April sixteenth, twenty twenty-six regular meeting of the fire and police commission.

Present our commissioners Burgos, Vang, Remy, Schneider, Spence, Spencer, World Patterson, and myself, Commissioner Horwitz.

Commissioner Evans is excused.

Also present our FPC executive director, Leon Todd and Deputy Director Jay Pusek.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We will begin with item one public comment.

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

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

Each person will be given up to five minutes to speak, and we'll we we will be starting with those who are here in person, starting with Israel Webb.

Yes.

After they let this man waltz in and do whatever he wants.

I do notice an effort being shown by law enforcement that's on the street.

Um, you know, people are having issue.

Maybe they can stress like I feel like you're testing my patients.

I feel like my requests are simple enough for you to, you know, follow some directions.

You know, sometimes people are frustrated.

I get that.

There's a lot to be wary or cautious of.

So I'm much out taking fire squad now.

Have a good night.

Okay, right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Cynthia Greenwood.

I'm gonna point for Mr.

Werski.

Well, I don't I don't know that he will be here during the public comment portion.

Um, oh, he keeps online he can hear it.

There he is, right there.

And he will be in here in person shortly.

And he's waving it.

You're gonna be able to do that.

Okay, is it okay.

My comment is for one day here that I support Mr.

Wibski.

Um, I think he's been an excellent, excellent, awesome chief, and um I think he's doing a good thing in the community.

I wish the mayor would give him the money.

The department, the money to need for new fire trucks and new firehouses.

So he has my 100% uh support.

He's an awesome guy, he's one in a million.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Getting longer as we sit here.

Next we have Emily Stirk.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Uh, my name is Emily Stirk, and I am speaking on behalf of the Milwaukee Turners in my capacity as the research and advocacy associate of our confronting mass incarceration team.

As you are aware, my colleagues and I monitored the fire and police commission for a six-month period from June 2024 to December 2024.

And in our white paper, uh, we outlined observations and recommendations for the FPC, and we pointed to the need for this body to intentionally engage the public and rebuild public trust.

Over the course of the last few months, we have appreciated the ways in which the FPC has worked towards centering public engagement and inviting members of the public, including the turners, to give input on best practices for the public comment portion of your regular meetings.

Before you engage in conversation about the structure and format of public comment as listed on agenda item 16 in tonight's regular session, there are a few things that I would like for you to consider.

First, when the Milwaukee Turner's first started monitoring the FPC in June of 2024, public comment was limited to two minutes.

This practice received criticism from members of the public and even commissioners who noted the limitations of a two-minute testimony.

Following this criticism, the FPC began the practice of giving each member of the public five minutes to speak.

The FPC has seen that two minutes is an ineffective amount of time to provide a well-developed argument and state one's peace.

A five-minute time period for public comment not only matches similar bodies at the city and county level, but also allows for members of the public to substantially articulate their concerns, questions, and suggestions to this body.

Second, although this commission has repeatedly reminded us that Act 12 has stripped away your authority, public comment is crucial to the work of this body, and Act 12 cannot take that away.

The importance of public comment is shown time and time again, especially tonight, when a number of people are here speaking to use of force, vehicle pursuits, and video release.

The most recent police involved shooting and the structure of public comment, among other topics.

To consider giving the public less time to speak, one of the only places that the public can voice their concerns and that demand that the MPD is held accountable, is simply doing the work of the Republican-led Act 12 yourselves.

Regardless of what changes this body decides to make to public comment, one thing is certain.

There must be a written and codified procedure for the public to follow.

This procedure must specify the amount of time each member of the community has to speak and clearly outline what one can expect before, during, and after giving public comment.

This ensures fair and consistent procedures for all members of the public and will prevent the FPC from arbitrarily limiting testimony times during regular sessions discussing high profile incidents.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mia Herodia.

Good evening.

Good evening.

It's Heredia, but no worries.

I apologize.

Okay.

Um perfect.

Okay.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Yes.

Perfect.

Awesome.

So good evening, members and the board of the Fire and Police Commission.

My name is Amir Redia.

Um, I'm a member of the Milwaukee Turners, and I am reading testimony for the executive director, Emilio de Torrey, who cannot be here this evening as he is facilitating an immigration training at the moment.

The Milwaukee Turners are very much in favor of Alderman Burgelis' file to modify Milwaukee Police Department SP 460 pertaining to use of force.

Many of us remember the traumatizing events surrounding the arrest of Milwaukee Bucks player Sterling Brown, the terrible behavior and mockery perpetrated by now fired police officer Eric N.

Dre Day, apologies if I say that correctly, and the subsequent loss of seven seven hundred and fifty thousand that went to pay for the settlement, not to mention the ensuing legal battles and costs over uh the dismissal of this police officer by the MPD that dragged for years all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Among other things, the settlement also contained improvements to how Milwaukee Police Department uh police officers were to engage after encounters in which they drew their firearms, requiring officers to file a use of forced report each time such a weapon was drawn from its holster.

Milwaukee knows all too well how frightening it is when people when someone presents, draws, brandishes, or points a gun, regardless of who it is.

I'm just gonna repeat that sentence one more time.

Milwaukee knows all too well how frightening it is when someone presents, draws, brandishes, or points a gun, regardless of who it is.

It is our understanding that Chief Norman sought to remove this system of accountability by use of the general order to 2024 47.

Uh the alderman's file would reinstate this already employed policy to guarantee officers would continue to file out reports when they draw their weapons.

Filing a report saying that you removed a dead removed a deadly weapon from your holster in the course of an interaction with the civilian seems like a very basic procedure for ensuring accountability and transparency.

The police department is wrestling with gravely eroded public trust as we speak.

And I'm not sure that the chief, Chief Norman, realizes just how much more this will fracture the relationship with the public, which is which is essential.

There are many other places, such as Chicago, Dallas, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and even the National Parks Service that automatically or procedurally records when their officers draw firearms.

We hope that the fire and police commission realizes the need for accountability, tracking and auditing, police trends regarding weapons, uh, chronicling when police officers draw a legal weapon, threatening on its face and fostering an improved relationship with the public.

More importantly, we hope that the FPC recommends that this file be implemented and showing that SOP 460 remains as it should be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Connor Gross Nickel.

Uh I'll give my time while the terms cover exactly what I would have said.

Okay.

Amanda De Leon.

Hello.

Hello, good evening.

Good evening.

I know I have spoken at one of the public meetings, but you guys weren't all present, so I want to make sure you my voice is heard.

Um, I'm in support of reappointing Chief Lipske as our fire chief because not only does he care about the fires that are going on, but he also cares about the people out here struggling with the opi in the opioid crisis.

Since he came on, he was given the MORI team, which is the Milwaukee overdose response team within the fire department.

And he could have said, you know what?

No, we're not gonna do this, we're not gonna continue it.

And no, these were people, these were humans that need to be saved.

And not only did he continue to support the Mori program, but he also implemented the Hope kits, which I was a thorn in his side to make sure it happened.

But he did it, right?

And through that, now throughout the state, fire departments are doing the same because everyone wants to be the city of Milwaukee, and if the city of Milwaukee does it, they want to do it.

And that would have not been possible without our fire chief.

So I just want to make that known.

Um he is a person of the people, and he does what the people need.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin Saz Perez.

Good evening.

Good evening.

So uh I just want to um hit on a couple different topics uh tonight.

Uh first I'll just um I've spoken about this before, but continue to um ask that you all do everything you can to move the uh temporary ban on FRT to make it a permanent ban.

Um yeah, it's it's great that it's temporary, but we'd like to see that permanent.

