this is how we've previously done it.

So that's part of the reason why uh uh it's in this format, but I agree with you that uh uh we could have more description that that's more meaningful.

Okay, anything else from the commissioners?

Do you have a question regarding the timing of the information for a year?

So for 2025, are those um complaints all from 2025, or could there be a timing issue where carryovers from 24 fall into their 2025 data set?

Well, sorry, 2025 cases or 2025.

So they're all from 2025 filed in 2025.

Filed in 2025.

So by the time we get the um report for all of 2025, um it could be that data well, it may be a while before that's actually published.

Um what's the lag time if everything uh from 2025 is handled?

Um in 2025.

What's the lag time in reporting out an annualized report with all 2025 with all 2025 data?

So uh our research and policy analyst typically does that report.

Uh, I know she's trying to do vehicle pursuits, then use of force, and then citizen complaints.

Um, I'm hopeful we can have that uh in the next month or all of them in the next month or six weeks.

And remind me, is there rolling data?

I'm not sure.

So let's say we get complaints in January.

Yeah, disposition uh information is available as soon as it's available.

How's that reported out?

You don't you're not waiting until the end of the year to report out disposition.

Oh, to the the complainant?

Yes.

So they um everyone gets uh at a minimum a letter.

Um, and they may, I don't know if you verbally give them dispositions ever by by phone, but sometimes it's verbal, but they always get a written disposition summarizing the investigation, what the findings were.

Okay, and when is the cumulative data for that information available for public?

I typically write or my partner will write a end of the year summary report to the director, and it's typically early part so it's the end of the year.

Yes, sir.

All right, and so the question we do it core, I do uh we do it almost.

That's that's we we've done it um somewhat periodically, uh, either every quarter or every six months uh to this committee.

Okay, and that's where I couldn't remember whether or not it was produced on a quarterly basis.

So thank you.

Talk to the regular chair about that.

Uh yeah, I have one and probably not as much for Mr.

Banks as for the executive director, but we had public comment, and I think it's come up twice now.

He did come up with the last meeting where there's a question about whether or not the complaint process is following to letter the state statute.

Do you do you recall?

Yes.

So I I guess since we're here and we're overseeing this, yeah.

Do you have a response to that?

That is still something I need to look at, but it is it is on my list.

Sounds good.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, um uh so as I am looking at um the different dispositions.

Yes.

Um there's a number of different dispositions um FPC dismissed, unfounded, sustained, not sustained, referred to IAD exonerated, there's sort of a bunch of different outcomes that we can see here.

But if I take off my commissioner hat um and just imagine that I'm a member of the public who's filing a complaint, um, there's really a narrow scope here for um outcomes that would be sort of satisfying or feel justified to someone who's um voicing a complaint.

Um and I did some quick math forgive me if my iPad calculator is not quite right.

But uh I think if I am least generous uh probably so looking at um looking at just the MPD numbers which are um the largest category of complaints for 2025 um between two and four percent of outcomes for citizen complaints would be sort of satisfying for a community member who's um filing a complaint and then if I look at the whole group um maybe it's six percent that feels pretty low.

Um and so as I think about what um what the compla the the the meaning of the complaint process um to the community to fairness to um the community's trust in our departments um I really think it's worthwhile for us to take a look through the process and see what some of the most common sort of pitfalls or sticking points are in the process.

Um I understand sometimes you probably reach back out to folks to get more information and that there are times when um folks may sort of not complete the complaint process or not have provided the information that you need.

But I really think that it would be worthwhile for us to do sort of an audit of our own process and see where things are most likely to fall off and see if there's anything that we need to adjust about the process or further support that we can provide to members of the community because I am kind of alarmed when I think about how low the sort of positive or satisfying outcomes are for community members here.

No that's a a point well taken and uh if I'm being perfectly honest um those numbers the sustained um or uh refer to IED or or or other sustained allegations the number is low.

