All right, good morning, everybody.

Good morning, everybody.

Good morning.

Welcome today for our trial.

And uh why don't you bring us up to date as to where you are on the stand, I believe.

You were you were doing the questioning, weren't you?

Yes, you're an examiner.

All right, well, let's call him back up on the stand.

Uh over to the stand.

Bernites, please.

And uh what we're gonna do then is uh I remind you that you remain under oath uh for this testimony, and uh that uh you may continue on with your testimony at this time.

Fantastic.

Uh can you hear me a court reporter?

Louder.

Got it.

All right.

Uh let's turn to your time at the Brave Clinic.

Um, when did you check in to the Brave Clinic?

Uh the brave clinic was approximately October in 2024, I believe.

All right.

Um was there anything exacerbating your conditions that caused you to check in?

Um well checking in with uh my team over there.

I was told that the delay in service for medical was a huge uh factor in uh my benefits again better quicker.

Um so there was a lot of obstacles earlier that were a problem, and then there was obstacles why I was at the Brave Clinic that were continuing to be a problem, and one of them and the main one was working through uh my injuries.

Uh, what were the primary reasons you checked into the brave clinic?

Uh there was some stagment times when I was injured that I had some resurfacing of some past incidents that I didn't fully process that I didn't understand.

And when you have a brain injury layered with PTSD, they kind of fire similarly is what I was told.

And then when you heal from one, the other can kind of trigger the other.

So it was just a dormant of issues I didn't know were there that kind of resurfaced after I was stagnant from the job.

I'm just gonna object here as to any kind of a witness, uh expert witness testimony as Mr.

Benitas is not a wit uh expert.

Yeah, I don't think he's testified that he has medical degree or anything like that.

So any kind of medical information that he's testifying to, I do want to object.

Um on the basis that it is not expert testimony.

Anything you want to say, Mr.

Ferguson?

Um Mr.

Benitez is testifying to what he was told by his doctors.

He's relaying information that he already has.

Um but I don't see any I don't see any uh information concerning a report that says this that's been entered in evidence by the by a person who's qualified to state that and in all due respect what they said to him uh is between them as far as I'm concerned.

I've got to have testimony here from someone who has the uh capacity to to testify or at least have a record of some sort.

I know you people all uh stipulated to the various uh uh records coming in, and obviously if you have such a record, that would be helpful for us to to know.

I really don't need his testimony concerning that to be honest with you.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Moving on.

Um what was check-in at the brave clinic like uh it was very casual.

Um you come in, you talk to uh speak right up into the microphone.

It's very casual.

You come in, you report in.

Um it's just like a normal doctor's appointment.

There's a group of uh a team experts, and then they kind of have you do some initial check-in, which I I believe was like a day long, where they kind of announce uh is there a record of this?

Uh that's in the medical records.

Uh let's get to it and let's get that before so that we can deal with that in all due respect to to Mr.

Benitez.

It's not Dr.

Bernitez.

Not yet, sir.

No, I'm just gonna sign apologies.

Uh just one moment.

Can you refer to page four of exhibit E sixteen?

E I'm sorry, say it again.

E sixteen.

E sixteen, thank you.

Actually.

Actually page one.

You as well, Smith.

I don't think we have exhibits for me today.

D is in dog.

E as in each.

Or echoing.

It looks like Commissioner Fung has what should be Section E of the exhibits.

I think you're looking at them.

What yeah, those ones right there that Commissioner Snyder has in his hand.

Yes, that that's E seventeen, Commissioner Horwitz, I think that you have in your hand.

The rubber band copy is E one seventeen.

Yes, I believe um Mr.

Ferguson said E sixteen one six.

Which is a smaller section of medical documents.

What was the uh exhibits?

E sixteen.

Yeah, I got it.

Sorry, I guess it's just what was the particular reference?

Uh first page.

Okay.

Um are you familiar with this document?

Yes, sir.

Uh and do you remember your primary provider?

I do.

Uh can you tell me his name?

That'd be Dr.

Bjerk was uh my prime uh my provider at the time.

Yeah.

Uh do you remember this session described in the notes on this page?

Yes, I do.

And do you remember what your concern was as described here?

Uh as I was saying there was um some layered issues that I didn't completely understand and mention in this document kind of brings some to um surface was the insomnia was very important from prior uh physicians also and the sleep and then the anxiety disorder and the stress or post-traumatic stress and the layered brain injury.

Um it was and the depression that I got was kind of a from what I was told is, you know, kind of a concoction for a bad recipe, I guess.

I apologize.

What's that?

Please finish I interrupt.

No, I said just I just remember the conditions were more severe than I originally thought.

I didn't have a medical career degree.

I was not a doctor, I didn't know this stuff.

So go on to Dr.

Bureck in understanding um how post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and traumatic brain injury, how that all curbs together and can make a bad concoction for uh worse mental health.

That says here your chief complaint was you wanted to be the best dad you could be, and you find focusing hard.

Uh was that your main reason for going down to the brave clinic, or was that just what you were telling him at the exact moment?

Uh there was many applic uh avenues in my professional career and personal life that were kind of at a dead end in a roadblock.

So there was a stigma and that was one of the chief c uh reasons I wanted to um pass through that stigma and get better to the person I was.

What kind of stigma are you talk are you referring to?

Well, it's a very common stigma in police law enforcement, it's overcommon.

I'm gonna object this to relevance.

Again, where's the uh she's talking about why you saw treatment?

I'd say it's actually very relevant.

Uh what's happening here in the the narrative.

If I may.

Uh it's not relevant to the five just cause factors that need to be established for phase one of the FPC hearing.

That's my objection.

Okay.

Anything about that?

He's telling his story as to what happened and why he wasn't there.

I'd say it's pretty relevant as to you know what actually happened as to where he wasn't there.

Keep it real basic because uh he's getting in the informational stuff that it it may have a contangential way of being handled under the five five just cause bases in terms of people being able to understand why he's saying what he's saying or not saying, so I'll I'll just go into it a little bit, but uh you I don't see where there's a uh connection right off the bat.

Chris, go ahead.

Uh so my intention was never to I worked as long as I could uh injured and not, and there was no malice in me taking time off from work to become a better employee and a better parent, and no intention to break any policy rules.

I tried to navigate between the uh policies, but my health is primary to any policy that I can uh that I was charged with.

Got it.

Um what did you do with regards to the FML paperwork when you checked in to the brave clinic?

So I would be the patient, the medical patient.

Um at the time of um Dr.

Barrick was the person processing the paperwork on my end, and then Misty was the other processor in the city's end.

So that's who got my paperwork from uh me.

Got it.

So did you hand it off to anyone, or were you the only one touching the paperwork?

So no, uh there was it was kind of a relay, which I find weird, but uh the medical section would pass it to me, I would fill it out um with the doctor, and everything was copacetic with us, and then we would send it back to the medical section, and sometimes there would be some minor errors with crossing the I's and T's, but there was a time restriction within the FMLA policy uh federal that it or in the policy that we had to get it within seven days.

So there were some issues with uh me having to be the middle person.

I think it was a lot of on the process and of MPD that there was some delays and it seemed like I was violating a policy, which I was not trying to with malice or intent.

So it was out of your hands, yeah.

All right.

Uh did you have access to your phone while you're at the brave clinic?

What's that, sir?

Did you have access to the phone your phone while you're at the brave clinic?

At the brave clinic, I did.

At the refuge, I did not have complete access of my phone.

Why was it limited?

At the refuge?

Yes.

Uh the refuge is an inpatient care facility for someone that's um had overwhelming amount of stress, which I felt I was in that ballpark.

So they take away your phone and kind of the outside distractions so you can focus on your health, fitness, and everything else that they provide.

And at no point did you have access?

I had access for um court ordered um and uh some other issues that I had to make phone calls for.

Did you know they were trying to reach you?

Uh I did, and that's when I spoke to Ellen, who is the intake service provider.

I've believed for that's I'm not sure of her title, but that's what she primarily does every day, all day, countless times.

So I gave her the information that I needed.

She said she had all the information she needed.

She had all the contacts with MPD personnel for the medical section.

Um, she was the processor on that end for me, and then that's where um they wanted me to focus on my treatment and not um outside distractions.

All right.

All right.

Circling back to your FMLA experience.

Did you ever have any other similar troubles getting the medical section to accept your paperwork?

I did.

There was other accommodations in the past where I was not objection relevance.

Uh process it and it's exactly in the report that we've discussed prior to, whether or not it was submitted or accepted, and exactly whether or not the medical section was doing its job.

Then if if the court accepts or the hearing examiner accepts that, then the request would be to have a clarifying question as to what date in the past is being referred to at this point in time because the past is a lot longer.

Where's Ellen?

Uh second.

Where is she anywhere?

Where's the Ellen?

He's referring to all those FMLA issues that came up along the way.

He dealt with an intake proceeding.

Ellen short testifying.

I will absolutely ask a clarifying question.

Um, when and where does all take place?

I'm sorry, could you repeat?

Um can you repeat what he just previously said?

What did you want me to read?

Um, Mr.

Benitez's most recent testimony about Ellen.

Um what did Mr.

Benitas say about Alan?

Could you repeat back from me?

Uh yes.

No, I just wanted you to repeat the question was all I didn't hear quite clear.

Where it is all take place.

Okay.

So the refuge is an out-of-state facility um in Florida.

Uh I went out there because there was um I knew I needed the help.

It was a horrible time to get the help, but it was mandatory in my opinion, and I didn't want to do it here in Milwaukee just because of stigma.

So I went out there and someone gave me an opportunity, um, which I probably would have never took if I didn't reach out for someone to get better, and that's what happened.

Um, and the paperwork go ahead.

Who is that?

The Ellen you were referring to.

Ellen is the uh intake administrator, I believe that's her title.

So she would take uh patients or clients as they refer to them at the refuge.

She would take clients in to uh her her care, and then she would handle all the paperwork federal and medical and um uh between their work so they wouldn't have a hiccup with employment.

And when did this happen?

This was in March and April of 25.

Okay.

Um did any of your doctors ever tell you that earlier interventions would have helped you physically or mentally.

Objection relevance.

Uh speaks to his treatment by the MVD.

The MPD did this.

I whether or not they would have been there's just I was kind of coming out of the blue, Mr.

Ferguson.

Um, I'm finishing up basically.

Well, I I'm gonna I'm gonna sustain the objection because I I I'm throwing a lot of stuff into this thing right now that uh you know I have no connection that's done getting it.

Okay.

We're talking about FMLA information that was either not provided during these many places, many times we saw it FMLA, I suppose.

And once it was blamed on the medical section, is she blaming this FMLA failure uh relative to the refuge on Ellen and and not uh supplying information?

Are you sorry?

This is for reference to my most recent question or the one before.

That's what I'm talking about.

I want to see connection so that there's some kind of basis just to show uh from point A to point B.

Oh no, I'm now essentially I'm just moving on to the next issue.

Was what else?

I don't know.

Um anything else you want to tell this uh commission to make the decision.

Yeah, there was you know, we speak about policies, and there's uh policies and procedures and procedures that aren't followed correctly from the initial start, can frame someone to look like they're violating a policy with malice and intents, which is not the case in my situation.

Um, if somebody is hypercritical about paperwork and there's a time frame on it, the patient who's trying to seek help is not at fault.

There was serious other uh barriers between me and my health.

Uh and that all could have been prevented with good policies, such as a concussion protocol, which is very standard in sports, very worldly recognized, walking into a head injury with not knowing what would happen is so 1990.

We're not there, we're in 2026, and that was 2022.

So I think the policies need to change.

And in my opinion, MPD owes me a family.

Thank you.

No further questions.

Ross.

Uh you're gonna get my friend.

Sorry.

I will be brief and just try to make sure that we have it together.

Um I'm going to turn your attention for the commissioner's reference to what we have called case D.

So you don't need I'm not going to reference any of your documents, but I'm just putting you in that mindset.

Case D, as we have referenced in the three previous days of uh testimony here, is referring to your time at the refuge, that being from April and May, uh March and April of 2025.

So about a year ago today, okay?

Correct.

All right.

Um the allegation is that you were AWOL for a period of time and you did not have any approved leave to be off of work.

Do you recognize that as the allegation that is presently before this commission today?

That is the allegation.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

To that end, at any point in time at that point in time in March and April, May 2025.

Did you have approved FMLA leave?

That's the question.

Under my understanding initially, it was in the process of being approved.

So I would assume that it would have been approved.

Now, if you're gonna go into the what you guys classified it as today, then it was not approved.

But at the moment, at the time, it was immediately considered that it was approved.

You in your your perception is that it was approved.

Is that what I'm understanding from your statement?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

And you had access to your phone in March and April, and in March and April while you were at the refuge for necessary court appearances.

It was for um legal issues that they you can have the phone, and it's very restricted to what you can use it for in a time frame.

Okay.

If you had indicated that you were aware that your work was trying, and you indicated that you were aware that uh they quote unquote were trying to reach you.

Do you remember giving that testimony?

I do not, but I'll take um I'll believe that you read the um transcript and that you know what you're talking about.

Okay, Mr.

Benita's about five minutes ago you just testified that they that you knew they were trying to reach you.

Gotcha, yes, yes.

Okay, thank you.

So to that end, they is referring to um MPE staff.

They would be the processors, I wouldn't say MPD staff, but the processors of the medical section.

Um is what I'll classify them, the term as them.

Okay, so somebody from MPD was trying to get a hold of you while you were at the refuge, and you were aware of that.