Um same with uh Flock and all ALPRs want to see those cameras removed and all ALPR um permanently banned here in Milwaukee.

Um ban on uh the deadly exchanges with uh Israel and and frankly all foreign um militaries and um police departments um to see see a ban on those exchanges.

Um also was uh disappointed in seeing um the after this recent uh police case uh earlier this week and the the statement that came out from the I believe it was the police association wording and there was we we were forced to do this.

It was like no, there was a choice.

There was a choice that was made to go on this chase and create more harm for the community in doing that.

Um it it created uh a bunch of chaos and it created unsafe um environments, and that's just what what happens with these chases, and so um I know that's coming up later in the agenda, and just like continues like we we want these deadly police chases to stop.

Um also finally I think finally uh on the agenda with uh the public comment coming up.

Just thank you in advance for doing all that you can to make sure that public comment is uh um made even more accessible and even more opportunities are given to people to publicly comment, knowing that it's really important to have our voices heard, that this is maybe one of the only places we can we can have that happen.

And so um thank you for increasing those opportunities and making um public comment as accessible as possible to as many people as possible, um, and not limiting that at all.

Um because I I hope you all believe that our voices here, the voice of the people is important and should not be silenced or cut back in any way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tammy Bachhorst.

Good evening, commissioners and uh director Todd.

Thank you all for your service.

I'll be brief.

Um just here to support um the reappointment of fire chief Aaron Lipsky.

Um I live and work downtown and and I'm doing this in my not only my residential role of a as a Milwaukee um resident, but also as exec director of East Town Association.

We oversee Cathedral Square Park and free events such as Best Steel, etc.

And it's important to have a nice relationship with your community officials and public service.

Um so I'm hoping that you will all reappoint him this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicholas X Dorty.

Good evening.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Nicholas X.

Dorothy, and I serve as the confront of mass incarceration coordinator at the Milwaukee Turner's.

Growing up on the north side of Milwaukee, one of the most over police geographic spaces in the world.

I'm very familiar with police violence and the use of force.

I can't even count how many times police officers have put guns in my face.

But I can say it's much more than any so-called street criminal.

There were times I was guilty of no crime and I wasn't arrested, but I still got a gun put in my face.

It's happened so many times that I became numb and I began to expect firearms to be aimed at me.

I don't know if you all have looked down the barrel of a gun, but it's not a pretty sight.

Let me be clear.

I don't believe in the current paradigm of policing.

I believe communities should be allowed to solve their own problems without external forces being involved.

But if your goal is to increase police legitimacy in Milwaukee, then eliminating reporting would do the exact opposite.

According to a peer review study on Frank Jude on the Frank Jude case, which is a case that happened here in Milwaukee and titled The Impact of Police Violence on Communities.

It shows that police violence actually increases violent crime because people start to take justice into their own hands through retaliation and actions to instill fear in the community as a means of survival to prevent others from committing crimes against them.

Made simple, people don't feel safe going to the police, they won't.

And not having to report use of force is a motive to use force.

There are also peer review reports on how marginalized communities experience policing as a form of structural violence and social control.

Use of force has historically been abused and is still being abused by police all over the country.

Crime has consistently gone down, and police police shootings have consistently gone up, while police have become more militarized.

Policing has become more militarized.

That being said, I don't see any logical reason why police shouldn't have to document the use of force other than to avoid transparency.

Documenting the use of force is a means of deterring excessive use of force.

We know that marginalized communities are the most at risk regarding use of force.

And without documentation, there's no way to measure patterns of abuse that occur in marginalized communities.

The report that I cited earlier shows that this is a public health issue that affects social behavior, mental health, and leads to more crime.

Not documenting the use of force can lead to legal repercussions, financial cost, and social unrest.

Please institute a policy to ensure officers continue to compl the complete reports when they use force.

Thank you for the time.

Thank you.

Tiffany Stark.

Hello everyone.

My name is Tiffany Stark.

I'm a Milwaukee Alliance member, acute mental health social worker, and a community advocate.

So if I have this right, the new proposed version on April 8th, SOP 575 was changed to include vehicle pursuits when great bodily harm or death of a person occurs.

Okay.

I am very happy to see the SOP change as this was one of our demands and transparency is so important, and you all listen to us.

I'm also glad to hear that MPD will be given data reports every six months regarding vehicle pursuit to the FPC, but I'm still concerned regarding SOP 660 language related to initiate vehicle pursuits with language of about to commit a violent felony.

From the past meetings, I thought that Minneapolis policy was going to be further explored to possibly adopt this for our policy.

It would be nice if he would just if this would just happen today.

If we would have to go the route of the two-thirds vote by the city common council, I would ask for support from the FPC and assisting in coordinating facilitating meetings while the elders and the community, so all of the information is shared along with the history of how we got here, including the NYU report that was provided on December 18th, 2025.

I have shared in the past my concerns of silos between FPC and the City Common Council, along with the community and the city common council.

I had my own experience that was not pleasant when an elder staffer I called, and before I could even state why I was calling, hung up on me as my address was not in their district.

This was very disrespectful and disgraceful.

I personally emailed them and they apologize, but dismissed that this would ever come before them, and this is up to the FPC, which is not true.

If a recommendation is made, this is why I'm concerned with the lack of communication and lack of knowledge.

Plus, the city common council does not have a public forum to hear from us.

We have to come to we have come too far for this to blow up because they don't know the history and concern the community has surrounding this policy change.

So if the FPC could help this process along, the community would be more than happy to participate and to educate and voice the need of why this vote must be yes in favor of this policy change.

I appreciate each and every one of you commissioners, but I do have special shout-outs to Bree Spencer for getting this SOP back on the agenda after MPD made their changes, knowing it was not enough to save the lives that already passed away from this reckless policy.

To Chrissy for all your great questions and wanting to move this policy even further, and to Miriam and your enthusiasm when you said, Well, we'll just have to change the state law then.

So I really appreciate all of you.

It's been a long process, and I just want this to happen.

I don't want no one else to have to go through what we've had to go through.

So I'm very proud of you guys, and I'm glad that you listened to us.

But I want to get this done.

I've been coming and I'm tired.

But I'll come, I'll keep coming no matter what I need to do to get this done, because that's how important it is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kayla Peterson.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Kayla Paterson.

Um I reside uh near Timmerman Airfield, represented by uh Westmoreland.

Um I also serve as the co-chair of the Milwaukee Lions.

Um I'm gonna be brief since I do think Tiffany did an amazing job testifying to everything that we are here for today.

Um, I do just want to urge or emphasize the sense of you know urgency that we feel on this matter.

Um will be hot in a lot of regards when it comes to police activity and you know the community's you know tone as a whole.

Um the reason that we embarked on this campaign to begin with is because of summer 2025 where there were nine deaths, you know, either resulting from people involved in chases or uh bystanders really to the situations, and so um echoing as Tiffany said, our call to work directly with the FPC as well as to to bring this directly to the common council as needed.

Um very often in the city from organizers and just community members are like, we hear about the silos between the bodies in this city.

And I think if we share this common goal of you know, ending reckless chases and ensuring that our loved ones are safe in these streets, building real infrastructure as opposed to paying out, you know, thousands of millions in settlements for these critical incidents, then I think it's time for us to work collaboratively.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Casey Serrano.

Good evening.

Good evening, everybody.

Good evening, everybody.

My name is Casey Serrano.

I'm here as a member of the Milwaukee Alliance against racist and political repression.

And first, I just really want to um express our appreciation and pride and seeing the FPC really respond to what the community has been asking for with these police chases and putting forward the recommendation that's on the table tonight.