Um I can tell you that uh that is not a function of uh rubber stamping complaints or being um apologetic for uh or uh to misconduct uh all complaints uh get uh investigated so the investigators will follow up with the complainant they will get the police reports review the body war and camera video talk to any other witnesses that they need to and then they'll make a recommendation to me um and then I will um uh I I try to give uh the disposition that I think is fair under the circumstances I I think that uh the fact that we do not have a high uh percentage of sustained allegations is a good thing uh I under I understand the the appearance of it uh but I can just say that uh we really do try to be be fair to hold people fairly accountable not to be apologists for misconduct um uh but we also have to to follow the the facts and uh um you know the evidence it shows what it shows um uh you also have to be fair to the officers uh as far as uh comp people not completing the process uh that does happen i i think that's not uh that's a uh just anecdotally that's a small number uh of complainants and uh the investigators do make before they would close a case for failure to complete the intake process they would make multiple um uh attempts to follow up with that person okay i i guess i'm probably oh sorry oh sorry go ahead i was gonna say and we do audit um our audit unit does also in addition to auditing mpds um uh different areas involving the police they do two audits a year on our FPC citizen complaints okay thank you um that's all very helpful I guess I I think I'm I'm just the type of person that always thinks that we can probably do better somewhere um and I and I hold myself to those standards uh in the rest of my life as well as those who have worked with me have seen um so I I I guess I still think that there's probably some room to move here um I understand that like it's probably a good thing if we're not seeing 200 complaints a year that are sustained I think then I'd be looking at the departments like we have a problem with these departments.

I think then I'd be looking at the departments like we have a problem with these departments.

Yes.

Um but at the same time, um, I think that there are probably ways that we can um have more satisfying and trust building outcomes for community members.

Um, even if in some of those cases the result is something like um like counseling, like NDCAs, other things that come up that um maybe are not so serious to the officer, but still are able to correct or intervene in certain types of behavior.

Absolutely.

And we do look not only for for counselings or policy reviews, but also um, you know, informal interventions.

If it could be something to have um a captain or a lieutenant reach out to the complainant just uh to talk through a matter, or uh if there's some um other intervention that could at the end of the day just get the person what they want, if it's uh you know, a report that's corrected, or you know, for example, there was one incident that comes to mind is uh an incident where there were some problems um uh with a person uh receiving improper charges at the tollat and working those out.

So we do make attempts uh to do those as well, or to refer complainants to um uh if if there's another um area or agency like the um consumer protection agency or the city clerk's office if they're making a a request for monetary relief.

So we do those uh uh interventions or referrals as well.

Okay.

Um one question I have.

Uh there is an appeal process.

Yes.

Right.

And does that apply to all dispositions?

Whether it's uh I'm sorry, we don't have jurisdiction, or does it only apply if there's been an actual investigation of the complaint?

Under our current rules, it's if the uh complaint is dismissed, then they they could appeal that.

Okay, so any dismissal.

Yes.

Okay.

And uh the public is made aware of this with the disposition when they're told what the disposition is.

Are they also advised as to what the appeal rights are?

We we do not do that uh as a matter of practice.

And this is something that I've I've thought about myself is if we wanted to put something uh a notice in our disposition letters.

Um, you know, on the one hand, that uh that lets people know their options.

Uh, on the other hand, it could encourage more appeals and ultimately the the commissioners are the ones that hear the appeals.

So I I do try to be sensitive to that as well.

Um, but certainly if that's something you want uh in the disposition letters, we can do that.

I think so.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, the people who do appeal, they have to have found that out somehow, right?

Do they just call and say, I disagree with this, and then you can then they learn that they can appeal?

Well, it's in our um complaint intake guidelines, which is on our website.

Also, um, sometimes people just say they want to appeal, or if even if they don't use magic words, if they indicate that they're dissatisfied and want to further challenge it, I'll treat that as an appeal.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Anything else?

Oh, I uh I guess I kind of go back to whether or not people truly understand what that process looks like.

And whether or not we do um there are an adequate job of explaining what the complaint process is all about.

And since I don't sit in on all of those.

Sure.

Can you just give us a sense as to how people are coming to the table?

Do you think they have a after discussions with staff have better understanding of what that complaint process looks like and what they could expect from a commission?