Is that correct?

So I it wasn't it's a very simple yes or no question.

Yes, there was multiple.

Thank you.

Um you also knew uh uh you also stated about five minutes ago, they wanted you to focus on your treatment.

And you when you were referring to them when you were referring to they at that point in time, we're referring to the staff at the refuge.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um turning your attention to, and again, you don't need to have anything documents in front of you.

I'm gonna turn your attention going working backwards, what I'm gonna refer to for the commissioners and their notes as case C.

That's referring to your not having um uh your uh time off in January of 2024.

Um again, same kind of statement, didn't have any approved time off, and you were all for a series of day in January and February of 2024.

Do you recall that set of allegations?

I do recall the um yeah, the allegations.

Okay, and as you sit here today, can you state did you have approved time off to take in January and February of 2024?

Uh, can you repeat the time frame?

Sure.

January and February 2024.

Did you have approved FMLA leave?

I wouldn't know I applied for it.

And at the time, I believe I was I don't know if it was approved.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna say it wasn't uh approved.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I believe it might not have been approved.

And you were questioned about that time period by Sergeant Latanya Diedrich during the PI 21 interview.

Is that correct?

Yeah, we spoke.

Okay, great.

And at that time during the PI21 interview, you indicated to Sergeant Diedric that you uh were gone, and because you had your appendix removed, and that you would provide uh Sergeant Diedric with that medical paperwork that would substantiate your absence.

Is that correct?

So my appendix issue occurred at work.

I don't know if you want to call that a work injury, but it did occur at work.

So I took an hour off, um, which I didn't agree with, and then I had my appendix removed that day.

Um so I don't know if she got the paperwork or not.

I don't recall that was so far ago.

I had other pressing issues that I cannot recall those dates.

I'm sorry.

Sure, I understand.

So it's your answer then I don't recall if I provided Misty uh Sergeant Taylor.

I'm sorry, Sergeant DJ, the medical paperwork.

I'm sorry, what is your answer?

I don't recall.

Yeah, I don't recall.

Okay, thank you.

Um moving backwards further into what's going to be for the commissioners as case B.

That's going to be your uh uh fall of 2023, November specifically, November, December 2023.

Um you never applied for FMLA leave for your own medical health condition in 2023, correct?

I never applied for 2023.

Correct.

So this is where my memory gets a little choppy.

Um that was the year my no my Noah was born, and we I was forced to take FMLA baby time off because they were denying sorry, they were denying the on duty injury pay.

So what were the dates again?

In the fall of 2023, did you apply for FMLE leave for your own medical series for your own serious medical condition?

I don't recall.

Thank you.

All right, no further questions at this time.

All right, any uh further questions in your part?

Uh just a few.

Uh when you said that MPD was trying to reach you, and that you were aware of it.

What did you do to try and contact them?

Uh I told Alan I gave her all the paperwork.

I helped sat in her room with her.

We filled out um the memos, the uh other paperwork.

She had access to the federal paperwork.

And then at that point they said we want you to focus on um what brought you here, and so what brought me there was to get in a better mind frame and healthier.

Did they tell you they were working on it and handling the situation?

I was very confident in their ability to process and handle it.

They've done it probably far more times than uh Misty Taylor, who was only had two years on, I think she said at the time.

So I had confidence they knew how to do it because they've been doing it for a long longer time than she has.

And they told you they were working on it.

Yeah.

Uh the second round of FMLA leave that attorney Hedley asked you about.

You said you might have been approved.

Is your answer that you didn't remember or that it's not?

I'm sorry, I missed I didn't hear you quite.

Sorry.

Um, when attorney headley asked you about the second round of FMLA, you said that it might have been approved.

Is your answer that you don't recall if it was approved or that it wasn't approved?

It was hard because I I don't recall because initially it's so long ago.

I was trying to get on duty injury because that's what this was the cause of, and then there was some issue that I couldn't use that, but I was so discombobulated out of it.

Um I was trying to get off and follow the policies, but there, you know, it would have been nice to sit down with the sergeant and help them help me understand what I can do here to be off and be within the guidance of the policies, but that never foreshadowed and came.

So that was one barrier.

So I don't recall um if it was my own personal thing, or if I file for um uh baby uh baby leave.

I can't recall the term.

So there's three of them.

There's on duty injury, which I believe I was qualified for, and then there's fmla for your own injuries, and then there was uh child medical leave act, and then there's state federal and uh um other ones, uh child rearance.

So there's a lot of different ones in there.

Um, but I was just trying to get off so I can uh take care of my health, and I don't recall which one I signed or filled out or what got approved or what got denied.

Understood.

Uh no further questions.

All right.

Uh we step down.

Wait, wait, I didn't know.

But we got except for some questions from from our career.

You want to start?

Yeah, Chair Horowitz, remember the microphone.

Oh, do you oh yeah, thank you.

You don't want to get yelled at.

Mr.

Benitas.

Yes, ma'am.

Um did you apply for duty disability retirement benefits?

I did.

I didn't know.

When was that?

I don't recall.

I think that was with my uh previous counsel lawyers.

So shortly after you started having these problems from the traffic accident.

Yes, they were compounding.

Okay.

And that was denied, wasn't it?

No, I don't believe it was.

It was just um I don't know what happened with it.

I was just I I trust gave it to my lawyers, and I just let them walk through it.

So I don't know what happened with it.

I think it's still a possibility out there, but I don't know.

You never followed up with them about it.

My lawyers, no.

I um did you ever follow up with the uh yeah?

So I did follow up with my lawyers.

I'll clarify, I did follow up with my lawyers, yeah.

But I just did communication, there was some obstacle between communications and it didn't work out.

I don't know what did you ever communicate with the employee retirement system with regard to the um it's very limited talking to them.

Um they give you an estimate of what you can possibly um have, but my mindset was always to come back, and I tried my hardest.

Um so I did have communications with them very limited.

But you're not aware of any official action taken by the employee retirement system in response to your application for duty disability retirement.

Yeah, I'm still don't know how all that works.

I'm sorry.

I didn't I didn't get um any updates.

The last update I got was when I was terminated that I have um 9.89 years accumulated towards retirement, something of that nature.

Maybe it's not 8.9 though.

Okay.

That's all I have.

All right, so um, Mr.

Benitas, I'm gonna ask about um 2023.

Um you referenced that you were forced to take FMLA baby time because you couldn't get ODI.

Um, am I correct in understanding that you applied for FMLA?

Did you did you apply for FMLA only for what you called baby time?

Um for that.

No, it's child rearing, and I'm sorry I called it baby time.

Um, but there's so many different FMLAs that um it at the time I was very confusing.

Um, but I was I had a child and I requested leave with that child in 2023 when he was born in May area, and there was a lot of issues between me and my wife because she needed my help and I needed my own help with the baby, of course.

So I know I had family leave for child rearing in 2023 of May that I took, so still dealing with my injury, and I don't know if that extended to the time frame you're talking about.

Okay, so so you're not sure.

I'm not sure, I'm not positive.

Yeah.

Um with regards to um 2025, and sorry, I'm jumping around here.

Um when we were discussing, um, we were discussing talking to Ellen Um and being at the refuge.

Um when at the at the point when did you did you only sit um in Ellen's office to fill out paperwork one time?

That was uh I think it was two times.

Uh the first initial time with um Ellen was within the first week I was there, and then there was a follow-up one because I got a call or a text from um, I think it was uh Baker or Misty, and then I follow up with Ellen.

You have to make appointment.

So I made an appointment with her.

I sat down, I talked to her, I gave her all the information twice, and then uh she said it's all taken care of, and the Shelly was there, who Shelley is the main person of the whole campus.

She was there, and she said, Yeah, I want you to focus on what brought you in here and not this, and so I did just that, and I left them with the paperwork, the contacts with the medical section twice at minimum.

Okay, at any point did Ellen or anyone else at the refuge tell you that you did have approved FMLA leave.

Yeah, I believe yeah, it was because I saw doctors and then they were checking me.

Um they were had the paperwork in them and they had the evaluation of me, blood tests and all that other things.

So there was that initial assessment that Ellen had um on her desk that we were working with.

So at that point, it was she said it was taken care of.

I assumed it was taken care of.

Okay, and I just want to clarify is your understanding of the phrase it was taken care of to mean that everything had both been sent off to the MPD medical section and been processed and been sent back and been approved since Ellen and the folks at the refuge would not be the approvers.

Yeah, that is correct.

I assumed it was approved because that we would I would meet with the doctors and they would update me and she said it was it was finished, it was fine on her.

When did she say that?

And by she, sorry, by she didn't mean Ellen.

Yeah, I believe her name was Ellen.

I maybe Mendez, I can't remember a last name, but I think that was her name.

And um with her twice, it's kind of fuzzy, I'm sorry.

But it was it was we sat there in our uh office for an hour.

I did my memo, sent it to her, she printed it out, I signed it.

So it's it should have been done.

I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't have been done.

Okay, is your understanding of FMLA leave that the application is the same as the approval?

Uh the application is approval.

No, I I guess um the approval, see that's the thing.

It's not something that should be um up for debate.

Approval by medical doctors for the condition I was in was sustained.

Um, a person without a medical degree cannot I guess deny it, in my opinion.

But if a doctor says you're you're good, this is all medically co opensetic, it fits within the laws of the FMLA, but it doesn't fit in the policy on PD.

There's a contradiction.

I don't know where that lies, but from my understanding, everything was fine.

And this is the kind of barriers that I was talking about from the start about getting health and treatments and minimizing uh my pain and suffering.

Okay, thank you.

Um, do you believe that uh FMLA approval could not be approved if paperwork was incomplete?

I believe it could not be approved if if there was critical uh issues missing, such as a valid doctor, a licensed doctor, anything else that was minimal, dot the I's cross the T's.

I believe that's just being um a little picky, you know.

I think that's something that they can fix on the back end, but the main paperwork is the federal paperwork, which I saw and it looked good to me.

So the policy portion for MPD, I don't know how that is done with the medical section, but I know the federal paperwork they were pretty good at it.

And so I don't know how they could have not approved the application in my sense.

Okay, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I have none, sure.

Horowitz went down the road and it was nice.

Thank you.

Okay, then that's it.

I have nothing further.

All right, you may step down there.

Thank you, sir.

All right.

Uh is there gonna be any more information brought up on phase one?

Not on phase one from the chief.

Any information brought up being brought up for uh on phase one for you for uh no here in examiner.

Oh okay, good.

So are you uh you're arresting then in phase one?

The chief is already rested on phase one.

Okay, it's fine.

I know it's Mr.

Ferguson.

Uh closing statements.

We're gonna get closing statement.

That's that's next.

I just wanted testimony.

Then we're done.

Okay.

All right.

Then we'll have closing statements with respect to uh the uh phase one uh from uh city and chief.

Thank you.

Hearing examiner, thank you again, commissioners, for your time, energy, patience, and grace with this um marathon.

I do genuinely appreciate it, and I know the chief does as well.

Um the commissioners and hearing examiner, you are all well aware of what the standards here are, but um it always helps to, in my opinion, to reframe them, especially after three long days of testimony.

So I want to reframe our frame of reference as to what it is that you are to uh when you deliberate, deliberate on uh the standard that this commission needs to apply is sessionally in Wisconsin statute 6250 sub-17 B, which indicates that an officer may be suspended or um discharged if uh the chief is able to establish just cause under the just cost factors, and those five that are before you in phase one are whether the subordinate in this case, Mr.

And those five that are before you in phase one are whether the subordinate in this case, Mr.

Benitez, could reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the probable consequences of his alleged conduct, whether the rule or order that the subordinate in this case, Mr.

Benitez allegedly violated was reasonable, whether the chief before filing the charge against Mr.

Benitez made a reasonable effort to discover whether the subordinate did in fact violate that rule or order.

Four, whether the effort described under sub three was fair and objective.

And five, and finally, whether the chief discovered substantial evidence that the subordinate violated the rule or order as described in the charges filed against the subordinate.

I'm gonna start with case A.

You may not recall it, but case A refers back to a series of charges specifically related to section 305 of the code of conduct, which indicates that police officers shall follow state, local, and federal ordinances.

If you recall and if you review the exhibits in section A, we have uh the allegation here is that Mr.

Benitez was arrested and then uh prosecuted uh at some point in time for a domestic battery incident.

Uh there is uh at this point in time uh we had we did have testimony um that Mr.

Benita said he did not violate the law, he never received a ticket, and he should not have been charged at this point in time with 305.

They have a series of great questions by Chair Horowitz as specifically as it relates to the standard um that this court or this commission is going to imply versus the standard that a uh criminal case will apply.

Standards here are different.

You need to determine these things by preponderance of the evidence, meaning is it more likely than not that Mr.

Benitas did in fact break the law?

A final conviction does not render or lack of a final conviction does not render your judgment here on whether there's a preponderancy of evidence that Mr.

Benitas broke the law irrelevant.

All right.

Um, in this case, we have a police officer who had the police called to his house by his then wife, indicating that he was attempting to break in the door that she was uh hiding behind in their bedroom.

Again, to be clear, she also indicated that there were guns in the hallway closet and that she was afraid for her safety.

She also indicated that Mr.

Benitez grabbed her phone out of her hand, and Mr.

Benitez actually testified himself that he did in fact grab the phone out of her hand and took it away as he would a child taking away a child's tablet, if you recall.

Um, from there, uh uh he threw the phone across the room.

And at that point in time, uh, Mrs.