We really think this is a big step forward and beginning to end these police chases that, as some other people have said, killed almost 10 people last summer.

As we've been out in the streets um canvassing our petition to in these police chases and talking to people about them, it's become very clear that this is a real issue for many Milwaukeeans, both in terms of people dying in the streets, people being hit at gas stations who aren't involved in anything, there's at the gas station, and in terms of people just being afraid to drive around their neighborhood or be out in their neighborhood because of police chases that they see happening that don't make the news.

And so I really hope that tonight the recommendation is passed, and that as other people have said, like Tiffany, ideally Norman will uh take it up in the next 24 hours.

And if he doesn't, I look forward to working with all of you to take it to the common council to get the common council to take this up because we know that this is what the people of Milwaukee have been asking for.

And again, I really appreciate I think this is a great example of the way that the fire and police commission can work together with communities in Milwaukee to get the real changes and accountability we want from the police department.

I hope that continues through the end of this process and through other processes that other people have brought up here tonight with other problems of policing in this community that can be solved if we can work together collaboratively.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

To hear uh Macaulay Good evening, my name is Tihira Malik.

Oh, apologies.

And I'm call I'm here today to support the reappointment of Fire Chief Aaron Lipsky.

Samat's house proudly expresses his strong support for Fire Chief Aaron Lipsky and its continued leadership for the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Chief Lipsky has demonstrated a deep commitment to public safety, community engagement, and innovative approaches to addressing the complex challenges facing our city.

He leaders his leadership reflects a clear understanding that emergency response extends beyond fires.

It includes addressing the growing impact of substance use, mental health crises, and the need for coordinated compassionate care.

At Samat's house, we have witnessed firsthand the importance of strong partnerships between first responders and community-based organizations.

Chief Lipskey's willingness to collaborate, support harm reduction strategies, and prioritize the well-being of Milwaukee residents aligns closely with our mission to reduce overdose deaths and expand access to care to the most to those who are most at risk.

His forward thinking approach helps bridge critical gaps between emergency services and long-term recovery support, ensuring that individuals are not only stabilized in moments of crisis, but are also connected to the resources that they need to heal and thrive.

Hold on for a minute.

And he even taught us how to be patient.

Okay.

And we believe in music.

We do.

We hear music in our heads sometimes just to get through crises, right?

We believe that the continuity and leadership is essential during this time.

And Chief Lipsky's vision, integrity, and dedication make him uniquely qualified to continue serving our city.

Samat's house stands firmly in support of his continued role and looks forward to ongoing collaboration to build a safer, healthier Milwaukee for all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian Burdean.

Good evening, sisters and brothers.

Good evening.

If I don't know Brother Lipsky was on the agenda, how'd it got here on time?

Yeah.

That's funny because Lipsky's our fine citizen.

Every time I see him out of this confidence in what everything that he does for our city.

Actually, I was late because the Holden Street bridge is out, and uh my car knows how to get here all by itself because I've been here so many times.

I'm with the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.

Probably I did a little more research.

I said I can't come here just blabbering my mouth all of the time, but um y'all all already know that in 1885 the uh fire and police commission was established to remove public safety services from political influence.

Imagine that.

And as a student of Malcolm X, head of sociology uh professor, I certainly agree that everything is political.

Um the other tenet that you have is uh put civilian oversight, and I still want to urge you guys to come on down to the neighborhoods and uh have your commission meetings in the county of parks, and I assure you that more of us even more of us will show up.

And I know you're happy to hear from us because I'm really proud to have heard from all of the citizens the last few months regarding uh facial recognition, regarding police chases, regarding uh abuse of force and all of that stuff.

So uh Hark, uh let's go 138 uh years forward, though, the 2023 Act 12, right?

Where it proves once again that everything is political, right?

You guys don't have any power that you used to have because everything is political because a certain Republican from Milwaukee took it to the Republican state legislature, and now we are left with as much with his mouth, not as much oversight as we used to have.

And of course, a lot of our own politicians, uh all the electors and all that were so anxious to tax us that one percent and give that 1.5 billion dollars that was promised for essential services, and I'd be damned we still can't get these sewers on clouds, so I don't know about these essential services.

But uh I do want to hearken back uh two years ago as well, well, when we were able to pass uh standard operation operating procedure 575 uh in July of 24, after two years of hard, very hard work on our part, and I know uh brother Ty was involved in that.

I don't know how many of you other commissioners was involved in that, but it was a lot of work, but I was really um really glad to see that Chief Norman uh was uh was agreeable to that.

You know, a lot of us all know he may not agree, and I think uh I hope that he he thinks, and I certainly think that uh we're a better off city with this kind of transparency, and it certainly helps build trust, especially amongst the families.

And I guess you know, as one who has been uh critical of Chief Norman, especially his uh uh ill guided trip to uh uh uh Israel, but I want to uh assure my own uh personal commitment to working with the chief.

Somebody told me, well, Brian, you know, if we get rid of him, we might get somebody worse.

And that's very well possible.

I was counting the amount of chiefs that I've lived through.

I think it's about seven that I've been here.

The one thing that they all agree upon, except for maybe that racist uh briar that we had back in the day.

I'm that old, um, that poverty causes crime.

All of them.

All of them have said that that there was a direct correlation with uh poverty uh causing crime.

So I want to assure my own personal working with the chief if he's agreeable to the uh amendments that uh Sister Bree has put forward in regards to 660 and these police no these stupid police chases.

But lastly, I want to say it's high time we start catching our young people going to college.

It's high time we start catching young people going to jobs, it's high time that we catch them going to job development programs, job training programs.

We're so busy catching your young people doing wrong, and they're falling through the cracks every day.

Our our juvenile detention cities, uh facilities are filled to the brim.

Our jail is filled to the brim with young and old.

So at one point in time before I croak, I hope somebody somehow in this city, the leaders start thinking about proactive measures to really reduce crime.

Police do not stop crime.

They always respond to the crime.

And I'm not anti-police.

In fact, uh the dear brother Quarter, uh, who who was uh murdered lately, I used to play football with his with his uh uncles uh on the Keefe Avenue uh front grass that we tore up playing football.

So I just want to say, let's start thinking about how to catch our young folks doing good and helping make sure that they do good.

And I think that you all can play a major role in that, especially with your outreach.

I would love for more citizens to meet y'all and see y'all.

So come on down to the neighborhoods, come on down to the community parks, hold a public service commission meeting in the communities.

I assure you will bring you a loving crowd.

Thank you.

Chris Anderson.

Good evening, commissioners, director Todd.

My name is Chris Anderson.

I'm vice president of Bell Ambulance, where I have worked for the past 25 years.

Born and raised in Milwaukee, and uh spent most of my life trying to help people uh as best I can.

I've worked with Chief Lipsky since he was appointed, and I could tell you lots of reasons why I believe he is the best chief that the Milwaukee Fire Department has ever had.

But instead, I'm gonna tell you a brief story.

Three months ago, and it's I'm not gonna get emotional, I promise.

Three months ago, uh, we one of our emtees was killed in a traffic crash.

Uh, unfortunately it was reckless driving.

He was on his way home from work as an EMT.

And Chief Lipske had been notified of this by his uh company officer on the scene.

So he called me to tell me that this had happened.

And you know, you don't usually get good calls from people you know at 10 PM, right?

So I think I said something to the effect of I don't know what to do, right?

And he said, Okay, don't worry about that.

Here's what you're gonna do.

He said, I'm gonna meet you there, go to the scene, you know, I'll take care of everything.