Well, I think as far as the complaint process, I know when our investigators do attempt to reach out uh and speak to all complainants, uh, and as part to get additional potential factual information, but also to let them know how the process is going to unfold.

So that is a discussion that's had.

Uh typically um unless a person appeals, uh, we don't give notice uh or a description of the appeal process.

If they do appeal though, uh then we do um our one of our paralegals will provide a letter informing them of what to expect.

Uh the current process involves a uh a review by a panel of three commissioners and then a disposition letter, uh, and that's a uh a review of the of the paper record, so to speak, rather than a new investigation.

Um but if the commission wants to have uh some type of notice, an explanation of the process in the disposition letters, that's something that we can do.

Um, and and you know, as we we're discussing the the benefit is that it would be more more transparent and informative.

Um there may be a significantly more appeals though.

Well, forgive me, but I think that people should be advised as to the procedure when they are filing the complaint so they know what to expect as next steps happening, right?

So on our website, it does give a description of of the of the process for complaints.

Okay, all right.

So it's available information.

Yes, uh, it is in the intake guidelines as far as the appeal process.

I don't think that that is stated anywhere else on our website.

Well, maybe I better read the website.

Okay.

I was I was just thinking the same thing.

Yeah is whether or not um it's clear and it suffices for an individual who might just be going through this.

Most individuals are going through it for the first time, I'm assuming.

Yeah.

And so it's it's okay.

I'm reading the website.

Do I truly understand this process?

We'll look at it.

Yeah.

And can we make it more easier for the average citizen to understand?

It's okay, good, good, good.

Anything else?

Communication file.

So we take no action.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mark.

The fourth item on the agenda is FPC 212429 resolution remake excuse me, resolution recommending modification of Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure 660, vehicle pursuits and emergency vehicle operations.

Uh, and just to provide a quick overview of this item, this is a file that was sponsored by Vice Chair Brees Spencer and the proposed modification.

I'm sorry, the proposed the proposed resolution is recommending um uh or would provide for a formal recommendation from the fire and police commission that SOP 660 be modified to prohibit department members from engaging in vehicle pursuits for reckless driving that is observed after an attempted traffic stop.

The resolution further recommends that uh uh the policy be modified to explicitly provide that if the continuation of a vehicle pursuit for reckless driving increases the danger to the public, the department members shall terminate the pursuit.

Um happy to answer any other questions.

This was referred uh to this committee by the uh the full FPC for uh further discussion and deliberations.

For director have there been further discussions with MPD on this file and uh community um recommendations relative to SOP 660.

That's a good question.

So I I did discuss um uh this file with Assistant Chief Craig Sarnaw, who I believe is is here with us virtually this evening.

Uh I think he indicated that the department uh was not supportive of um the proposed modification that would further restrict pursuits uh by um prohibiting pursuits for reckless driving observed after the attempted stop.

Um regarding um I did not discuss with him uh proposals uh regarding SOP 575 um or including this in the definition of critical incidents.

Um we did have uh some tentative discussions about the proposal to eliminate uh the language um or moment is about to commit exactly um but I don't think there was any any definitive position uh from the department on that.

Uh but I would uh let uh uh the chief speak for himself uh if there is such a position.

Yeah, and I'm just wondering if there have been any movement relative to um uh uh sort of compromise on any of these elements that would make sense from an SOP perspective for MPD.

Chief Sarnow, did you want to uh add anything?

Uh I think you summed it up very well, executive director.

Um the chief's position is is that um the he stands by the changes that he's uh approved for the policy that's already been presented to the public safety and health committee and is now in effect.

Um taking into account though, outside of the policy, some of the feedback that um I had um wrote down after the last FPC meeting, which I presented the updates um since the October meeting, um working towards a uh uh dashboard that would be posted on our websites every six months that would have uh vehicle pursuit data that would also accompany, as I have spoken with you about executive director, a regular report to the fire and police commission every six months as it relates to not only vehicle pursuits and use of force data.

Um so that would accompany that in doing the research on that.

There aren't a lot of departments out there that actually post vehicle pursuit data.