Benitez locked herself in her room, called 911, Mr.

Benitez and again admitted that he attempted to pick the door lock to ensure that she would not be calling 911.

When the officers arrived there, they took statements, they processed him, they arrested him, and there from there, the criminal charge began.

What you uh those are our underlying facts with that.

Could Mr.

Benitez have reasonably known the consequences of his actions?

Yes, he is a law enforcement officer.

He has been to uh domestic violence calls as he's testified.

And uh we've had testimony from Sergeant Riley, who did the investigation that this is a standard operating procedure.

We cannot have officers violating the law, right?

If they prosecuted to a conviction or if they're prosecuted not to conviction, either way.

We cannot have law enforcement officers who are sworn to hold, uphold, and protect the law, violate that same law, particularly in the area of domestic violence, as I know you all know is an epidemic amongst uh the city and particularly in our police department.

We need to curb that.

And what the chief did here is he investigated it.

Once we got notice that Mr.

Benitez had been arrested, he was polled from on uh he was pulled, he was administered, he was put on administrative suspension or not, I'm sorry, administrative duty to be clear.

There's a division, and I want to make this abundantly clear.

Mr.

Benitez would have approved uh pro uh uh what was the word I'm looking for here.

Mr.

Benitez would have preferred rather to have been administratively suspended.

At that point in time, he would have been at home with pay and not having to do his job.

In fact, we'll hear testimony later, I'm sure, that that was his request.

Excuse me.

I'm getting over an illness, so I'm gonna try to make this as brief as possible.

Um then, so what we have to look at now is whether uh the chief found uh substantial evidence to believe that the rule was violated.

In this case, Sergeant Riley did an investigation, and if you recall back um many weeks ago at this point in time, or to our first witness here, Sergeant Riley indicated that he believed it was a he said she said situation.

But the fact that he was charged made the fact that he was charged by the district attorney's office gave it very much so credibility that this was going to be uh something that they could in fact prosecute and could, in fact, um uh be successful at.

Again, the ultimate outcome is irrelevant to whether or not uh by preponderance of the evidence, you all can find that Mr.

Benitez, in fact, broke uh uh violated a law with this case.

Um Sergeant Riley rather testified that he had not known Mr.

Benitez prior to this investigation.

Throughout his investigation, he found Sarge uh he found Mr.

Benitez to be cagey, not telling the complete truth, and to say that it's all everybody else's fault, right?

It's not his fault, he did nothing wrong, she was alone at blame, right?

All of that uh when taken in uh by the standard that you have to employ it, again, being the preponderance of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence to determine that one, Mr.

Benitez in fact brought violated the law, um the domestic violence uh DB battery law, and two um that everything about Mr.

Uh Sergeant Riley's investigation was fair, accurate, thorough.

He also had uh Captain Looney here testifying, and he indicated that when uh when he reviewed Sergeant Riley's reports and the lieutenant's covers that he agreed, and so he sustained a charge of 305.

Sergeant uh Captain Looney, rather, does not sustain charges if he feels that they are not valid.

In this case, upon a reviewing of the evidence, he determined that a 305 charge was valid.

Nothing in the evidence that Mr.

Benitez has submitted here before you today disproves any of those statements.

Um, nothing of the evidence that is before you here today would uh discredit Mrs.

Benitas.

And in fact, we have self-serving statements by Mr.

Benita's that he's done nothing wrong, not just with case A, but with all of these cases, and taking in the light most uh taking it everything uh in its entirety, there is substantial evidence to believe that the five just cause factors uh by the evidence has been propounded here today in the previous three days of testimony has been met.

Turning to case B.

There was a lot of testimony about case B.

Um, to reframe your frame of reference.

Exhibit B11 is the charges, and I you don't need to turn to them now unless you super duper want to read along with them with me.

But um with respect to the charges that Mr.

Benitez has here today, we have a violation of SOP 010115B, which says that uh officers shall report to uh any officers who have exhausted their sick and or injury pay benefits who are medically incapable of returning to duty, shall soon as possible apply for a medical leave of absence or FMLA.

Members who fail to do so shall be considered absent without from without absent from duty without leave and subject to discipline up to and including um discharge from the department, right?

So that's the charge that we are gonna be still we're gonna start with with number with case B.

In this case, between November and 2023 and December 2024, Mr.

Benitez failed to report to duty on time repeatedly.

He claimed at that point in time that he was using ODI pay, old duty injury pay.

A review of the documentation shows that Mr.

Benitez was specifically told by Sergeant Taylor at the medical section that he was no longer qualified to use ODI or injury on duty pay.

Not only what he was ordered by Sergeant Taylor to report to work.

At no point in time did Mr.

Benitez ask for any other kind of leave or say, hey, what do I do if I can't use ODI anymore if I'm feeling sick?

Now, the reason why he didn't do that is because he knows you call in sick.

If you don't have sick time to use, there's a policy for that.

There's a procedure for that.

The department has made it very clear that you have the ability to apply for FMLA, and it can and will be approved upon uh upon requisite paperwork being done.

At this point in time, in November and November and December 2023, Mr.

Benitez did not apply for FMLA.

We cannot prove a negative at this point in time.

And I don't want this commission to think that somehow the bonuses on the chief to prove the negative that Mr.

Benitez did not apply.

What we have in the documents before you here today is that as the evidence that substantiates that Mr.

Benitez was told he had no more ODI time, that he attempted to continue to use ODI time in calling in.

And when he was informed that he could not use ODI time, he chose instead to simply not come in.

When Sergeant Dirk received this report or received this allegation, she reviewed documentation from Sergeant Taylor, which substantiates exactly what I just said.

She sat down with Mr.

Benitez and asked him series of questions as to what he did and why he did it.

Mr.

Benitas, much like he did here today, indicated that it was everybody else's fault.

It was Sergeant Taylor's fault.

It was his wife's fault.

It was his doctor's fault.

It was anybody else's fault but his own that he could not pick up the phone, ask for paperwork to be sent for the time period again of October, November, December 2023.

When asked if he had medical substantiation that he could provide to Sergeant Taylor so that way she could, you know, go through and see if she could substantiate these things.

He said, Yes, of course I have so many documentations.

I'll I'll I'll definitely provide it to you.

Sergeant Taylor, or sorry, Sergeant Djerk, rather, waited for 10 days before filing her summary report, and not a single piece of paper, not a single communication from Mr.

Benitez.

He knew that he was being investigated at that point in time, was provided an additional opportunity to provide substantiation, medical substantiation for the time period that he was off, and again chose, chose not to provide anything.

When we apply case B to the five just cause factors here, should Mr.

Benitez know that if he had not come to work that he would have had that there would have been issues for him.

It seems silly to say that out loud, but of course the answer is yes.

Not only is it common knowledge, but is also written in the SOP, specifically 01015, which he was later uh uh charged with and and sustained with, right?

Should should, is that rule reasonable?

I'm chuckling here because yes, I I I can't, I can't fathom a world in which uh an employer has the ability has to identify why having an employee come to work is reasonable, and it particularly when it comes to our officers who we need on the streets or in the office in the case of Mr.

Benitez, assisting our citizenry with their issues.

Is did the was the uh investigation fair and objective?

Sergeant Gedrick asked Sergeant Drick received information, she reviewed the information, she interviewed Mr.

Benitez and gave him an opportunity to correct any issues and to provide additional documentation to substantiate his claims.

He chose not to do that.

And again, is there substantial evidence discovered that the chief uh the chief just discovered substantial evidence to determine that the rule was in fact violated?

Yes.

If we look at the uh documentation that's provided in the case B exhibits, specifically B06, um, he Mr.

Taylor, Mr.

Sergeant Taylor provided Mr.

Benitez with the specifics that he needed to report to work, he had no more ODI, and that he needed to come and he needed to follow up accordingly.

At no point in time in the city's records do we have any requests for his own serious medical condition for FMLA use at that time period.

Mr.

Benitez clearly violated this particular SOP and the chief submits that uh he sub uh he substantiated the five first just cause factors as it relates to case B.

Turning to case C to case C is almost a continuation of case B.

Focusing this time instead on the time period in January of 2024.

And time period of January of 2024, Mr.

Benitas specifically asked at that point in time to apply for FMLA.

He did it.

He knew the process.

Now he understands that he has the onus to go ahead and ask for, hey, can I use FMLA at this point in time?

When he was provided the medical paperwork, he didn't fill it out properly.

When he was identified, then when he was told that he did not fill that out properly by Sergeant Taylor's, uh by both Sergeant Taylor and Nancy Baker at the um medical section, and then that's going to be all throughout exhibit C6.

He was provided an opportunity to correct it multiple times.

Not only was he provided an opportunity to correct it multiple times, he later said, No, I'm not gonna use FMLA for this one particular chunk.

I'm gonna try to use it for these other times instead, right?

At that point in time, he had not appeared to work in January 2nd and January 3rd.

He indicated that he had no, he he knew that he had no FMLA time because he attempted to apply for it, and then said, No, I don't need to apply for it, and then did nothing else with that time.

So again, no call, no show for two days, recognizing that he doesn't have FMLA, saying I don't not need to apply for FMLA, and then doing absolutely nothing.

At this point in time, Sergeant Dietrich again asked, hey, do you have anything that would help substantiate why you were gone or what you were here for?

Right?

And again, Mr.

Benitez indicated that was the day that I had my appendix first, right?

The February times are the day that I had my appendix issue, and then I got my appendix taken out.

I have so much medical substantiation, I can clearly help you with that.

So Sergeant Dietrich asked, Hey, give it to me.

I'd love to see that.

I will make it a part of the record.

Again, requisite time period waited after the PI21 interview.

And what does Mr.

Benitas submit?

Nothing.

He does not contact uh Sergeant Drick again saying, Hey, I'm having a hard time finding this.

Hey, it's gonna take me a couple extra days.

You mind off waiting in your disposition?

What does he do?

He chose to do nothing.

So again, let's apply case C to our five just cause factors.

Again, the rule that Mr.

Uh Benita was charged to have violated is again the uh 010.

Focus on uh not being at work, being absent from with being absent without leave, not having approved leave, and being absent, no call, no show.

What we have here is is is that reasonable?

Yes, it is.

Could Mr.

Benitez known what would have happened had he not called into work and not showed up to work and not had approved time off?

Yes, yes, he can.

Um I want to pause here before we turn to the last one and say that Commissioner Fung asked a very good question to Mr.

Benitez.

Um, and I want to address it before you go into deliberations, and that was does Mr.

Benitez's subjective belief that he could not follow a rule matter, right?

This is this might have been day one, so you may not recall asking that question.

But Commissioner Fung asked the question as to do you believe, Mr.

Benitas, that if you can't, if you subjectively believe that you cannot follow the rule, you do not have to follow the rule.

Mr.

Benitez's answer was yes.

I'm shocked, and you should be as well.

There is under no circumstances should an officer's subjective belief as to what rules he can and cannot follow or should and should not follow.

I I I am I'm I'm speechless because such a belief does not compute with the duties of an officer to be sworn to uphold and defend the law.

There are times, and this commission is well aware, there are times where an officer has to make a domestic violence arrest, right?

They have to.

That's the law.

And if they don't do it, what happens?

They sit before you here because they don't follow the law.

Their subjective belief as to oh, this guy seems like a good guy, doesn't matter.

The same thing applies here.

Mr.

Benitas's subjective belief that he could not do something, does not negate the fact that it has to be done per the rule.

It's that simple.

I'm gonna echo Captain Looney's statement as he was reviewing these cases and indicating to you that at the end of the day, all the smoke and years, all the red herrings, all the theatrics.

This case really boils down to a very simplistic set of facts.

Mr.

Benito's was out, Mr.

Benitez was ordered in.

Mr.

Benitez refused to come in.

Mr.

Benitez had no time off, had no PTO accrued.

Mr.

Benitez had no approved time off, and he still chose to not come in to work.

It's that simple.

If you break it down and it's fundamental elements, it's that simple.

I'm gonna finish up now with case D because we have four.

And here, an examiner, you are quite right.

I will never have four cases combined ever again, because this is a slug.

Case four, we have Mr.

Benitez again exhibiting very similar behavior.

Now he's going to again, I would submit to you likely indicate that this case is different because unlike the cases in the fall of 2024, he was an inpatient, right?

But you also heard him just testify as commissioner Fung's questions, is that he had the opportunity to apply for FMLA and he thought that he did it, and then it turned out it wasn't done correctly.

If you remember his previous testimony, if you remember the testimony of Sergeant Taylor at that point in time, Sergeant Taylor didn't immediately deny that.

She gave him the time to get it right.

She gave the time to do it correctly.

When he came back, and I do want to make this clear because I think uh opposing counsel did ask a lot of muddying questions here.

Mr.

Benitez was in out of state for a period of time.

At that point in time, MPD was checking in on him to ensure to see where he was.

Mr.

Benitez came back at the end of uh April, the end of April 2025.

In fact, he was in court in May of 2025.

So to be clear, he wasn't gone for a 60-day time period that counsel initially indicated that he was gone for.

He was gone for a shorter period of time.

He was back in state, at least by the end of April, early May, and he was being contacted to fill out paperwork.

At that point in time, he was on notice that his paperwork was not approved for FMLA for the previous time.

At no point in time, and this is paramount, at no point in time was he ever told that he could not reapply for FMLA.

Hey, this paperwork's not approved.

You didn't get it done by the time period, we're gonna deny it.

There's nothing that says I can't reapply and fix the issue.