And honestly, that's what it was kind of a blur for me, I'll be honest.

Uh, but that's what he did.

He took care of everything that needed to be done, including you know, a dignified transfer to the medical examiner's office, uh, as you would see for you know, uh a police officer, for example.

And uh, yeah, it was.

I mean, I I can't say enough about what that meant to our staff, obviously to me personally, but to our staff who were there and saw this.

Uh it's indicative of the the partnership that we have with the city.

So, uh obviously we are fully in support of his reappointment as fire chief.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chard Velez.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Um, thank you, executive director, and thank you, commissioners, um, for being here and hearing public comment.

More specifically, I want to thank um all of you, commissioners, um, a couple in particular, uh, for your work on the proposed revisions to SOP 660 and 575.

Um, I encourage the commissioners to vote tonight um to forward those recommendations to the MPD and the common council.

Um, I know it's been a long road, and I appreciate your work and willingness.

I also ask ask that the commission vote um to recommend reinstating in SOP 460 the requirement that a supervising officer complete a use of force report upon the arrest of a person.

Both the department and this commission have emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability, and this provision directly supports those objectives.

I really can't imagine a reason other than perhaps concern about red tape not to support that change.

The FPC functions best, sorry, a little bit of a topic switch on public comment itself.

Um the FPC functions best in my experience in what I witnessed in my brief time as a resident here when it receives meaning and meaningful when it receives and meaningfully considers public input.

Public comment is not ornamental.

Sometimes it's halting and stubling, like mine.

It's part of how issues are surfaced and preserved for the record.

I've observed that many comments from the public return to recurring issues, matters that remain under consideration or evolve over time.

I have not seen comments that fall outside the core areas of oversight entrusted to this commission, although they can stray from time to time.

In a body where the complaint process operates through some level of staff gatekeeping, public comment remains one of the few avenues through which concerns about policy and conduct, which are squarely within the commission's authority, can be brought into view.

Limiting public comment, whether by duration or subject matter, would restrict exactly that kind of ongoing concern that oversight bodies like this are meant to hear.

And I've seen in real time that public comment can shape how issues are understood and how authority is held to account.

This happened in January, for example.

I've seen powerful comments by neighbors like Tiffany tonight and before, raising topics that may not have been on the agenda that night, but were critical to keep in view to reach a night like tonight when action is about to be taken.

Restricting that channel narrows the commission's field of vision.

Um I think that's all I have to say tonight.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey everybody, doing it's my first time here.

But it's first time for the best time.

Can you pull the mic closer?

Is that looking better?

All right.

Um me being um a citizen of a kingdom, right?

Hey hi everybody doing it's my first time here but it's first off our um the best time can you pull the mic closer is that looking better all right um so um so me being um a citizen of a kingdom right of our kingdom of heaven right I'm appreciative of wood chief uh leavsky has done it in the complete in a police commission room all right I've gotten guidance from them I've gotten support I've gotten conversations the things that he's done that I I had no understanding about but um he was very particular about these things um I want to piggyback off the lady when she said she was kind of um a thorn in his eye I'm pretty sure I was too but um I'm thankful that it brought about change in my life too so I'm an influence to the people I'm around I want to um command those who have influenced me to do change to actually make change come about so um he cared about things I know he cared about in every um fire station every man or woman so I'm thankful for that and I'm grateful I just wanted to come support to make sure things was done right all right well thank you thank you thank you thank you bridget do we have anyone appearing virtually for public comment yes we do director Julie is uh ready for comment okay thank you Bridget Commissioners director thank you for receiving my comments Julie Kershio Milwaukee County resident I too am demanding accountability and transparency from the MPD and FPC and that every time an MPD officer draws a firearm it should be officially documented and reported I can't believe we have to debate this my other comments are regarding the upcoming new business item 212452 sponsored by the chair city website lists three purposes of the FPC meetings to discuss policy and promotions to receive departmental communications and to hear community input especially during a time when our government is restricting free speech and increasing surveillance of citizens I would like to assume that this commission is wanting to assure the public that they are fully against these draconian measures and that the chair is seeking to make changes to increase the amount of public input they receive that is my hope but further details weren't available on the website and from what I've heard about the chair well any restriction or lessening of public commentary would further diminish any public trust that might be left for this commission or the MPD any restrictions to public comments would make it seem like you're seeking to avoid scrutiny or accountability especially regarding controversial police issues right as new business action would be to increase public input to try everything as possible to be transparent accountable and service to the public every effort should be made to give sufficient time for people to share what is important to them and what is needed in their community we show up we express our concerns repeatedly and then we wait in fact as many have brought up today we are still waiting to hear details about the police chief's training and tourism trip to the genocidal apartheid Zionist regime that occupies Palestine with his lovely stay at the Ritz Carlton if anyone on this commission dislikes the amount of time it takes to hear from the public I remind you that it is fully a third of the purpose of these meetings according to your website and the option for you to resign Madam Chair or any like minded commissioners remains available to you.

Free Palestine free Milwaukee from armed police officers with insufficient accountability free Milwaukee from lethal police chases free Milwaukee from fascist surveillance free Milwaukee from police who train and kiki with genocidal oppressors free Palestine liberation for all people it is truly all connected thank you and good evening thank you Bridget is there anyone else appearing virtually for public comment there is not Jacob all right okay there being no further uh public comment this concludes the public comment portion of the meeting director please proceed with the agenda we'll now read the items on the consent agenda after I do so any commissioner may remove any item to the regular agenda for discussion or appropriate action items not removed may be adopted by general consent without debate item two FPC 212480 resolution relating to the April 2nd 2026 meeting minutes item three FPC two one two four eight one resolution relating to the appointment to the building maintenance supervisor position within the Milwaukee police department item four FPC two one two four eight two

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

Item 4, FPC 212482.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the custodial worker one position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 5, FPC 212483.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the police facilities laborer position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 6, FPC 212484.

Resolution relating to the appointment to the crossing guard position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 7, FPC 212485.

Resolution relating to the request to re-exempt the intelligence analyst position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 8, FPC 212486.

Resolution relating to the request to refer to the Department of Employee Relations, a request for an examination, an eligible list for the crime scene supervisor position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 9, FPC 212487.

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

Item 10, FPC 212488.

Resolution relating to the request to refer to the Department of Employee Relations or request for an examination and eligible list for the IT project coordinator position within the Milwaukee Police Department.

Item 11, FPC 212489.

Resolution relating to the HVAC maintenance technician one eligible list for the Milwaukee Police Department.

And item 12, FPC 212490.

Resolution relating to the HVAC maintenance technician three eligible list for the Milwaukee Police Department.

This concludes the consent agenda.

Okay.

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

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

Are there any objections?

Hearing no objections, these items are adopted.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

I will now read the item under special business, which is item 13.

Oh, you want to you want to do that?

Or you want to vote that list?

Up to you, madam chair.

Well, he's here now.

We're going to do this.

Sit down.

Yes, it's the right order.

You're there.

You're good.

You're good.

You're good.

All right.

Item 13, FPC 212491, resolution relating to the reappointment of Aaron Lipsky as Chief of the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Good evening, Chief.

Um, you uh you certainly um have a lot of supporters, uh, both who appeared today and gave testimony and also from letters that we've been receiving over the past couple of weeks.

And that in the back.

Oh sorry.

Anyone turn up the mics or I don't have control over the mic, uh, only to get closer to it.

Is that any better?

A little bit, a little bit, a little bit, a little bit.

Okay.

Um, so we're very happy to have this on the agenda.