So we would be one of the first um we would be uh in part of a limited group, not one of the first, excuse me, but in a limited group that actually does that.

Um also looking at um making it uh more transparent as far as our uh since you just had a uh communication file related to complaints, um publishing complaint data as well for MPD.

Um also looking at developing a um one of the things that um was mentioned in that police executive research forums report as far as engagement goes, developing a um it's listed on page, uh it was in their recommendations, uh looking to uh develop a response strategy for those that have been affected uh as a result of um injury or the death uh involved with a uh a police pursuit.

Um I'm having some discussions on Thursday with um some of the members of um that group, uh enough is enough, who had spoken in public comment at the last meeting about what that might look like as we begin to kind of work what a or develop what a framework for that might look like.

Um those are the things that um I am working on personally behind the scenes, but as far as the policy goes itself, like I said, this chief stands by the changes that were already made.

Did you have any thoughts about the proposal um to eliminate the language or is about to commit a violent felony?

Yeah, I had talked with um uh Lieutenant Krauski at OMAP about that.

The example that we kind of came up with would be um, again, I'd have to really look into the data to see if that is actually um uh one of the um like a legitimate reason we would actually chase somebody for or have chased somebody for, excuse me.

But an example that we kind of came up with is what if an officer is parked at a light and sees four individuals get out of a vehicle wearing masks and guns and going into a gas station, uh at which time they see the cops get back in the vehicle and drive off.

Um that would be an example of about to commit a felony um for robbery of a gas station.

Um, but I would have to look at the data a little bit more closely uh to see if that is actually uh a metric that um or a uh a metric that uh uh is present in our data.

Yeah.

And and even so, um they would need some evidence that established probable cause that someone was about to commit uh a felony.

It just wouldn't be within their discretion to uh uh decide that that's the case.

Yes, um the majority of the violent felonies that are listed in the data set are are those that um have committed a violent felony.

So we already have knowledge that they did commit a felony and there's probable cause to initiate the pursuit.

Okay.

I have a clarifying question about that.

Um with regards to the probable cause is because I think I think folks may be referencing um I don't know what version of this I am holding.

Um, but the line the occupants um has committed, is committing or is about to commit a violent felony.

Um, and then there's parentheses explaining that.

I did notice in the Minneapolis pursuit policy, um, that it has something similar but more specified, which is the member has current credible information that the individual is about to commit violent pursuit offense.

Could that potentially be just a clarification that that emphasizes what the parameters are in that situation?

Yes, I'm aware of that um of what that uh looks like, Commissioner Fung.

That is something that I have spoken with the chief about, about actually breaking down what um constitutes a violent pursuit offense or where the justification is, because Minneapolis, I thought did a very good job of explaining or articulating what the what those are specifically.

Um and that so that is something I can speak with the chief about to see uh if he'd be open to um including something similar like that in ours.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so as the um recommendation in the file stands, um uh are we are we looking at something that all of us believe should be referred in uh with a with referred back to the full board with recommendations to adapt or to tweak or to to do what with that's what we're looking for.

Personally, I think myself that it should be clear that you you cannot pursue if the only grounds for pursuing is that uh after a stop or attempted stop, the car just sped away and you have no other information, just that it's sped away, uh, because that just seems to me to be causing more reckless driving than it's uh solving.

And if they're if the drive away is because they are in fact known to have committed a violent crime, then that's the reason for the pursuit, not the drive the drive loss.

Yeah.

Um so and I'm not sure I see that in what's currently written.

Is that that is the attempt.

Uh and so if you look at paragraph five, uh it would be reworded to say um it would allow for for pursuits where the suspect's driving prior to the attempted stop is so reckless that the driver would pose a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm if not apprehended.

And then in the note, it goes on to say that members may initiate a pursuit for reckless driving observed by the member prior to the initiation of the traffic stop, but not solely for um reckless driving observed after an attempted traffic stop.

Um I know it's kind of difficult to follow with the additions and the and the deletions um, but the attempt is well uh is to prohibit um pursuits for reckless driving if the reckless driving is observed after the attempted stop.

And I think that would include if if they just sped away.