He was never told that the law doesn't say that.

There's nothing in this case that would allow for that to be um a reasonable objection or a reasonable reason as to why Mr.

Benitez didn't follow the rules here.

Again, in this case with case D, Mr.

Benitez was charged with not following directives from the sergeants.

And that directive, to be clear, is come to work.

He was also charged with again violating the AWAL policy because he did not have approved time off.

He was not in, he no called, no showed for I believe 34 specific instances.

And I just want to make sure that I'm correct here.

I don't want to lie to you all.

36.

36 separate instances of not appearing to work with not having approved time off.

All of that is within the exhibits before you.

Um, I would recommend if the commission is so uh willing to review exhibit D2, which is uh Sergeant Cavasos's uh summary report, which outlines the specific days in which he was out, the attempts made by MPD to get in contact with him, and the um response thereto.

So if you look at all that information again as you'd apply to the five just cause factors, could Mr.

Benitez have uh known of the probable consequences of not showing up to work?

Yes.

Could uh was the rule uh reasonable?

Yes.

Was the chief, did the chief made a reasonable effort to discover whether the subordinate did in fact violate the rule?

I submit D to D2 is a prime example of all the reasonable efforts that um the IA officers went uh sergeants went through, whether that whether that effort was fair and objective.

Sergeant Cavasos testified that she didn't know Mr.

Benita's same thing with Sergeant Dietrich, did not know Mr.

Benitez, did not work with Mr.

Benitez, did not have a perception of Mr.

Benitas, but rather was just trying to determine did Mr.

Benitas have approved time off, did he use it?

If not, that's the allegation.

Five and finally, whether the chief discovered substantial evidence that the rule was violated.

Again, I submit to you the documents before you substantiate the fact that not only did Mr.

Benitez um not have a proof time off and he did not use it, he knew that he did not have a proof time off and still chose not to call, not to show and not to appear at work.

Again, when you strip the cases down to their bare elements and to what this case is ultimately about, that's what it is.

If you review the documentation, and if you review, if you recall the testimony of our investigating sergeants and the internal affairs captain who sustained these charges, you'll I believe agree with me that um the chief has met his burden with respect to all five just cause factors and all four of these matters and request a finding um in uh uh to that degree.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll try and be brief given the breadth and seriousness of the matters being discussed.

The department is charged, officer Benitas with four separate work rule violations.

Sorry.

I can go again.

I'll try and be brief given he breath.

Okay.

I'll try and be brief given the breath and seriousness of the matters being discussed.

The department has charged Officer Benitez with four separate work rule violations, a domestic violence offense, and three instances of alleged absence without leave.

Well, we submit the full record, days of hearing testimony, thousands of pages of medical records and exhibits set sets A through E do not sustain these charges.

In case A, the department case rests on two things an arrest by the Muskego Department police department and a misdemeanor charging decision by the Waukeshaw County District Attorney.

Uh Sergeant Riley confirmed his investigation was not designed to determine whether the incident actually occurred as alleged.

That in his words, that was the court's decision, not his probable cause to arrest is not the preponderance of evidence that the law was violated.

The charge was disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor arising from a disputed cell phone interaction.

Officer Benitez denied it in his PI 21 interview.

There was no weapon, no documented serious injury, no independent witness other than the complaint, and there was no conviction.

The criminal charge was ultimately resolved by a citation and dismissal.

And this commissioner should not sustain the charge based on solely a disputed misdemeanor arrest.

Relax.

And there was no resulting conviction.

Turning to the A-Wall charges, just to evaluate them.

The commission should first understand the events that made them inevitable.

The on-duty injury the city spent three years refusing to accept is real.

In May of 2022, Officer Benitez was rising, riding as a passenger in a squad car driven by his pet uh partner, Officer Matthew Anderson.

Then they were responding to an active call, driving near 50 miles per hour.

Vehicle cut in front of them.

Officer Anderson executed an emergency breaking maneuver.

The body camera footage that we all saw.

We I believe it was on the first day.

Um cut in front of them.

Um sorry.

Um confirmed that the squad uh car decelerated rapidly and almost instantly.

Um because the passenger car seat in this particular unit was broken and couldn't be adjusted, adjusted.

Officer Benita's head was positioned unnaturally close to the roof, and he struck his head.

The immediate consequences were so severe he lost consciousness, had acute pain, numbness, and he disassociated.

Followed over the next few weeks and months was much worse.

Chronic neck pain, spine pain, nerve pain, and a tingling through his lower spine and arms.

He has uncontrollable neck popping, sleep apnea, cognitive impairment, memory loss, and what would later be identified as vomiting of spinal fluid from his left nostril.

Apologies.

You all remember he testified uh my symptoms were so obvious.

You couldn't miss them unless you were trying to miss them.

Um my client's a strong person, he's not superhuman.

If you look at the body camera recording, this confirms his injury, despite all these observable symptoms of serious head trauma.

He was not immediately taken to the hospital.

The medical record that we've all been looking at, observing, and again, I apologize for the uh four pages uh per page.

Um we've seen for the last three years they've got no room for reasonable doubt.

Our physical therapist, Dr.

Christian uh Colin Christianson documented at the initial evaluation in September 2022.

There was a cervical range of motion deficit of 10 to 20 degrees falling below the 50 to 55 minimal needed for effective environmental scanning in a patrol vehicle and a self-reported neck disability score of 42, placing him in the moderate disability category.

The physician notes from April 2023 in exhibit 17, which you can turn to now if you like, documented his axle neck pain consistent of spoliosis and facet atropy, together with the secondary elements of compensatory massopascial pain.

The IME doctor uh communicated diagnosis of traumatic brain injury in a letter sent directly to Officer Benita's.

Officer Benita's also received treatment at the Brave Clinic from a multidisciplinary team of psychiatrists, neurologists, and physical therapist, followed by 60 days of inpatient residential treatment at the refuge.

A facility that specializes in trauma, serving from the same population of trauma survivors as victims of mass shootings, and this isn't the kind of place for people who are malingering.

My client likes to call it trauma camp.

Officer Benita's testified that his physicians confirmed his mental health conditions overlap directly with his physical injuries.

He's described this accumulation as not a single discrete event that put him in this state, but as a cascade in trauma, the head trauma, the unresolved pain, the three years of institutional friction, the hardship loaded deniers, and this unrelenting pressure from the medical section.

They all compounded with each other, uh, leading to the crisis.

The department had the capacity and the legal obligation to prevent, but they did not.

The department's response to this is documented, dash can confirm, physician supported, IME acknowledged, and there was no care, no accommodation, and no good faith engagement with my client.

Uh it was three years of escalating skepticism managed by an undertrained medical section officer who called the injury alleged in writing and treated every physician recommendation as potential fraud to be en masse.

Sergeant Mr.

Taylor, who again was one month into her posting, uh, when she encountered Officer Benitez, used the increasingly familiar word alleged in writing communication about his injury.

Um she was asked under oath whether she believed in the injury.

She said if the only way she could talk about that is if she had personally witnessed it.

She initially said yes.

She described the doctrine of supporting it for a hybrid work schedule as something generated to avoid any repercussions and to make that wash away, so to speak.

She characterized the provision of the medical documentation after she raised an issue as merely a coincidence, implying that it was a manufacturer manufactured note in response to her confirmation rather than acting on a physician's recommendation.

She told him it was unethical for his own IME doctor to share a TBI diagnosis, the diagnosis that explained all of these symptoms, all of his pain, and that she had no medical ethics training, no legal training, and no authority beyond the first month's assignment to her new position.

Most damningly, Sergeant Taylor received the actual IME reporting from Officer Benita's through a transmission from Corbell's Michael Mole, I believe I'm pronounced that correctly.

Um then when she called the department of employee relations, she was instructed to destroy it before reading it.

Obviously, she complied.

She's writing the document of the only copy of the record that she would need to compare with it, what the IME doctor actually found of the document against uh what Coral's summary email actually entailed.

For the reminder of her three-year uh tenure as the arbiter of Officer Benita's medical status, uh sorry, remainder, she relied on that summary email filtered by the workers' compensation insurer whose financial incentive is to minimize the payouts.

Well, the full diagnostic findings were treated merely as garbage.

Then, when Officer Benitez told Taylor that Dr.

Jarez had been communicated a TBI diagnosis to him directly, and I provided a letter confirming it.

Taylor's response was not to seek a copy of the report she had destroyed or to follow up, it was to tell him that the doctor had acted improperly.

She discredited the TBI diagnosis by imputing the conduct of the doctor who made it.

A doctor the city had hired whose findings she had never read.

Uh excuse me.

Using professional ethics standards, she had no training to apply.

To understand that the AWOL charges had become more comprehensible, not as misconduct by Officer Benidez, but as a predictable outcome of a system that cut off his ability to be paid, refused to approve his leave, and then charged him for being absent.

The sequence in case B is instructive on or about November 10 or 11th, 2023.

Sergeant Taylor informed District 1 supervisors that Officer Benitez could no longer use due duty injury on duty pay by determination made not by any policy, not by physician, but by Corval's communication about the IME.

Filtered through Taylor, delivered to the supervisor without the underlying report.

We were so sorry, I left my place.

Benitez had had no sick time, he had no injury pay.

Taylor had denied the FMLA requests.

He had nowhere to go.

Sergeant Dietrich's investigation to resulted in absences between November 11th and December 15, 2023, which was roughly 18 days, depending on when it happened.

Confirmed that supervisors went to his home on multiple occasions and ordered him back to work.

His document responses like I'll see you tonight, that never materialized.

Department charged him as AWOL.

Sergeant Dietrich confirmed under oath that this was not that she was not tasked with investigating Sergeant Taylor or whether Taylor properly administered the FMLA.

She was sergeant investigating Officer Benitez reported to work.

When asked whether she took any steps to investigate these medical conditions or whether it was related to his absences, she answered, correct.

Just merely correct.

She took no steps.

She knew he had a medical condition, and according to him, she had confirmed that she made no effort to determine whether that condition caused these absences.

She was documenting, and took no steps beyond that because it would be simply outside of her abilities.

The investigation was designed from the start just to count the day's absent, not to understand what was going on there with his documented TBI, making him unable to report.

Most tellingly, Sergeant Dietrich's own investigative report, which she drafted, which her supervisor signed, documented that during his PI 21 interview, Officer Benita stated she could not recall if the FMLA was ever reported.

However, he reported to work on January 4th, 2022, because he was being harassed by the medical section and he felt he needed to work, injured or not.

Dietrich acknowledged this statement was in a report that she she then asked what steps she took to investigate the harassment allegation.

Her answer was it's not harassment, and she took no steps because a man with a TBI told his investigator he returned to work while injured.

Not because he was medically cleared, not because the FMLA issue was resolved, but because the medical section had made this existence so difficult he felt he had no other choice and he could not move on.

The investigator recorded it, dismissed it, and moved on.

Case C as another dimension of this as well.

Uh, in January 2024, Officer Benitez notified District One Lieutenant that he had approved the FMLA leave.

Burkhurst told him that if he had been relied at relayed to the district office, HRA Nancy Baker had later confirmed the leave had been approved, but not that communicated through the system.

Benita's nearly accumulated AWOL days for an absence.

The medical section itself had authorized but failed to communicate.

The administrative left hand was not telling the operational right what had been decided, and Officer Benidez seemed to be a common thread throughout this entire case, bore the consequences.

For case D, the timeline is most damaging to the department.

Officer Benidez was admitted to the refuge on March 2025.

The facility case manager Ellen Mendez sent a notice of admittance to the medical section, his timestamp for the same day confirming he was in residential treatment under the doctor's care with an underdetermined undetermined discharge date.

Captain Teals uh in Captain Teal's April 2022, 2025 memorandum, the document that initiated this AWOL investigation acknowledges this fact, and this acknowledged FMLA paperwork had been forwarded.

And yet it requested termination.

Sergeant Caves read that memo on the day one of the investigation.

She knew it was subjected to inpatient medical treatment, and she did not investigate Taylor's FMLA processing.

She knew her investigation on May 19, six days before the discharge date.

More than a month after the AWAL accumulation began.

The charge specification Captain Looney signed in May 2025, stated that Benitez did not submit an application for FMLA leave, and that's simply not true.

He submitted it, he was denied, and Looney acknowledged on the cross-examination.

This distinction was immaterial in his mind.

A charging document misstates that whether an officer submitted required paper is not a charging document that can support any substantiated finding.

Even if this commission sustained the work or violation of finding, we submit the record does not support, obviously.

The question for just cause on determination is separate independent analysis that the department fails on this.

I'm so sorry.

The theory animating the department's three-year response to Officer Benitez can be stated plainly.

They did not believe he was really hurt.

They believed he was gaining the system using an invisible injury to avoid work, collect pay, and obtain accommodations he had not earned.

This belief was never stated in any kind of formal finding, never subjected to the expert review, and never directly confronted with the extensive medical record that directly contradicts it.

But it runs through every interaction documented in this record.

From Sergeant Taylor's coincident language to Captain Teal's termination request filed while Benitez was still in inpatient care.

The bitter irony of the fact that the commission must sit with is that the city's own evidence refutes this theory.

Department points to the IME at every turn.

Sergeant Taylor used it to override treating physicians.

She communicated its findings to supervisors and internal affairs as the authoritative word on Benitez.

Captain Looney cited to it as when sustaining the charges, and Sergeant Dietrich relies on it to conclude Benita's was capable of returning to work.

The IME is the department's cornerstone, if you will.