By way of uh background, uh the term uh for Chief Lipskey, uh the end of his four-year term will uh be on May 17th, 2026.

And um as part of a communication file at our March 19th meeting, uh we discussed the matter of Chief Lipski's reappointment for a second four-year term.

Uh the um commissioners felt it important uh that members of the public have an opportunity to engage and hear directly from Chief Lipskey before a final vote.

And since that time, there have been two community meetings, one on the city's northwest side and the other on the south side to give public the very opportunity.

The FBC also received, as I said, numerous letters of support from community members.

I don't think I've personally seen any or heard any comments uh that are contrary to that that are uh questioning the uh reappointment.

So um I'm really glad to have this on the agenda.

Um, you know, in addition, uh we have now for the fire and police commission the ability to set the salary level on recruitment uh for the chief of the fire chief as well as the police chief.

That's a recent change, uh good change.

And uh at our previous uh meeting and in close session, we had um a lot of information about the salaries across the country for similar size cities for fire chiefs, and frankly, um you know, to just meet that standard alone would mean a very big increase because unfortunately our fire chief has been underpaid uh for the last four years and perhaps historically fire chiefs have been.

Uh but we now have to recognize that um Chief Lipsky has given us his um his loyalty in that he's not looking to move or do anything else except serve Milwaukee, but he still should still be paid on a competitive basis.

So uh in our uh um earlier meetings uh the commission decided to come up with a base salary of 234,000 dollars as appropriate under the circumstances.

There are also some incentives that apply regardless of uh position for residency, etc.

And his actual annual salary with those incentives will be two thousand two hundred and forty-five thousand seven hundred and ninety-three dollars and sixty cents.

And don't forget the sixty cents.

So on that, I will ask uh if uh we could have an appropriate motion.

Uh and I have language right there for you.

Oh, yeah, do you all have it?

Okay, good, good.

Thank you.

Yeah, that there'll make the motion then.

Okay.

Uh I bring forth the motion um uh to um recommending Chief Lipsky for uh another four-year term uh as the chief of Milwaukee Fire Department.

Um commencing May 17th, 2026 had an annual base salary of 234,000.

Very good.

Second, second.

Oh second, all second, third fourths, and fifths.

Okay, the matter's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion or comments?

Uh anyway.

Madam Chair.

I think we might all by I'll make it quick though.

Okay.

Um to my um my friend, fellow Riverside alum.

Um you know I'm gonna say that loud, y'all know it's coming.

Um tigers, right?

Um I I want to say this publicly, uh first, I I think it's important that Milwaukee learned to take care of his own, especially those who have shown and proved that they're here to serve this community, and you have been a I think a staple of that, right?

And I'm appreciative that you wear your heart on the outside of that shirt to show everybody how much you care.

Um I I think it goes without saying that the feedback not just from community members but from us here is like we love you not just because you're a good fire chief, not because you're a great fire chief, because you're a great person.

Your your ability to understand the needs of the community has come in every avenue, whether it was the RNC coming here and you had this fight for resources, whether it's working with our um police chief, which was unheard of in years past, um, whether it was serving, I think the young lady said the Mori project, uh, which we know is something I lost a brother-in-law two years ago to an overdose, right?

So I get it, right?

And then finally, of course, personally, being there when we lost our son and helping the um buoy system, right, to save lives.

I think it already has saved two lives, I think.

So I I had it would be I'll be remiss if I didn't just say like really thank you.

But I do want to put Milwaukee on notice.

We have to take care of our good people.

We can no longer look at dollars and say, oh, that's too much.

But then we look at the LAN, or we look at other cities and get caught in things like that.

It's important that we take care of the great ones, and you truly are a great one, so thank you, sir.

Thank you.

It's hard to tap that.

Anyone I'll try if we can go down the line.

I will try to be brief, although there's not enough things I could say.

I do want to acknowledge the really tremendous community turnout to the community meetings that the chair referenced and the letters of support from all the way from the National Fire Sprinkler Association to the medical college to folks working on overdose prevention to current and former staff and from everyday community members who had just been helped out and felt a deep sense of trust for you.

I think the the breadth of the letters that we received is truly remarkable.

A member of the media reached out to me to ask, hey, I haven't heard anyone say anything bad about this guy.

Does anyone even have any complaints about him?

And I think the only complaints that I've ever heard are actually some of your greatest strengths, which are that Chief Lipsky has a truly expansive view of public safety.

He's never saying this is not my job.

Everything is his business because he truly and genuinely cares about Milwaukeeans.

And I think that you truly embody that.

So it's it's my honor to be in support of your reappointment.

Good.

Uh just just briefly for the public.

Um the Fire and Police Commission um evaluates Chief Lipsky every six months.

So when we come to this point of for another four-year term, it's not done without a lot of discussion.

Public might not see the six-month evaluations, but I I really want to um make sure that people understand that we have ongoing discussions with the chief about his performance.

And I'm not sat in on any um performance evaluations with the chief that have been negative in my time on this body.

And and so that goes a long way in bringing forward to the public um this recommendation for another four-year term.

Um in our estimation, and I really want to make sure that the public doesn't get blinded by the salary.

It is in it's consistent with what we would see uh with someone in his position covering as much territory as he does.

So while for many people, this is a lot of money.

Totally understand.

Um it is well worth um everyone's ability to sleep at night, knowing that we've got someone like Chief Lipsky at the helm.

Yes.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Oh man.

I think I might get emotional, which is weird, but or maybe not weird, I don't know.

Um I went to high school at Winanchee High School in Washington State.

Commissioner, okay.

I know you're always so interested in where everyone went to high school.

Okay.

So here here's here's what I want to say about that is um I do think I really believe I really agree with you that Milwaukee needs to start paying good people who work here much better.

Um and that goes for everyone, like I nonprofits, come on now.

Right.

Okay.

Service work service work, right?

All of it.

There's also a role that us transplants can play that I think is really important, which is sometimes like a fresh eye.

This city has a lot of no.

Like working on this commission and working even very part-time in City Hall.

Sometimes I feel like I'm just running up against glass wall, like invisible walls, and I'm like, what the he?

Wait, what?

What's this about?

Right?

It's like all this integrated stuff that I'm sort of not privy to.

And what I really appreciate about you, Chief Lipski is you are a collaborative ball of yes.

You're like, what's the problem?

How do we figure it out?

Who needs to be at the table?

Let's bring people in.

I'm not gonna be quiet about this.

My members are seeing it, I'm seeing it like you've got sort of I'm gonna cut through red tape with a machete kind of vibes, right?

Like you're you're just like, I'm not gonna take no for an answer when it's something that the people need.

And I think that's really rare, at least from my viewpoint, it's extremely rare.

And to be able to have a person of your caliber and quality in a role like you're in, to be able to re-up you for which is what I will be a big surprise, everyone.

I will be voting yes on that, like you know, I think it's a line of sight to a quality of leadership we need much more of.

And I'm very grateful for it.

So thank you.

Thank you.

So we go back a long ways, and we've been through quite a bit together.

Yes.

Which I won't get into here, but you and I know what that all entails.

Yes.

And uh just seeing how you've developed how you've grown again from literally day one in the fire department.

I I couldn't be happier, couldn't be prouder.

It it means so much for our department, our beloved department, and of course, for our beloved city.

And uh yeah, I again I can't add to it, and I'd probably get emotional, but I'm I'm really proud to be here to be a strong supporter and see everything that you're doing firsthand.

So congratulations.

Thank you.

And uh on line, uh Commissioner World Patterson.

Do you have anything you want to add?

Sure, I'm happy to I'm happy to vote yes for the extension of Chief Lipske's um leadership at the fire department.