Okay.

Well, uh paragraph six says a pursuit shall not be initiated or shall be terminated if the driver is refusing to or failing to stop, and the only known reason for the attempted stop is an ordinance violation or a misdemeanor, and then it says accept as otherwise provided for in SOP 660.20 sub C.

Um I guess we'd have to see what success 20.

Well, that that's that the section um that is proposed to be modified, and and that language was put in because it does allow for pursuits for one reckless driving um observed before um the attempted stop, which my understanding is that is a misdemeanor.

And then in the sub two, I'm sorry, sub-three, it does allow for pursuits um uh where the vehicle or occupant presents a clear or immediate threat to safety of others and therefore the necessity of immediate apprehension outweighs the level or of danger created by the pursuit, such as in the case of misdemeanor shots fired.

Um so that would be like a negligent uh handling or use of a firearm that is uh a misdemeanor, but um uh for that specific type of misdemeanor um a pursuit would be authorized.

So I wanted to to carve the well, I wanted to.

The the attempt uh or or commissioner spencer's attempt was to emphasize that um pursuits shall not be uh done um uh if the driver is refusing to stop, and the only known reason is an ordinance violation or a misdemeanor, but then to carve out those those two misdemeanors.

Oh, okay.

I see.

Okay.

Well, I think that's a step up from what we had.

Um any other comments or questions?

But I'm chair, I do want to address because I know that a number of members of the public um have been talking about this SOP 575 piece.

Um if we were to go down that road, probably the most appropriate thing is not to have additional language in this SOP about vehicle pursuits, but rather to adjust the language in the SOP that references the definition of critical incident.

I'm forgetting the number, but I just wanted to clarify for everyone.

Yes.

Uh and so there's an SOP that uh that directly governs critical incidents, and then also SOP 575, which has a definition which essentially parrots that definition.

Right.

And um I I would hope that we can make it clear that the critical incident related to a pursuit would include situations where the fleeing suspect's car has caused the actual injury that it's still a critical incident because we have to look at what the officer knew or should have known at the time of initiating the pursuit and failing to terminate it, because that's the but I don't know that there's body camera or video uh connected with that.

Well, there would usually be uh dash cam and and and and likely also body camera footage, um, at least potentially, but my understanding is that you know, for example, if an MPD officer is driving and and runs over somebody or or crashes into somebody and causes a fatality through that uh action, that would be considered a critical incident.

But if they're pursuing uh and the the vehicle being pursued crashes into another car and causes a fatality or serious injury, that would not be considered a critical incident um because it wasn't directly caused by the officer.

Um AC Sarnow, is my understanding correct?

Yes, it is correct.

And the SOP um commissioners uh is SOP 453 officer involved deaths in critical incidents and uh law enforcement um uh a uh a uh death involving an officer is clearly defined under Wisconsin State Legislator 17547, which is hyperlinked in the policy, and um, so our policy is in line with state law as far as what defines a critical incident.

So I would encourage all of you or executive director you to review it um and then share that information with fellow commissioners.

Okay, I will do so.

Okay, but I am concerned with ignoring the situation of the responsibility for bringing about the crash by having the pursuit or failing to stop the pursuit.

I think that has to be on the table.

To your point, madam chair, maybe uh and to AC SAR now to your point as well.

Maybe instead of adjusting the definition of of this type of incident, we are just adding the requirement to um to uh share the dash cam or video um outside of that as a separate thing.

Could be I mean, I think that's more a question of looking at the language we now have and seeing what would have to change and why shouldn't it change?

The fact that it complies with state law is fine, but we can go beyond state law if it doesn't conflict with state law.

Okay, anybody else?

Okay, okay, all right.

Um well, then we need to know what we're gonna do with this.

Um do we feel that what's written right now is the resolution can be recommended back to the folk commission, or do we want to tweak it to include a little more clarity on these things?

Any uh I was interested in AC Sarnell's comments relative to discussions with the chief about data and whether or not um any changes after those conversations can be submitted into the file.

I'd like to understand whether or not there are issues that would be problematic for MPD.