But the IME is missing in action and is not relied on, and in fact, actively ignored.

Taylor destroyed her copy of its reports.

We know what the record is from.

The IME doctor, Dr.

Jaraz communicated to Officer Benidez in writing that he had sustained the TBI and the IME restrictions as filtered through Corval placed him on full-time limited duty, not full duty or limited duty five days a week at the desk.

This is not a finding of malingering.

This is not a finding that the injury was fabricated.

This is a finding that officer Benidez for had real documented limitations that precluded him from performing his full duties there.

The department used the IME so they could put him on a desk job, then they denied its accommodations that made his desk job unsustainable.

When he asked for shift changes, breaks, physical therapy appointments, they denied it.

Then they used his inability to sustain the accommodation-free death schedule as evidence that he was not trying hard enough.

Fired him.

Stepped out of the squad car, and a criminal's bullet had struck Officer Benitez in the back of the head.

Imagine that it caused the same cranial trauma, the same cervical spine damage, the same cognitive impairment.

And it resulted in the same inability for him to fall fulfill his full-time duty was all in the same uh damage found in the copious medical records we provided.

I don't believe the department's response would be the same.

Sergeant Taylor would not say he was allegedly injured in the communications to the supervisors.

The physician signed recommendation of his neurologist and the physical therapist would not have been returned as invalid because they didn't use the right words.

The IME report confirming the disability would not have been ordered destroyed before medical section.

His request for a hybrid work schedule would not have been dismissed as something designed to make the issue wash away.

The department would have pre-communicated the denial of his leave request to internal affairs the day before the formal notice was issued.

IA definitely would not have opened for A-Wall investigations into someone while he was retreat uh receiving inpatient trauma.

Would not happen because a gunshot wound bleeds is immediately visible.

Uh goes through the uniform and generates the emergency response of hospital admissions, surgical records, and the full institutional embrace of a police department that knows how to honor its police officers when they see them or get hurt.

The department holds press conferences, the chief goes to the hospital room, and officers even stand individual.

Officer Benita's injury was internal.

His concussion didn't leave a visible wound.

His traumatic brain injury doesn't bleed through his uniform, his spinal uh fluid discharge was visible to people who were there with him in the moment, not anyone who walked by him.

His cognitive impairment, his vertigo, his chronic headaches, none of it announced itself the way that a sergeant with a police science associate's degree in one month on the job could see and immediately believe.

And because the department could not see the wound, it chose to disbelieve it.

It treated an invisible injury as suspected fraud and used every administrative tool at his disposal, medical substantiation requirements, the IME overrides, FMLA denials, destroying reports, predecided outcomes, and these AWOL charges to build the case for a termination.

They decided to pursue or the process was supposedly had been followed and concluded.

This is a breach of any duty they had to officer Benidez.

The commission has the power to say that this isn't how it treats his officer, and we're asking that you exercise that power.

Actually, that the uh department treat an officer Benitez who treat as though he was injured in standard practice.

Officer Benita's testified that while he was working in District One on limited duty, another officer had a hand sprain with a simultaneous accommodation for four hours per day.

Officer Benitez, who was again recovering from his own injury, was required to work eight hour shifts, attend physical therapy on his own time, and care for his children without any sort of shift accommodations that he repeatedly requested.

His accommodation requests were modest and reasonable, a shift change to make physical therapy appointments, occasional days off during flare-ups, and the basic ergonomic support, like a monitor stand that would prevent him from bending to his injury.

The monitor stand was actually provided, but that was from an office clerk and not through a formal process.

The shift changes were denied the hardship letters which were filed through the department's formal grievance process were denied several times, and there were these are not the requests of some kind of malinger.

These are the requests of an officer trying to stay employed and manage his genuine disability and being watched by a colleague with a minor injury who received accommodations without any sort of bureaucratic resistance.

When he was asked about this disparity, Officer Benitez wasn't bitter.

He didn't feel resentful.

He thought that his colleague deserved that.

He just thought he deserved it too.

Department's theory, turning to K D.

Um, case the department's theory on case D is that Officer Benita's simply stopped showing up to work and refused to engage in the league process.

The record tells a different story.

Officer Benito's testified his mental health condition is not separate from his physical injury, and the records also support this.

It's a direct consequence of it.

It's an accumulating process of unprocessed trauma over three years, the physical pain of the injury, the cognitive effects of a TBI, the institutional pressure from the medical section that questioned his every submission and the denial that came from his every attempt to engage with them.

He lacked sleep and he was unable to attend therapy.

He described this as an inability to cope properly.

He sought help, he enrolled in the Brave Clinic for the outpatient care for his multidisciplinary team, as we described earlier.

When that was not sufficient, he arranged admission to the refuge.

Um, like we said, the trauma camp earlier.

Um, when he was discharged, he was immediately recommended for uh termination or before that.

I apologize.

The department's response to learning that he was an inpatient treatment was to deny his FMLA and to initiate the AWAL investigation, whose opening document uh requested his termination back in April 2022.

Uh, in April 2022, April 22, sorry, April 22nd.

Apologies.

Now, this was written while he was still at the refuge, and they were acknowledging his treatment and they acknowledged the FMLA paperwork had been submitted, and they still recommended his termination.

Sergeant Cavassos confirmed that she knew all of this when she began the investigation, and she did not ask whether the TBI could have affected his ability to navigate that paperwork.

She took Sergeant Taylor's FMLA determination on face value and closed the investigation six days before he could even be reached, meaningfully.

She wrote a report that combined the charge specifications.

Captain Looney signed, stated that Benitez had never submitted the FMLA application, which is simply untrue.

Just cause can't rest on a foundation of an unlawfully uh administered denial.

The FMLA is a federal statute with specific procedural requirements, eligibility notices with five business days for qualifying event, rights and responsibility notices with each leave request, designation, notices for each approval and denial, and a seven-day cure period when certifications are found deficient.

Apologies.

Pamela Roberts, the HR administrator in this case, who supervised the medical section, testified that she did not know that the rights and responsibilities of what the rights and responsibilities of the notice were, and did not know the amended certification deadline.

She never audited Taylor's FMLA administration against the federal compliance standards.

Roberts evaluated the FMLA work that Taylor performed as satisfactory without being able to identify the federal framework governing the function she was supposed to be overseeing.

Where Taylor communicated the outcome to supervisors and internal affairs in May before the formal designation.

Is the clearest evidence that the process of not being administrated in good faith when the conclusion arrives before the analysis, the process is not protecting the employee, it's a mechanism to arrive at the outcome that's already been decided.

The medical section clearly doesn't understand the FMLA.

It defines a health care provider as merely a doctor and not someone who administers health care as defined by the state, the case law and even the statute define it as otherwise.

Robert's confirmed under oath the department's own position is that the IME does not override an FMLA request, which contradicts the policy.

Taylor had applied to Officer Benita's over its three years.

Further, just cause demands proportionality.

Officer Benita's has sustained a fundamental injury.

He has worked through that injury.

He has sought help at overcoming great stigma, and he has only been faced with someone who has not done her job properly.

Soldiers who have been in war, he was met with simply more obstacles.

Being charged with AWOL wall and inpatient treatment under the charge specifications that misstated whether he applied for it at all.

An investigation opened by a memorandum that requested his termination before the process was even begun is simply not fair, and it's not due process.

Any rebuttal.

Any indication that any of the officers, including Sergeant Taylor, Sergeant Cavasso, Sergeant Riley, Sergeant Dietrich, Captain Teal, or Captain Looney as being untrue are unfounded, baseless, and um quite frankly problematic.

So I do want to make the record clear.

Um the department has uh put forth sufficient evidence and uh again, which is before you.

I'm not gonna go ahead and cite through all of it right now.

The department has put forth sufficient evidence to substantiate all the claims against Mr.

Benita's the alley, the investigations are done thoroughly properly and to the degree in which this commission expects it to be done.

Um and Captain Looney sustained good charges against Sergeant Ben or against Mr.

Benita's.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Is there a motion to close the session for a phase one determination?

So move.

Sorry, second.

Second.

Second, that this closed session uh for purposes of determining whether or not violations occurred uh in phase one.

Uh, and that if so, then we move on to phase two, which is the penalty phase, uh, and uh first after determined the violations actually uh were committed under those circumstances uh by a proponents of the audience.

That being said, we'll go into closed session at this time, and I would ask uh all of you to be outside, and we'll get back in touch with here as soon as we have a determination on the issues uh before the commission uh under phase one.

Okay, good morning, everyone.

We're gonna reconvene.

And um advice everyone has to the phase one determination.

Commissioners have determined uh that uh there is uh the evidence under the just cause requirements.

Uh chapter sixty two to allow for each of the particular charges now before the commission to go forward to a phase two uh determination as far as what if any penalty should be uh given as to each of those charges, and that as such a lot of people are gonna be able to do it.

All right, thank you, hearing examiner.

Chief Norman would call assistant chief sarno to the stand, please.

Okay.

Main standing chief, please.

Okay, I'll be swear to tell the truth.

The whole truth is nothing but the truth of how you got in the matter now before this commission.

I do all right.

Please have a seat.

Please state your full name for the record, spell your first and last name and your uh official title as far as the department is concerned.

Sure.

Uh my name is my name is uh Craig Sarno, that's C R A I G S A R N O W, and I'm an assistant chief of police for the Milwaukee Police Department.

All right, thank you, sir.

All right, uh proceed.

Thank you, hearing examiner.

Good morning, Chief Sarno.

Morning.

Um, can you please explain to the commissioners what your duties are as assistant chief of police?

Sure.

I am the uh one of three assistant chiefs.

I oversee, thank you.

I oversee the administration bureau, which uh is composed of 10 different 10 different divisions staffed by approximately 156 sworn and 144 civilian personnel divisions within the administration bureau that are under my executive oversight include the internal affairs division, the human resource division, budget and finance division, um, the facility services division, the information technology division, um both central booking and um the court administration um divisions, um, open records division and records management um division.

I think I got them all.

I'm proud of you for that.

Usually we think we stop at three, but uh yes, you got them all this time.

Okay.

Um can you describe for me your tenure with the department um uh before you became an assistant chief?

Sure.

Um at present I have um amassed 27 and a half years on the department, um, came on in uh 1998, did my uh required amount of time as a police officer that came to about seven years.

Then I was um fortunate enough to have the opportunity to promote into um a supervisory role, was a police sergeant from 2005 through 2017, um, mostly uh at the second district, but in the end, I did a um a number of months in the internal affairs division uh as an investigator, was promoted lieutenant um and went to uh district number one as a lieutenant, went back to um after about two years.

I went back to the internal affairs division as a lieutenant, uh, was promoted out of there to captain, where I went to then the criminal investigation bureau um as the captain of the fusion division.

Um went uh did about a year there, and then I went back to the internal affairs division as the captain, was promoted out of the internal affairs division um to inspector of police in December of 21.

Um, where I was still assigned to the administration bureau as an inspector and then promoted to assistant chief in uh January of 24 and became the assistant chief of the administration bureau.

Uh fair to say that you've had experience at all levels of the internal affairs division.

Uh yes, in the rule side specifically.

Yes, uh, I was a sergeant there, so I I did the same kind of functions and had the same kind of cases like Sergeant Riley, Sergeant Cavasos, and Sergeant Diedrich.

I've sat where Lieutenant Ross has sat and looked at those cases to ensure the that it was a preponderance of evidence to sustain the charges and my recommendations to um the captain.

Um so I sat where Captain Looney was, and as well as reviewing um the sergeant's investigation, the lieutenant's covers, and then um making uh my recommendations to the chief of police and presenting such cases to the chief of police.

Okay.

Let's go ahead and talk about the presentation of those uh of those cases with respect to presenting um with respect to when IA presents cases to the chief for discipline.

Can you describe for me that process generally?

Sure.

Um generally um the process, uh well, one the chief is always included in that process because outside of sorry I'm having some difficulties here with this, but um outside of uh the captain of the uh internal affairs division, which under the chief has the authority to issue uh a written reprimand, only the chief of police has the authority to issue, thank you, as the uh authority to issue formal discipline.

So the chief first and foremost is involved in uh, if not all, the majority, if not all of these processes.

Um, and then uh beyond that it's uh the members of his executive command staff that are part of the discipline or part of the discipline review process.

Um members of the executive command staff include the assistant chiefs, uh or could include the assistant chiefs, the inspectors of police, the chief of staff, uh, and the risk manager.

I say could because it's based upon our the availability of our schedule.

Uh discipline review is typically conducted every other Tuesday.

Okay.

Um what specific facts or what what is presented to uh the chief and the discipline and the executive command staff as a part of discipline reviews?

Sure.

IAD typically, ID meaning the internal affairs division.

Um will typically bring um several cases for us to or will present several cases to us on that Tuesday.

Uh they typically it typically begins with um uh identifying how the case came to our attention.

Did this come as a result of a citizen making a complaint, or was this the result of an internally generated complaint, meaning the misconduct or the allegation of misconduct was identified uh within the organization by typically a supervisor.

Um so it begins with that, then they kind of lay out you know the timeline of the incident, the timeline of the event.

Uh they then present any evidence uh or relay any evidence that um that they uh gathered as part of their investigation.

Um that evidence can come in the form of video, which is typically body worn camera or some type of surveillance um and and or documentation.

Um that's not to say that all cases uh have body worn camera, some cases are just strictly um based on documentation and interview.

So they present that to us, uh that then they go over the uh the charges, how they got essentially from allegation point A to point B, them being sustained and being presented to the chief.