I was truly um impressed with the long list of day-to-day accomplishments that you do in addition to leading the fire department, and I think that Milwaukee needs to know all that you do in addition to leading a wonderful team of firefighters.

I'm happy to vote yes, and I'm glad that you are committed to Milwaukee and wanting to stay, and I'm sure that that list will grow even longer.

Um, just knowing your uh work ethic, but thank you so much for all that you do here in Milwaukee to keep it safe and your creativity as that list grows longer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Commissioner Burgos.

Yes, uh, just want to thank the chief for his uh professionalism, dedication to Milwaukee.

We see his uh caring, his desire every day, every every newscast, every uh imploring for more help, more help for the city for the people.

It's uh it's honored to work to work with him to see him, and uh I totally acknowledge he's he's the right person for the right for the job.

So Chief Litsky, thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

Anything you would like to uh say?

Uh yes, I wrote a short speech.

No, I'm carrying a power point, I'm 100%.

No PowerPoint.

No, I know the tiger point.

Wow, tiger point.

All right, tiger stripe, tiger strip.

Okay.

Um yes, thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Board of Commissioners, thank you, uh executive director and all of the fire and police commission staff.

Um aside from uh being married to my beautiful wife Krista and and uh raising our incredible daughter Isabella, uh this is this is my life's calling.

And my life's calling uh isn't just to be a firefighter, it is to be a Milwaukee firefighter.

And uh we've we've all been on quite a long road here uh to get to this uh point, and I don't want to delay it anymore uh by trying to be poetic or whatever uh but I I do have to uh I do have to acknowledge I've heard the word collaboration quite a bit, and uh every time I get creative or innovative or collaborative and uh say yes to things, there's a number of people in this room who lose hair goes gray, possibly ulcers.

Um but they make it happen, they make it happen.

Um I was I was out of town the past two days.

And that drives me nuts when I'm not here when something major is happening, and as you know, we had our second thousand-year flood in you know, nine months or whatever it was, but um I slept very well while I was there because I've got assistant chiefs like Josh Parrish, Skylar Belot, Dave Hensley.

I've got deputy chiefs in the back, battalion chiefs, most importantly, all the way on down to firefighters and paramedics who just go, and they're going at a pace we've never gone at before, and we've come through some really really tough times.

We're not all the way out of those woods, but it is my honor and my privilege uh to serve in this capacity, and I am I'm very grateful for what I'm hearing as support tonight, and uh thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay, Chief.

I just have uh one little thing to add.

Um I've been attending the um recruit graduations.

I've been attending the recruits first day uh coming into the academy, and I have to say that there is uh in my opinion, no better charismatic or inspirational speaker or leader, uh, especially when it comes to the culture that you're instilling in the department, and that is there's no uh there's no question about equality, about non-discrimination, about encouraging women, encouraging people of all walks of life, and and it's just incredible to me that you've turned this department into uh uh such a diverse and vibrant place.

So I really appreciate that.

And uh with that, uh we've had a uh motion and a second.

Um I will recall the question.

I'll take a roll call vote, alphabetical order, Commissioner Burgos.

Aye, Commissioner Fong, aye, Commissioner Ramey?

Absolutely, Commissioner Snyder, aye, Commissioner Spence, aye, Commissioner Spencer, aye, Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Based on the unanimous vote of the board of the fire and police commission, the motion carries congratulations, Chief Lipskey.

Are you sure?

Okay.

All right, that's it's hard to act to follow, but here we go.

Thank you, Director.

Please proceed with the agenda.

I think we are gonna take an item out of order.

Yes, under new business.

We'll take up item 18 next, uh, which is FPC 212494 communication relating to common council file number 25163, which is a substitute motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedure 460, use of force, and uh just for Ben general background um for the record.

Uh this is a motion that is was sponsored by Alderman Peter Burkelis, uh, and the motion would modify uh standard operating procedure 460, use of force.

Uh the modification would restore uh recently deleted requirement that a use of force report be written when a department member draws or displays a firearm to effect an arrest or seizure of a person.

It would also restore a provision that exempted this type of use of force report from the requirement uh that photographs uh to illustrate any injury or lack thereof be taken uh of the subject against whom force was used, and the matter is before the board uh to consider and I'd ultimately make a recommendation regarding uh the motion.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Alderman Peter Bergellis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, uh Madam Chair, committee, uh Commission members, uh, and executive director Todd.

I authored this SOP change because of obligations given to the Common Council by Act 12 to restore this civil rights negotiated standard operating procedure to where it was and where it needs to be and should stay.

Act 12, frankly, we know stripped responsibility for civilian oversight from you.

But now the council wisely values the commission's guidance and public's input on these important matters.

At its core, this SOP is about clarity, accountability, and protecting both the public and the officers.

We asked to do an incredibly difficult job.

When policies drift, even with good intentions, we create gray areas.

And in public safety, gray areas are where mistakes and mistrust grow.

Here in Milwaukee, we've heard testimony today already.

Today in Hennepin County, charges were filed in a case that is now drawing national attention.

Regardless of where anyone lands on the specifics, one thing is clear.

When procedures are unclear, inconsistently applied, or changed without solid foundation, the consequences can be serious for everyone involved.

We learned of this SOP change during the Public Safety and Health Committee.

And as we read through the mostly mundane and administrative edits or altered alterations of SOPs, this one really perked our concern.

Because it had to do with use of force, and there was zero advanced communication, community discussion, frankly any public input or mention with this body, either.

The police department was forthcoming and welcoming to that conversation, and really told us that it was just a burdensome paperwork problem.

That really disappointed me.

The first one that passed was ICE related, and clearly that had higher precedence and came before you sooner.

But this is still very important.

This change back is about restoring a standard that officers already understand, that supervisors know how to enforce, and that the public can and should trust.

Good policy should be predictable.

It should be defensible, and it should hold up in real real-world high pressure pressure situations.

We owe that to our residents.

Frankly, we owe that to the officers in uniform who rely on clear direction every single day.

We know what could happen.

I urge your support.

But I a matter of this importance, something from the police department that this commission previously had purview of.

This should be scheduled in front of the public safety and health committee on April 30th at 9 a.m.

in this very room.

Should it be moved for uh adoption by the full council that will be voted on by the full council on May 12th?

And I welcome any questions.

Okay, um I think uh I don't know, should we ask the department to weigh in?

Is there anyone from the department who wishes to speak on this item?

Uh good evening, madam chair, uh assistant chief of police uh Craig Sarnal.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Uh, just to provide a little bit uh more context.

Um the change of the SOP was presented to the fire and police commission on October 3rd of 2024 as part of a communication file, uh, which I appeared in person.

Uh there was no public comment, I believe recall from that time.

All the members who are currently on the commission, with the exception of Commissioner Fung, uh were part of the commission at that time.

I had a PowerPoint presentation attached in which I show some metrics.

This was actually part of several recommendations we made to the policy that included adding a civilian member to the use of force committee, uh making some changes to what the use of force committee um looks at as part of their uh quarterly review.

Um this was also one of those changes.

Um and a large part of the change or why it was changed was because the drawing or displaying of a firearm is not considered a use of force metric by nationally recognized or nationally recognized best practices.

You do not see that language included in any document uh documentation associated with the International Association and the Chiefs of Police, the police executive research forum, the national consensus policy on use of force, or the NYAU school of law policing project, which had presented to this commission previously on vehicle pursuits.

As a matter of fact, their language and how they define use of force or reportable use of force means any application of physical force other than physical contact used solely for facilitating custody of a compliant person, such as the application of handcuffs.