In terms of reporting on a six-month basis, uh and Chief Sarnell, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that that's uh something MPD is agreeable to.

Um my personal thoughts on that, uh, just to offer my two cents would be that's something that the commission can request as a communication file or a standing communication or not a standing, but a regular communication file.

Um and then if you want to have the frequency changed, you can do so um without needing to uh to change the SOP.

Um so perhaps it's something that that doesn't need to be in the SOP, but it it it certainly could be.

Um, I think the it's the commission's job to request the communication files and to gather the reports.

So I I you know would agree.

Yeah, so it's up to us to say where we want it quarterly or six months or yearly or whatever it is.

Um that that authority we still have.

Yeah, and uh I agree it's not necessarily an element that needs to be in the SOP.

And AC SARNA, was my um description of your position correct?

Oh, yes, um, you are correct.

I believe though that when I spoken with you about it, executive director, I had conveyed uh my desire, even though you are right, madam chair, you can ask for this data whenever you want.

I would prefer it to be every six months simply to provide um the commissioners and the community with an expansive set of data rather than um just um something every quarter.

Okay.

Okay.

So madam chair, as we progress down the road of determining what our recommendation is.

Those elements need to be expressed someplace.

Well, I think yeah, we can delineate that this uh SOP's changes are what they are, but in addition that the critical incident definition is going to be looked at, that the schedule for uh obtaining updated information.

The department will be you know verified and uh those but those things don't have to appear in the four corners of the SOP.

In fact, they'd probably be confusing if they were there.

I I agree with that.

However, I do think that it's important for all stakeholders to understand that there are mechanisms in place to deal with some of the issues that Ed brought forward.

Right, right, right, exactly.

So well, with that said, do we have a motion to make a recommendation uh to the common council with this uh set of changes or not?

And and just to clarify, this would be a recommendation to the full board.

Yeah, yes, yes.

Recommend to the full board that they make this recommendation.

Yeah, that that being said, it's a two step.

That being said, yes, I will make a motion to bring this before the full commission.

Okay.

Um with the hopes of discussing all of the other elements that we've discussed here, because I do understand that without those elements being part of that discussion, folks will think, well, we just moved it from one group to another, and we didn't deal with some of the uh other underlying issues that were brought brought up by the public.

When in reality we are trying to move some of those pieces along.

It's just not in the SOP.

Okay, we've had a motion.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay.

Um any further discussion, comment.

I guess, madam chair, if I may just sort of um explain what my thought process is here.

I think I mean I uh I think as I stated in the previous um in the full FPC meeting, you know, I'm in favor of these changes here.

I think may have been Commissioner Spencer who referred to this as not a tap all the way off, tap all the way on situation.

Um so I see what's in the legislation text before us today as important steps.

I also want to acknowledge that that is neither the full body of what the community's been asking for, which some of which I think may be addressed outside of the SOP, um, nor may it be sort of the permanent state of an SOP.

I think I've heard uh multiple of us, including NPD refer to SOPs as sort of living documents.

It may be the case that when um MPD is providing um these much appreciated um regular data briefings, um, or when further analysis um is made on the data that we see additional tweaks that it makes sense to make.

Um, I think that there are still some things um as stated here that are not maybe quite in line with what PERF's um sort of best practices are set out as, or quite in line with what Minneapolis has here or the NYU policing project.

Um so just talking through my thought process, I want to acknowledge that I don't know that this is all the way there, um, but I do plan to vote in favor of this because I am also weighing the urgency of the situations and potential continued loss of life to community members, whether they're drivers, bystanders, and also our officers, um, that's on the line here.

So I guess what I'm saying is I don't want to talk about this forever without doing something.

Let me also um say that I would like to see we have a red line copy right now.

Yes.

I'd like to see a clean card that how it would look after uh the if if the recommendations uh are adopted by the common council, how would this look like?

Sure.

Because it's hard to read it the way it is.

Fair enough.

Okay, so there's been a motion and a second, and I will take a voice vote.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

And that concludes the agenda, Madam Chair.

Okay, my favorite motion, motion to adjourn.

So moved.

No ordered.