Uh those charges um include the specifications, which is a detailed kind of summary of uh what the uh incident was and the uh officers um uh uh officer's PI21 interview, and then how that charge was sustained and presented to um the chief and us today, chief to chief and the command staff weigh that against the members' discipline history, uh their revaluations, uh, and then balance that against um the department's discipline matrix and any comparable cases uh that are similar in nature.

Can you tell me why?

I mean, you gave me a lot of there.

Can you tell me why the facts are reviewed, why you reviewed any necessary um documentation or video, uh while you review the charges, valuations, discipline history, discipline matrix, et cetera.

Why, why do we why are those the things that are looked at?

Sure.

When you talk about you know, police discipline and you use words and it's even included in the matrix as being fair and consistent, fairness in this context refers to everybody held to the same standards, same rules.

Um, those standards being our code of conduct, those fundamental standards of performance and conduct that are consistent with the higher standards of policing and consistency meaning how we apply those standards with respect to those to the cases that are before us.

So the process is consistently the same in um in uh in that regard.

And it has to be frankly to get to a decision that's both reasonable and um proportionate to the circumstances that um are in each case because each case is different.

Can you're generally familiar with why you're here today?

Yes.

And generally familiar with the underlying four matters.

Yes.

Okay.

Before we turn to that, I do want to identify, you know what?

No, we'll start there.

So we're gonna start with um case A.

So there should be series of documents, and I will hold commissioners if you give me one second.

I have to shift some paper here.

Were you present for the presentation of the discipline regarding Mr.

Benito's matters?

Do you recall?

Yes, I was um one of seven members of the executive command staff that were present on August 12th of 2025 when um the four cases involving him were presented to us.

Okay, I'm gonna ask you to turn your attention to exhibit A10 for me.

That's A10 A10 Bates label number page 388.

In the future, my base numbers will be much larger printed.

Uh I am there.

Okay.

Um you explain to me what this document is.

Can you explain to me what this document is?

Yes, this is called the discipline review summary sheet.

Um, this is a um reflection of uh the individual discipline case.

Again, this was one of four cases that we uh that were presented to us.

Um it was file number as it says in the second line from the top 2024-0068.

So this was um, I think this was number three in the series that we had uh that were presented to us that day.

Um this is typically filled out.

One of these is filled out for every case that's presented to us, and it's always filled out by the internal affairs division.

This one when I uh flip it over, um, reflects it was prepared for by um Captain Liam Looney.

Okay, and this one is um specifically related to the domestic violence incident um that um Mr.

Benitez was involved in.

Okay.

Um can you tell me what facts were presented to um the chief as it relates to the domestic violence charges?

Uh yes.

So uh this was um again an off-duty incident that happened at his home that um warranted the response of uh another law enforcement jurisdiction who made us aware uh that um he was being placed into custody for a domestic violence-related incident.

Um the internal affairs division, believe it was the um special investigation section.

The detectives monitored that case um as a result.

Um, and uh what was presented to us that day were the circumstances that warranted the call uh that ultimately led to his arrest.

Um he was initially charged, but it was later dismissed.

Uh the citation, I believe, was um you know is reflected here was ordered to be issued instead.

Um what was presented to us uh in addition to that was his um um a synopsis of his PI21 interview because every member is a four-to-due process and he was no different.

So he uh they relayed to us the synopsis for that.

Um there was ID established a preponderance of evidence that he violated um core value three, guiding principle 305.

And that I believe was the yes, the loan charge in this case that was per uh before the chief and the executive command staff.

Okay.

And when uh you were provided the facts, including Mr.

Benitas's statements during the PI21 interview.

Did you get a chance to review anything um submitted on behalf or submitted by Mr.

Benitas?

No, um, every member has a right um when they are served with charges to respond to the charges.

Um we understand that the PI21 interview process can be very stressful.

There's always one question at the end that is typically framed.

Do you have anything else you wish to add?

Um, some members choose to answer that, some don't, but we understand again how stressful that process in and of itself can be.

Um, but time and space um affords um what we believe is clarity.

So when you're presented with your charges and a summary, you have every member has 10 days to respond to said charges, and the purpose of that is to that's your opportunity to talk to the chief directly.

Chief, I realize I'm charged with this thing, but this is what I want you to know.

Um, there was no um response to charges submitted um as a result of uh in this particular case as it's circled no in the uh middle section.

Okay, what does that mean to you?

It means that the member opted to not take advantage of that opportunity to um speak directly to the chief or the executive command staff.

Okay.

Um so after you were presented with the uh information that was uh sustained at the internal affairs division.

Um I believe you said that you compared that with code of conduct, discipline matrix, his past history, et cetera.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay, so can you and I'm gonna ask you to shift and I'm sorry, can you go ahead and look for me at exhibit E as an elephant two?

As in both.

Yep.

I have it.

Thank you.

Um Commissioners, that's going to be exhibit E2.

That's gonna be uh the discipline matrix Bates labeled pages 594 to 608.

594608.

Now, Mr.

Benitas was charged with violating code of conduct uh uh core value three, referencing guiding principle 305.

Um, can you describe for me how you would look that up on this document?

Sure.

Once uh if you turn to an I'm sorry, that page is numbered.

Uh it ends on the bottom 000 601.

No, wait, never mind.

603, 603.

So the discipline matrix uh matrixes, first of all, are used by uh not just us, but many police departments um to outline um what the discipline could be.

Um they serve as a framework uh to ensure that um discipline is administered um consistently across the board.

Um, but with consistency comes again the nuances of each case, and they again serve as a guide for the chief in the executive command staff to determine what the discipline um could be.

Uh, but again, it's it is balanced against um all the other factors I mentioned.

With uh once you turn to the back, you will see, and again, I'm on page 000603.

Um, you will see uh a number of core values, guiding principles on here in the middle of which you'll see 305.

And it's broken down by um um different um uh a few different um subsections A through D.

Uh and each one of them carries with it a little X in the relative uh in their sanction categories.

Sanction category A is would be the least punitive, the least amount of corrective action.

That's what you would see your typically your non-disciplinary corrective actions.

And as we move forward, going from left to right, A through E, the um discipline gets progressively more significant, more severe, um, based on um the circumstances of the case and this matrix um having been the architect of the original version and the the latest version, the 2025 version, is based on um comparable cases of the past uh because in 21, the chief did not have a body of discipline to draw from.

Um so we had to build it off of cases from previous chiefs, but in 2025, um he did by that point.

So we kind of um uh redesigned it, reset some of the values, and um uh although the one that um we reviewed for Mr.

Benitez was the 21 version.

So let me go ahead and ask you to uh verify for me that uh where or ask, I'll actually ask you, where would uh Mr.

Benita's charge of um battery DV fall on this discipline chance?

Uh well, this was a uh criminal case, um, and we um looked at it as such.

So we looked at it as a 305 um subsection D.

Um, I do realize that he uh in the end the charge was dismissed and he was issued.

Um we took note that he was issued a citation as such, but um the chief and the executive command staff felt that there was a preponderance of evidence that he actually violated the criminal violation portion of it and uh believe that the 10-day suspension that um uh was 10-day suspension was warranted.

Okay.

Um, and then I don't know if I missed this or if I was coughing you said it.

Uh so this 305 sub D is a category E violation.

Yes.

And what does that mean?

A category E violation?

Uh well if we turn to page, I do know it by heart, but I will just uh refer everyone to page um in this same document zero zero zero five nine nine.

Um violations, and I'm just reading this um just this first paragraph, violations that include acts of serious misconduct or acts of criminal conduct.

This includes repeated acts from category D from the time frame listed above, and or conduct that would effectively disqualify a sworn member from continued employment as a law enforcement officer.

And then the other pair, the second part of that disposition may include suspension of 10 or more days, the motion, um, etc.

So uh believe we've uh we've already identified this, but what Mr.

What did Mr.

Benitez receive for um the charge uh being sustained for 305 in this case?

The chief um substantiated by um issuing or giving him a 10-day suspension without pay.

Okay, and that is on the lower end of the category E violations?

Yes.

Okay.

That the chief takes into consideration various uh comparators.

Can you describe for me what you mean when you say that?

Yeah, comparable cases, um, some uh cases in which um other department members uh may have been um where uh 305 violation has been sustained and brought before the chief for a um uh similar violation of um uh state law or ordinance.

Okay.

Um and in this case, uh who uh what other officers uh violations or what other officers uh sustained charges did the chief look to?

Uh the ones that uh the IED, and again, I'm just going to go back to the previous documents.

That's uh 000388.

It's exhibit 810.

Uh on the bottom of the first page, you'll see three cases that were brought to um our attention.

Uh three cases involving department members who received um suspensions under Chief Norman for a violation of core value three integrity guiding principle three oh five.

Okay.

And can you uh, as you said here today, can you identify for me what uh why these particular officers were polled or identified as potential comparators?

I believe um again, without uh um from my recollection, they and they had some type of criminal violation that warranted either an arrest or a citation as a result of um their uh criminal misconduct.

Understood.

Okay.

Um can you explain to me uh why the chief uh determined 10 days was the appropriate suspension?

Um I think or the appropriate discipline, I should say.

Yes, um, outside of what I had already um um what I have already uh what I already testified to it being a uh category E violation, the conduct um um was um was um very disturbing to hear um at least that what was uh presented as a result of the investigation of IED.

Again, we realize he was initially charged but was dismissed, but he got a citation.

That's not to say he still wasn't involved in a domestic violence incident um with his um um his significant other who um again we know through the investigation was getting a divorce from okay.

All right.

Is there anything else that you believe this commission should be aware about as it relates to this case, case A, I will call it.

Um looking at the review document, no.

Okay.

I am going to turn your attention now to what I have um of the we've been identifying as case B, um which is uh related to an investigation that Sergeant Diedrick did into um Mr.

Benita's failure to appear to work in the fall of 2023.

Were you present for the presentation of those charges to the chief?

Well, which exhibit are you on?

Oh, I'm in case B O in the data.

The exhibits got out of order.

Yes.

I'll turn your attention to exhibit B 12, I believe.

B as in boy 12 12.

Okay.

Um can you describe for me uh what this is?

Uh this is the discipline review summary feet now for um case number 2023-0361.

Okay.

Um it's incorrect.

2023 0361.

Exhibit B12.

Exhibit is B12 for the case, the personal order was 2025-169 involving.

Yes, uh the file number and the and the personnel order number are two different numbers.

Okay.

Sorry.

Just want to be consistent.

Yeah, I I yeah, understood.

Exhibit B 12.

Yep, B12.

Um, exhibit B 13 is personnel order 2025-169 here in the examiner.

Okay.

All right.

So taking a look at this one for me, please.

Can you identify for me what information was presented to the chief and the executive command staff relative to the charges that were investigated into uh the his conduct in fall of 2023?

Sure.

Um, similar to uh what I had just testified to previously, uh ID again laid out whether or not this was uh citizen or internally generated complaint.

This was internally generated, uh, presented us with a uh timeline of uh the uh the behavior of the misconduct, which for this case was um November 11th of 23 through December 14th of 23, uh laid out the um the uh the evidence that they got to um get from again point A to point B, get from allegation to it being charged in before us today.

That included the charge specification.

Uh again, we took into account the case file history for the member, um, the comparable cases related specifically to um this uh core value violation.

Uh noted that the member did not submit a response to charges to this as well, and against balanced uh all that against the discipline matrix as well as again the comparables.

Um I'm gonna ask you, and I think this is correct.

If you take a look again back at E2, that discipline matrix, is there a comp in the matrix related to uh the SOP violations?

Um there is not.

I'm looking at page uh again, this is exhibit E02, and I'm looking at page where it would be if it was in there would be zero zero six oh six, and they do not see anything reflected in there related to um the uh a rule violation related to absence.

Okay.

So that's where I think this SLP fell.

And what does that mean to you?

It just means that um when we uh designed the matrix back in 21, there really wasn't a lot of um comparable cases to draw from, not anything that was consistent.

Um the uh the body of um the violations that are in here are the ones that um have been frequently violated the most, and that's what's included in here.

Right.

So is it fair to say that um SOP 101 as it relates to absence and FMLA usage and using time appropriately doesn't happen that frequently within the department?

Uh probably you'd have to go back to um Chief Flynn to get that, but when we designed the matrix, we didn't go back quite that far.

Okay.

All right.

Um can you identify for me uh what uh specific facts that you were presented with uh for um this percent of charges.

Yeah, what stood out um with the presentation was the um 18 separate occasions that the uh member um did not show up to work.

Uh the fact that um there was no approved FMLA, um they didn't have any sick time to lose, um, that they were ordered to come into work by multiple supervisors but failed to do so.

Uh and the fact that um um I believe if I remember right, this was the case um because I remember taking note of it.

There were two things that stood out to me.

One was there was uh in one of the um supervisor home visits or check-ins on him they actually made contact with him, told him he had to come back to work.

I believe it was on um November 14th, because it was reflected in the uh in the summary that um made contour of them told him that he had to come back to work and he says, okay, maybe you'll see me later, maybe.

Um that comment stood out to me.

Uh and then there was I think something in there.

I can't remember if he stated in his PI21 interview or if it was just something that came up in the investigation.

He felt that the supervisors coming to his house to check on him was harassed, um, which kind of stood out to me.

You're the employee, we're your employer.

You're not coming to work, and we have every right to come to your residence to find out what's going on.

So those are the things, those are the two things outside of what ID had presented that stood out to me.