Reportable use of force includes a threat of force by pointing a firearm at or the direction of a person, other than in the context of training or qualification, reportable use of force also includes the deployment of a canine to assist in the effecting a detention or arrest.

Furthermore, when it comes to our policy, as it is now, it is clear on when police members may draw or display a firearm under Section 460 25 amount of force.

Police members may draw or display their firearms in circumstances where they reasonable reasonably believe it may be necessary for the safety of others, or for his or her own personal safety.

Members shall not point a firearm at or in the direction of a person unless there is a reasonable perception of a substantial risk that the situation may escalate to just the just justify deadly force.

Pretty clear.

We track the metrics that we're supposed to track.

We track the metrics that are in line with national best practices, discharges a firearm, points a firearm, uses a baton, discharges on urritants, chemical or inflammatory agent, deploys a taser, department canine bites a person, forcible blood draws, bodily force, and any type of force in which a person is injured or claims injury, whether or not the injury is immediately visible.

The legitimate use of force oversight and what's included in our policy should focus on actual force applied, not the mere preparation to apply force, like displaying a firearm to effect an arrest or a search and seizure.

Furthermore, there are records associated with that.

You have the written reports and the have the body worn camera that go along with it.

If there is any type of concern from a citizen or if anything is identified through some type of body body warm camera review, it is always subject to an internal investigation, either by the department or the through the fire and police commission.

And that is all I have to say on this uh particular um matter, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank thank you.

Um we'll open it up for questions from commissioners.

No, if there's a matter of um not at this moment, Madam Chair.

Chair.

Uh Madam Chair, um, I guess I first wanted to um thank uh I had because this sort of all started rolling um before I was on the commission, I had reached out to AC Sarnow um and Chief of Staff Hoff to get their perspective on the background, um, anticipating obviously that I would also hear um from uh the common council and from the community here, and so I just wanted a full picture.

Um, and I also watched the videos from the past.

Um I am trying to get a clearer understanding of how common it is that there uh is display of a firearm only.

Um can someone from the police department sort of characterize what percentage this is of uses of force or compare to pointing.

Um I feel a little messy on what's being characterized as pointing versus draw and display and/or pointing in the mix.

Yeah, the uh I'm just gonna uh reference actually the fire and police commission's uh 2024 report because the fire and police commission does a use of force report on uh the Milwaukee Police Fire, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, executive director of the 25 report is um nearly completed.

Um the the 2024 report, Commissioner Fung uh referenced um approximately 2,197 use of force incidents that were analyzed.

It goes on to say furthermore, 2,100 of the 2197, 1280 uh involved displaying and or appointing a firearm only, so that comes to about 58 percent.

And then uh just to add to that there were 182 displaying a firearm only incidents, which would be 13 percent, 13.1% of the total of use of force incidents, but um there are there were other displaying a firearm incidents in combination with either pointing or aiming or other types of use of force, but the ones that were displaying a firearm only were again 182.

Okay, and just to clarify if there are other types of use of force in there in addition to displaying, then in the current metrics, those would still be counted.

So only I'm only looking at the number for display only.

Is that correct?

Uh that would be one way to look at it.

Um the other uh incidents would be documented in a use of force report, but I don't think they would specifically well I don't know whether or not they would specifically note that there was uh displaying um a firearm to effect an arrest.

It would not be you know a an item like a check the box item that uh would be in the use of force report, but I would think it I would expect that it would be in the narrative.

Okay, thank you.

I I guess I'm just trying to consider if if we're looking at the amount of additional, if the if the concern is the amount of additional time, it sounds like because these are the vast minority of situations that it would not necessarily be a significant additional burden to just go back to counting these because it is such a minority um of the uses of force.

Well, personally I'm confused between displaying and pointing.

So I am I correct that the current policy without any further amendment does make it a use of force to point the firearm currently.

That's correct.

That's correct, madam chair.

Pointing a firearm at a person regardless of the situation, uh it doesn't even have to be in the course of effecting of arrest, constitutes a use of force report.

Displaying a firearm in the course of effecting an arrest, meaning I pull out my firearm and I just have it on my side, not pointing it at anyone under the old policy, constituted a use of force in a subsequent report.

Okay.

So what we're talking about is the only thing that it was eliminated by the change the department made was on displaying, which is does not involve pointing the firearm, just unholstering it.

Is that right?

Yes, during the course of effecting an arrest.

Okay.

Um questions?

Yeah, uh for Alderman Pragelis.

Um I'm trying to understand the effect of the current policy or the uh the SLP change.

With how the um your committee goes about doing its work.

It sounds as if even if this policy changed your committee would have the ability to discern um the critical information which you seek.

Is that incorrect?

Uh this change uh the the committee is only allowed to modify uh or reject changes to SOPs created by the chief.

So the council is unable to make our own new policy or uh do something that is not already addressed by the police department.

Well, I while I understand that I'm I'm trying to get at the crux stuff how the information is utilized by the committee, if at all utilized, because from what I'm understanding, the data would still be there even with this change.

I I would say to that um the data or the information is would likely be there uh or should be there in a police report in the narrative, but it would not be uh tracked as a use of force type such that it is can be pulled in an aggregate form um very easily.

Yeah.

Can I ask AC Sarno to comment on that?

Because I'm really trying to understand whether or not if people are looking for that information, how hard would it be to get?

It would be really hard.

Uh well, if it's if it's not tracked, I don't know how you could extract it.

If you'd have to do uh like a to what comes to mind is a keyword search, uh, and that's contingent on those words being in the report itself, the actual physical report.

The the metrics or the uh the the use of force uh metrics that we track, that's a separate report from any of the uh reports that are attached uh connected to the arrest, and those reports then are filed by the supervisors uh members.

Uh they are then reviewed by the ship commanders and they are then um sent up to the internal affairs division uh for review and compliance.

And again, those metrics are discharging a firearm, pointing a firearm, using a baton, using uh pepper spray, using a taser, forcible blood draw and bodily force.

A follow-up on that.

How is that information used to inform changes in how you how the department actually regulates or um informs training of its officers?

The metrics we track now, yes.

The metrics that you track now.

What what becomes um uh a red flag relative to training or policy relative to use of force?

Is it so yeah, please?

So there are the issues that may be identified by the work locations that could be addressed directly by the work locations or referred to the academy, and then there is the um issues that are identified and reviewed by the use of force committee, uh which meets quarterly that has civilian representation on it, uh, after which a report is generated uh that reflects the findings of those uh of the committee's findings that um is set to the fire and police commissioner.

And those findings uh commissioner could indicate remedial training, internal investigations, any number of things uh to your point as far as uh any issues that are identified just to add to that um one thing the use of force committee does is it it doesn't look at every single use of force incident, but it it through data looks at outliers if certain officers have more use of force types uh than the average officer or the mean.

Um my understanding is though that that has not historically included pointing or displaying, but the more the the physical types of use of force, those outliers um I just add that.

Yeah, uh it does include it does include pointing the firearm, not displaying a firearm, where we don't look at pointing the firearm as if they are a member of the tactical enforcement unit whose job by design in executing search warrants is going to result in the pointing of a firearm to to clear the room is that right?

That is correct, madam chair.

Yes, okay.

And that's a per a point of information I was gonna draw to the SOP 460 under when to file a use of force report, which is 460.50 sub B1 sub B uh for pointing and aiming, it does have a note that says this section does not apply if the pointing of the firearm occurs uh during the execution of a valid search warrant.

If this commission were to recommend adoption, you may want to consider adding that same note to displaying a firearm.