And you indicated that there was multiple supervisors who had to uh go to Mr.

Benitez's house in the fall 2023 to try to get him to come to work.

Can you describe for me what does that do for the department?

Well, considering that um, you know, again, and Mr.

Benitez does not live in the city of Milwaukee, so we're spending um time energy and resources in the form of um supervisors um to one go out to his residence.

Uh in some cases, they made phone calls to him or to physically go out to his residence again outside the city to determine um to order him to either come to work or determine why he wasn't coming to work.

So think about that, all that time, energy, and resources that could be spent um uh either through community engagement or enforcing the law and reducing crime in the city of Milwaukee are spent trying to get one person to come in to do the job that they were hired to do.

I see on here that uh, and again, there was multiple charges.

Um, I'll just ask you this.

Are you aware of the the amount of charges that were associated with this particular case that was presented?

Uh yes.

And what how many were there?

Uh there were uh three.

Okay.

With respect to um, and we'll start, I think as they are have identified themselves here.

We'll start with uh rest of referencing guiding principle uh SO Corvalue One, uh guiding principle 105 referencing SOP 010115.

Um, I'm gonna colloquially refer to that as the AWAL charge.

Is that okay?

Yes.

Okay.

So within the AWAL charge, can you identify for me um what was the ultimate decision there?

Yeah, um, it's reflected on uh the second page of that 000125 um near the bottom.

Um when the after the chief um was presented with this case, the chief and the executive command staff.

This was one that everyone uh was in agreement that um the uh corrective action in this case was to be discharged from the department.

Can you describe for me why that was the collective agreement?

Yeah, I mean, uh the 18 separate times uh that they were uh failed to come to work, the multiple attempts by supervisors to order him to come to work, all of that, the totality of everything involved.

Um the chief felt that uh for the good of the department, the good of the service discharge was warranted.

Um, do you think and can you describe for me how serious is this allegation?

This this AWAL allegation.

I think it's I don't think I know this is a very serious allegation um because uh for everything I just said before, I mean, we took an oath to protect and serve, and part of that involves you coming into work, begins with coming you to work to do the job you're paid to do.

And we did realize he was on administrative assignment, he's on administrative assignment at district number one.

Um I'm familiar with uh having worked in the districts and knowing um what the workflow is like there.

It is not a complicated job to do.

Um, and we weren't asking you to do anything that um um you weren't capable of doing.

So um for purposes of efficiency and getting this through and through, let's go ahead.

Can I ask you about that second charge specifically?

It's going to be um, I believe the competence core value one referencing guiding principle 106 that indicates that all department members shall report to duty at the time designated by their supervisors.

Um can you describe for me what the decision was there?

Yeah, the chief um yeah, the five-day suspension without pay.

I think the in this case, this is so the one, although the the uh SOP violation is not listed in the matrix, the 106 is, and I believe this is one that the uh chief stuck with the uh matrix on based on um what he had heard um on August 12th.

Okay.

And that being a category C violation, correct.

Okay, and again, category C violations are up to five days.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I'm gonna turn your attention now to the final charge as it relates to this particular um case that was presented in August of 25 to the chief, and that's referencing core value five, referencing guiding principle 503, which indicates that members shall promptly obey any proper or lawful order emanating from any higher official, any higher officer of higher rank.

Any improper or unlawful order should be reported to a supervisor of higher rank.

And can you tell me what the chief's decision was with respect to um that charge?

Yes, uh the chief um chief gave uh five-day suspension without pay related to the uh violation of 503.

Uh felt that um it uh and that decision aligned to uh along with the matrix's recommendation of a category C.

Um, he took note that uh not just the uh being ordered by the supervisors assigned to his work location, but again, the fact that um the uh the uh failure to file uh the FMLA as was instructed by the supervisor who is a sergeant and gave him a lawful order to file the paperwork as it relates to that as well.

So five day suspension without pay.

Okay.

Okay, and along through, I'm gonna turn your attention now to what the commissioners have been aware of is called case C'll ask you to turn your attention, please to exhibit C12, which is base labeled uh uh last three base labels page 285 through 287.

Can you let me know when you're there that C is in CAT 12?

I'm there.

Okay.

Can you describe for me um what issues and what facts were presented as it relates to the charges of AWALL and not following directives um in the late or in the early part of 2024?

Sure.

Yeah, I believe this from what I recall, this was the second case that I presented to us from this group of four.

And um this was an internally generated complaint again.

Um IED laid out the timeline for this, which was a little bit shorter than the first case, as it only reflects two days again.

Um they laid out um the documentation they obtained as a result to um get the uh to get the uh allegation uh sustained.

Um they were went over the uh charge specification sheet with the chief, and uh we again looked at the at this point.

Um we already kind of had a sense of what his employee case file history was like from the first case.

Uh but uh there was, I believe, different comparables or might have been different.

Uh I think the same comparables too for this as well.

Uh took note that again, there was no response to charge from the member as it relates to this, and then again balanced um all this with the uh discipline matrix and any comparable cases um that were um and that were listed on the second page what those comparable cases were.

Did anything stick out to you in this particular um case regarding Mr.

Benitas's uh actions?

Uh just again the uh kind of consistency that we saw with the first case, um, albeit it was not um 18 days, but it was two days where he didn't show up for work.

Again, no um approved FMLA and the yes, um the uh failure to obey a lawful order from a supervisor.

Okay.

I'm gonna turn your attention now.

So we are looking at that first charge, the AWAL charge, I'm gonna call it um referencing core core value one competency represent a guiding principle 105 referencing SOP section one zero, sorry, zero one zero for five.

Can you um identify for me?

And I believe we took a look at the discipline matrix.

Was there a reference to this particular SOP in the discipline matrix?

I don't believe there was.

Okay.

Um so referencing that, can you indicate for me uh what the particular um discharge or what the particular discipline the chief determined was appropriate in this case?

Yeah, the chief um uh even though it wasn't listed in the matrix, felt it um fell into the category C type um sanction, meaning um up to five days, and he gave um Chris Mr.

Benitez a five-day suspension without pay.

Okay.

Um and that to be clear was uh was based upon um Mr.

Benita's being absent from work uh in February of 2024.

Uh yeah, between actually between January 2nd and January 3rd of 24, yes.

So then uh turning to the second uh charge that uh Mr.

Benitez had in this particular case, core value one competence referencing guiding principle 105, referring to standard operating procedures um in this case relating to absence 010115.

Again, that I'm gonna colloquially call that the absent without leave or AWAL charge.

Can you identify for me what uh the chief determined in that case was most appropriate?

Yeah, the chief um again that uh particular um SOP um is not in the matrix, but um similar to the last case, we now have a pattern here.

Um despite this only being two days and not 18, the chief still felt discharge was appropriate.

Okay.

Um regarding the final two um charges here.

Uh can you did uh can you identify for me uh what with respect to um violations of core value five referencing guiding principle 503, what the chief determined was the appropriate penalty?

Yes, um similar to the um similar again to the last uh the case or the first case that that we had.

Um again uh failed to um obey a lawful order from a superior officer, as well as um again a similar fact pattern um failure to uh report to work by his own work location.

Um supervisors, five day suspension without pay, which again isn't aligned with the matrix.

And then the I'm sorry, do you want me to talk about 106?

That's exactly what I was about to do next.

Sure.

And then I skipped over that.

And can you identify for me?

Same question with respect to the 106.

Sure.

Uh again, similar charge um to the um previous case, um, the 106 failure to report to work at the designated time with their supervisors um for the two occasions again aligned with matrix and again similar to what we saw in the previous case, five day suspension without pay.

Chief felt was uh appropriate.

Okay.

Um let me ask you this.

Why didn't the chief discharge him on all four of these?

Again, the uh the purpose of discipline is to ensure that the discipline that is uh met out is both reasonable and proportionate to the offense we're talking about here.

Um the the uh the charge of um being a wall was um the uh was what the chief and the executive band staff was the most egregious out of all these and felt that the other ones align more with um the uh recommendations in the uh matrix guidelines.

Okay.

Um is there anything else as it relates to the allegations uh that were sustained uh sustained against Mr.

Benitez as it relates to that uh case that you feel the you want to draw the attention of the commission to uh no I'm gonna ask you to turn your attention now to exhibit D as in dog 12 should be in order it's gonna be Bates labeled page 564 to 565 D12 D12 All right, I'm there okay.

Um can you describe for me what was presented to the executive command staff relative to uh these particular set of charges?

Um and again, these ones are the ones that are focused in an April, May, sorry, March, April, May of 2025.

Sure.

Um yeah, so this would have been the last case that was presented to us on um August 12th.

Um this was an internally generated place again uh with the large bulk of the um evidence um in the form of just documentation and interviews that were um gathered as part of IED's investigation.

Uh the uh internal affairs division walked us through the charge specifications as it relates to this.

Um although the review summary says 35 dates, I believe it was 36.

At least that's what I thought was reflected from what I recall on the charge specification sheet.

Um 36 days that they missed in um from March 27th of 25 through May 19th of 25.

Um at this point, again, the employee case file history, their discipline history was familiar with us since we were looking at all these cases at the same time.

Um took note again in this, like the other three cases.

The member did not take the opportunity to respond to the charges that they were presented with.

Um so then we just balanced um this particular case with uh again the discipline matrix uh and any comparables that um were similar.

Okay.

Um out of curiosity, this particular discipline review summary under degree of harm, the last sentence in that indicates that the member continued to be AWAL after May 19th, 2025.

I read that correctly.

Yes.

What, if anything, does that mean to you if you're being presented with us in August of 2025?

That uh nothing is changed as far as the members' um behavior and misconduct goes.

Okay.

Uh the sign charges, which I'll submit to the uh commissioners are D11, the exhibit prior before, dated August 12th, 2025.

Did Mr.

Benitas uh was Ms.

Bernitas discharged from the department prior to August 12th, 2025?

He was not.

Was he told that he was discharged from the department prior to August 12th, 2025?

No.

Is it concerning to you that a member stops showing up to work even though he wasn't informed that he should stop?

Well, I'll ask you that question.

Was he informed to stop showing up to work?

No, you're still expected to come in and do the job you took an oath to do that you do to do the job that you were um paid to do.

Okay.

All right.

Uh can we uh is there anything uh else that Mr.

I'll I'll ask this.

Okay, let's turn now to the penalty portion here.

After reviewing all the information, what did the chief determine the penalty be penalty should be for the AWAL violation in this case?

Yeah, the AWL violation in this case um is as it was um presented and as it's uh as it was listed in the specifications being the um level that it was, and again, consistent with the uh previous uh uh previous uh behaviors that were presented into at least two of the other cases we heard that day.

Um it was discharged from the department.

Um and as with respect to the failure to follow directives from a superior officer, charge 503?

Yes, um, similar to the other cases and consistent with the matrix five days suspension without pay.

Um at any point in time did during Mr.

Benitas's employment uh when these cases started from 2020 three through the summer of 2025, and I recognize that's like a two-year time span there.

But did Mr.

Benitas ever reach out directly to you regarding um uh his performance or his uh uh is his time with the department?

Uh he didn't reach out to me personally.

I know he had um attempted, I believe, to go through IAD to communicate with them.

I believe I was um made aware of a memorandum he filed um requesting to be placed on um full suspension.

Um so I was made aware of that.

Um he did cites in that particular memorandum from what I recall is um, and again, that actually presented itself in the first case where he refused to come to work and he cited um the core tenants of Able as his reason for staying home.

Abel stands for active bystandership for law enforcement, and he tried to utilize um what the department um had went through in 2022, where everyone um was trained in the um core tenants of ABLE to kind of link that to what he was going through in a quest to get fully suspended and not come to work.

Okay.

Um did you have an opportunity to review that memorandum?

Uh yes.

Okay.

Um can you describe for me what, if anything, and I'll try to turn your attention to exhibit E4, E is an elephant for uh commissioners, that's Bates labeled the Benitas uh 641 E4.

You reviewed it?

Yes.

Okay, can you is this the memo that you were referring to?

Yes.

Okay, can you describe for me what, if anything, um the department did as it when it received this memo?

Uh well, I mean, just skipping to the end, yes, requesting that he be placed on paid suspension, full suspension, which means you get paid to not come to work.

Um that was not approved for lack of a better word.

I think what kind of stood out when I read it, um, outside of him trying to take able and use it for purposes that it really isn't intended for, just paints a picture of somebody will who will do and say anything that they can to just not come to work.

Um the other thing I took note of was in the well, it'll be the third paragraph that starts that I have concerned at being assigned to administrative duty is significant.

Um you are assigned to um essentially desk duty at the first district, which is on the second floor of the police administration building at 749 West State Street.

Um, unlike other districts and other work locations in which you walk in the front door and the front desk is right there, and you would communicate directly with um the desk officer, whoever's there.

District one's a little bit different.

Um, district one, anybody that wants to um go to the district has to go through the municipal court entrance, the municipal court entrance, excuse me.

We do have an officer that's um assigned to that um front area there that actually takes the bulk of all the reports that come in to the district.

They have the contact with the most, and they do refer people upstairs um to the first district one warranted into other areas of the building, but they handle the majority of the work that actually would be coming into district one.

So to say that uh or to imply that um the administrative duties at district one is tough, I think is inaccurate.

Um the other thing that stood out to me.

Uh oh, that was it.

I'm sorry, that was it.

All right.

Um can you describe for me, or I guess I'll I'll end up that um is there anything else that you believe the commissioners should take into consideration in rendering a decision on phase two of uh this matter?

Sure.

I'll say it this way, commissioners.

Um, the you know, life can present any one of us with challenges both personally and professionally.

Um, some of which you know we see coming, so they're expected, some of which are unexpected and we can't plan for.

Um, but how we respond to those challenges is something we do have control over.

Um that reflects our strength, our resilience, and our character.

Now, if you have uh if you disagree that you should be um allowed to you know have fmla and all those things um that he contends in some of these cases, you have your part of the Milwaukee Police Association and you have union representation.

You can utilize your union to fight for you on your behalf.

At no point did we see any grievance or anything filed on Mr.

Benitez's part um by the union um contesting any of these things as it relates to his FMLA.

Um, but instead he chose the opposite.

He chose to just simply not come to work.

Now the chief is responsible, both responsible and accountable for the governance, uh the leadership, the performance, the efficiency, and the overall conduct of the department.

So when he was presented with this, a member that collectively did not come to work when you add up all the days in all three of these cases 56 times.

56 times he did not come to work, did not come in to do his job.

Um the amount of work that he was asked to do when he was there was I'm sorry, it is minimal, um, being assigned to desk duty at district number one, where you answer phones and file reports occasionally.

So we weren't asking him to do anything that anybody else um in those positions is doing.

And the fact that it's at district one too is um is uh you do have limited contact by design um with people coming in to do that.

So in for the good of the service, um the chief felt that discharging this member um was warranted in multiple, as we've heard already from me, multiple cases.

No further questions at this time hearing examiner no questions.

All right, no questions.

We have some questions maybe from the state home you appreciate.

No, I have no questions.

I have none.

Thanks, Chief.

Okay, all right.

Then Chief, you're free to go.

Thanks.

Uh unrelated to this, Commissioner Moroni.

I know that your time here is coming to an end.

Uh I just want to say thank you for your service and your commitment to this process.

I think I have the distinction of actually testifying in more phase twos than anybody in the history of Milwaukee Police Department.

But uh, I can't I just I want to say that to you, sir.

Thank you for your time and your commitment uh for this process.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

All right.

Uh anything else from the city and with respect to the penalty phase.

Uh nothing else from the city.

So you rest as the phase two.

Yes, sir.

All right.

As to phase two, then Mr.

Ferguson, or anything you would like to place for record.

Uh yes, we'd call uh Christopher Manitoes to say.

All right.

Renitez, please step up here, be sworn under phase two.

All right.

Please raise your right hand.

You saw me square to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth uh for the test story being given before this commission here today.

I do.

All right, you have a C obviously uh state your full name for the record and spell your first and last name.

Uh it's Christopher, uh conventional C H R I S T O E H E R.

Benitez, B as invoy, E N I T E Z.

You speak up right into the microphone.

I appreciate that.

No problem.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Loud and clear.

Fantastic.

Uh so uh Mr.

Benitos.

Uh, why didn't you reply to any of the requests for information during the investigations?

Could you repeat the question?

I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Uh, why didn't you reply to any of the requests for information during the investigations?

Uh during these investigations, I had legal representative.

Uh, some was from the union and once some was from my personal um.

I guess when I was going through the workman's comp, I hired a law firm and they were to represent me.

So I transferred all the information I got to them and trust them that they would handle it, as that's what you pay representation for.

So I could minimize um uh contact or contradiction and just focus on my healing.

So everything went through the lawyers.

I didn't really talk to um Corvell or respond to the um back of the uh due process, if they want to call it that stage.

Um, due to just being out of it.

That's the only way I can describe it.

There's a went through some stuff and I couldn't not return to uh the person I was, so I couldn't fill out the paperwork.

Even the FMLA was difficult for me at the time.

And when you say out of it, you're referring to your cognitive overload from your it's very well talked about, and it's quite frankly simple as that.

I suffered an injury, I was unable to do the job, but I returned to do the job in a capacity that would keep officers on the street.

Me falling over at work, turning the lights down, driving to work, you know, with vertigo, throwing up, you know, that's what you do because you you want to make sure the city has officers, you want to make sure those officers are safe.

So there's a chronic thing trying to reframe me as not devoted or uh committed, and I swore an oath to the public of this city before Tom Barrett to take care of the citizens and not polish brass.

So I did what I was supposed to and what I swore to.

So go ahead.

Uh, can you tell us more about the dispute between you and your wife and related to so this was a time I'm gonna object?

This is phase one testimony.

We're in phase two.

We're phase two at the stage of the game with uh the penalties that have been needed out as far as what the uh police department think uh uh is appropriate under each of these charges.

Let's address those particularly uh specifically because that's what's uh we're gonna be basing our decision on here today, even though I'm not a voting member talking on behalf of the commission.

Understood.

Um can you respond to assistant chief's uh allegations of what you did when they came to you when you failed to report?

Uh he's misunderstood.

Um my perspective, or he didn't consider it.

Um, when I was at work, I was working as much as I could when I was at home.

It was because I could not physically go to work, and it may have come come off to him with the limited contact that it was cocky or arrogant, but it was me in pain trying to survive and still provide for my family and balance work life.

Some employees opt out of the limited duty capacity and they just stay home and they do the injury pay, but I wanted to give service.

Um referred to uh the duties of district one as very easy.

Uh, was that your experience with them?

At a certain point it was, and I was able to do it.

Um, but my doctors were correct that I needed rest, that I needed to um be on a set shift.

I needed to make my PT, and those were the restrictions that my doctor set, Dr.

Asad, and even in Aurora.

So it became challenging, even the simple paperwork with would be an auto report that I could breeze through in 10 minutes.

That became a challenge where it was taking me far longer than it should have.

What did you do to uh address these difficulty you difficulties you were having?

Uh I just pushed through again.

Objection.

This is phase one testimony or in phase two.

I'm responding to what the assistant chief said to context for your decision making.

I'll let you start, but it better be endpoint because if it's not, then I'm not sure they're strictly.

So the question is Yes, sir.

Um, can you tell me about what you did to alleviate this?

To alleviate, I'm sorry, what to alleviate the difficulties you were having then?

Um, I went to PT in the morning.

Um, and then I went to work uh odd shifts, and then I slept maybe two hours, took my kids to daycare, and then I had to go back to PT and work.

So to alleviate that stress, and I just kept doing what both people wanted, the doctors and work, and it led to this burnout.

So I I don't know what what I could have done better to alleviate uh anything besides not volunteer for limited duty access and just take the injury on duty time, which is like 50 weeks, and just took that to heal.

I don't know what else I could have done better.

Uh and why did you ask for the suspension?

Sorry, what's that?

And later you asked for suspension, correct?

It was given to other officers who had criminal issues.

I was out of time for FMLA and I didn't get approved for injury pay.

So I thought, why should I?

I'm already on full suspension, but the only difference between full suspension, which is administrative stuff, you can't, you're not supposed to do administrative stuff.

You're not even supposed to talk to the public, the style of a suspension I was on.

So there would be no difference between uh suspension at home and at work, other than uh getting medical treatment and mental treatment.

So I didn't think there was a big loss to the city if I was gonna be off of work to heal myself.

I thought it would be a gain because I'd come back eventually after the suspension.

And then I also took um I tried to go to trial for my criminal issue, is which I wanted to focus on too.

I didn't want to uh pretend to do the job and have um a criminal record, so I would rather lose my job on trial than uh, so I wanted to focus on those obstacles.

Um chief Sono said you didn't use the union process at all.

How did you address those issues?

So it was I hired a law firm group outside of the union, um, and then they didn't handle it fair well.

I don't know why.

And then I lost representation with them at a certain point, three months before my expiration of injury, whatever, um liability injury for the city.

So then I tried to go with the union, and they didn't hire me, so then I ended up with um cross lawfer.

Is there anything else you want to tell the commission to help them make the decision?

Yeah, this is constantly being framed as not motivated, not disciplined, but the core elements that are still intact was my previous service record, which you guys have file on to, which can contest of my performance before the injury and then the injury, how things seem to spiral in the lesser word.

But that is why I think policies are great when they can be implemented fairly and from the start of the process, such as a concussion protocol, mandatory take your partner to get medical treatment if he's hurt.

I mean, I think that is already policy.

All right, yeah.

Uh final question.

Why did you invoke uh able when it requests in your suspension?

Because a lot of people kind of frown at the uh the acronym, but it's actually pretty effective if it's in practice.

But if you want people to fail, they don't put it in practice, and I thought this would be a great time to implement it, not as a joke, but as someone that needed serious um rebuilding mentally and physically, because a lot of those abilities were taken from me for a port uh a time.

So I thought I'd affect able and on myself and try to help uh restore some of the functionality that I had previously to the injury.

And I'm sure the commission knows what able is, but could you explain what that is just briefly?

It's a um active bystander.

So instead of being passive uh in somebody needing just in distress, you actually engage in a personal way instead of you know the usual uh locker room boof around, I guess stuff.

So no further questions, Ross.

You would agree with me that all of the discipline that was given to you by Chief Norman is in line with the discipline matrix, correct?

I do not.

The reason I say that is I'll take a look at it.

Can I answer the question?

No, let's take a look at it.

Yeah, go ahead, it's right in front of you.

It's gonna be exhibit two.

I have it.

Sorry, uh thank you.

So you were charged with multiple violations of 305.

305.

Okay.

I'm sorry, you charged with one violation of 503.

Or 305, sorry.

That's numbers.

So that's gonna be on page zero uh 000 603 of exhibit exhibit E2.

All right, the discipline matrix.

You were charged with one count of violation of uh 305 in case A.

And you were arrested for criminal violation, correct?

Uh allegations.

You were arrested for criminal violation, correct?

Allegations.

Yeah, they weren't convicted and they didn't go to trial, even though I tried to take it to trial.

I understand.

I understand that, Ms.

Renitez.

You were arrested for an alleged criminal violation.

Yes.

Allegations, yes.

Right.

That's a category E violation on this discipline matrix, is it not?

Which uh point are you at?

305 sub D.

Department members who are arrested and or convicted for criminal violations, category E violations, correct?

Yep.

Is that a yes?

No, no.

I'm following along.

Go ahead and point out the particular spot that you want me to uh give you an answer on.

305 sub D.

Sub D.

Category E violation.

So simple yes or no question, Mr.

Benita's is it a category E violation?

Oh, category E or D, you mean E as an echo 305 Every yes or no?

No, I don't know where she's been take your finger.

Go follow along with uh on on that page 305 D.

305 D.

You see that right there?

Scan it all the way over to me all the way to the right.

Okay, is that a category E violation?

Category E column yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

No problem.

No, I don't strike the last uh the thank you.

Is not responsive just to answer the yes or no.

I don't agree with that.

Oh, sorry.

That's up to your attorney to get into that with you, sir.

Not uh for you to argue with okay.

Now I want you to go ahead and turn to page 605 in that same document for me.

I'm gonna ask you the same question as it relates to charges um under category 503.

503.

503 member shall promptly obey any proper lawful order emanating from any officer of higher rank, any improper law and lawful order shall be reported.

Okay, that's again that's charge 503.

Got it.

I am there.

Yeah, you see how that's a category C violation form?

I do okay.

All right, no further questions.

All right, Greg.

Uh no further questions.

All right, let me step down, sir.

Thank you.

Wait a second, we got some questions here.

No, none.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, anything else from you, Mr.

No.

Uh phase two.

Yes.

All right.

Well, it's uh I can get my closing done in two minutes.

It's 11 45 right now.

Do you want to do a closing or do you want to do a closing for this or no?

Uh no, we don't need to.

I'll wave closing if you guys want to go into closed session.

Yes, we will.

Perfect.

I've asked the commission now.

Uh make a motion to go into closed session.

No move.

Second.

May and second to go into a closed session.

Uh we will do so at this time.

Therefore, we ask all of you to uh please be back here at one o'clock uh for our afternoon uh germination.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

We're going back on the record here.

Well, for lunch, before lunch, and during et cetera, we were able to consider phase two, as far as what the appropriate penalty of any is to be on these matters.

So that uh we're not going to go into more individual things, except that they're just gonna follow and go along with apparently the chief's uh determination under the circumstances here, and uh uh we'll go from there.

With that in mind, uh I must tell you, uh is there anything you want to say, Commissioner?

Uh well I want to thank the department for presenting a their complex matter as judiciously as possible.

I also want to uh say to Mr.

I wish I wish you good luck.

I hope that you have I hope that you have uh full resolution of all of your issues and problems and and that uh you know your future uh will take a good path.

So good luck.

Good luck to you.

Commissioner Fong?

I think very well said, Chair Horwick.

I share your sentiments, nothing to add.

Commissioner Schneider.

Yeah, yeah, I can't add anything to that, just wish you the best.

Thank you.

It this can all be resolved for you medically speaking.

I would just like to uh thank all of you, staff and uh commissioners that I've worked with.

Uh thank you for your courtesy and cooperation uh throughout the time when I've been hearing examiner.

I will no longer be the hearing examiner.

And uh uh I have asked the department and I've asked uh the defense or appellant, uh, are you willing to waive the 10-day rule?

Yes.

Yes, hearing examiner.

All right, well, I'll try to be as close to that as possible anyway.

If we have not preferred, I'll do my best.

That's all I could tell you.

But this is gonna be a rather lengthy uh determination after four days of trial.

I can tell you that.

Uh and uh we will go from there.

Yeah.

Is there anything else anyone wants to add here today?

No, thank you.

Okay, just thank you for this answer.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

This matter is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you all.