That makes sense.

What note?

Oh, then it doesn't apply during a warrant execution.

Yeah.

Well, they're pointing it then anyway.

Um Commissioner Sidence.

Yeah, I just want to make sure.

Uh Commissioner Fong, did you were you able to say everything you wanted to say?

Yeah, I'm good.

Okay.

Um, so a couple things.

One, um to the universe of the police saying it's administratively too burdensome.

That is a complaint I have heard uh and seen in multiple police departments across the entire country.

It's a very common refrain.

Not my first rodeo, I've heard that same uh reply from multiple departments.

Yeah, right.

Uh, for multiple departments, not just police.

Not just police.

That's interesting.

Um I do believe it is administratively burdensome, and that is not persuasive to me as a reason to not have it, because a um keeping track of what the department is doing is critical.

I want more information about uses of force, not less always.

Um I haven't, you have as an alderman, I haven't really heard other sectors use that same complaint in the way I've heard p police do it.

You know what I mean?

And so I think like, yep, it's burdensome to record everything.

That's how it is.

Um I also am very very happy for the Mocky police department to be ahead of the curve um when it comes to things like recording uses of force.

We have a higher standard for use of force um with the prohibition of the blood uh blocking the blood of the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain, which is prohibited in the city of Milwaukee, the DOJ has a lower standard than that.

You're allowed to block blood and oxygen to the brain if you have dead if deadly force is authorized.

And so I think like that's one example of us being better, uh having better, stronger policy than the national level.

And I'm happy for us to be in that category with this as well.

And and I might I might add that this uh may certainly not be classified as a legal definition of a use of force, but it is one that Milwaukee accepted in the settlement agreement brown.

Uh but this if we if if the department so desires, I'm perfectly happy amending uh this to be a report reported use of intimidation because when we have law enforcement protecting our citizens, we need to ensure that they earn the respect and get the respect so that everyone can be safer in our community.

I do appreciate you making that point simply because it will we cannot pretend we cannot credibly pretend that someone drawing a weapon in any situation does not change the temperature in the room, does not impact what is gonna happen.

So I I I appreciate you bringing this up.

I know you don't have to bring it to us, as you mentioned, but um I I do think it's important and I'm would be very happy to support this effort.

I appreciate that.

And uh if I may the use of data-driven decisions when evaluating uh people eligible for promotion within the department, I think that uh reported use of intimidation is something that should absolutely be considered in a formula in a formula consideration for promotion chair.

Oh yes, um thank you um to for bringing this.

I was trying to wreck my brain back to October 2024 and the dialogue that we had, and um AC Sarno, if I'm not mistaken, I think you said it today, and I think you said this in October back then.

If an officer draws their weapon, they report it just not as a critical incident, not necessarily it was a sudden the way you said it today, and I just want to verify.

So if a weapon is drawn, they put it in their report, but it's not listed as critical incident, correct?

Or did I mishear that?

Oh, that's correct.

It is uh nothing to do uh with being a critical incident commissioner.

But they have to write it down that they drew their weapon for whatever the situation was.

Yeah, the circumstances would be reflected in the report, it's um specifically if an arrest was affected.

I think you said critical incident when you meant a use of force.

Thank you.

Yes, yes, yeah.

Um and it has um and and so I think reporting in general, um I'm new to reading police reports, so I try to read them as much as I can, and it is legitimately very hard to find like one word in like a C of the narrative.

Um so I do think that if this is something that we want tracked, like this is the best and easiest way to do it, and I would assume that sort of the the on off of the button in the back end of tracking has already been set up and already exists, and that we would sort of just be able to turn that back on.

Well, and I think that's the author said that he's willing to make an amendment even to say a use of intimidation, right?

And how would that look if they put a report in?

Do we add a check box?

Where's your weapon drawn?

And you know, and then if there's an arrest and we can track that, right?

I'm wondering, because again, I'm trying to rack my brain around October 2024, the conversation, but I remember I was being comfortable at the time because that's how it was reported out.

You know, this wasn't a a use of force thing that's reported nationally.

But looking at this again and being in front of us, I can see where it can be a useful, especially from a pattern standpoint if someone is constantly drawing their weapon every time there is a situation.

But I you know, I just wanted to acknowledge at the time in October, I think again what we heard was something like, oh, okay, it makes sense, but it being brought, maybe there's a different conversation, maybe word change, use of intimidation, something that makes the most sense in this situation because I picture and I think an example that was given.

Someone is make you know brought to a call, they draw their weapon without seeing anyone and then re-holster before anything else is done, right?

There was a situation brought up.

So I'm just again recollecting my brain to remember that, but I can see why this is being brought back up now.

So thank you.

I'm just thinking out loud too.

So yeah, I I do understand that line of thinking and understand Alderman Brigelis's line of thinking.

Um I I I am a little bit concerned about that tipping point of drawing a weapon for intimidation or drawing a weapon in preparation.

And I'm trying to rack my brain around that tipping point.

Because I I do agree with you that if you have someone who is quick to draw, that should be a red flag for any sort of personnel related issues.

Something needs to be tracked on that.

But I I'm a little concerned with that tipping point.

Preparation versus intimidation.

And I'm trying to understand where that best fits and how we we make sure that the data is true data.

Um, I I think before us is just the question of whether or not it's reportable as a use of force under this particular SOP.

Uh I don't know, you know, uh to say that it's the use of intimidation.

Um because you know, just holding the gun down by your side might be intimidating.

Um but the SOP is about use of force.

Um so perhaps that issue of using uh a drawn gun as intimidation could be in a different SOP.

Uh the the question here is is it a use of force?

Um are there any other session points?

I just want to make the point that uh pretty much every police department has their own list of use of force items that they track.

And so there really is not a standard.

There's not a standardized way that departments do it.

And for that reason, I'm just gonna go back to what I said before.

I just want to really emphasize the more data we have about use of force, the better.

And so more data points that are gathered, I think are in the plus column.

Um like I think the question you're asking, Commissioner Spence, like we literally couldn't answer that question because we wouldn't have that information without having this adjustment.

Um and that's why I think it's critical.

Okay.

Madam Chair, can I uh make two points?

Sure.

Oh, yeah.

No, I my only point very quick, and I appreciate both sides, Chief.

I appreciate you bringing us back to October 2024 and and hearing what the national standards were, but I I agree, I couldn't agree more everything uh Commissioner Spencer said, and that um I think this benefits both the community and the police department, just much like body word camera.

I just think it's a benefit on both sides.

So I uh thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Brigallison bringing this up.

I think that's worthwhile.

Okay.

Uh just two quick points.

Uh hopefully.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, Virgo.

Oh okay, Commissioner Burgos.

Commissioners take precedence over the executive.

Well, they should.

Yeah.

I don't I'll leave.

Okay, so I question comment.

This commission is really made at a point to emphasize the sergeant rank as very critical in our police department.

And by having this as a use of force, this is a training.

This is a training point.

If these officers are you said the the SOP said if they believe they need to pull the weapon or if they have perception that they had there's some danger they need to use the weapon, and it that to me is it could be a red flag also.

I mean I'm not saying that they're wrong, but uh sergeant asking you why.

Why'd you do that?

Articulate to me why you did that and move on if it's if it is totally acceptable to move forward.

But if it's not, then maybe it's time for you know on the street correction action.

That's I think the sergeant rate, you know, it has to be there in a use of force incident, and if we that's a training point, something could be wrong, something maybe not be wrong, maybe something wrong in this guy's life that's in divorce, children sick, and we need to address that right away.

That's one way of finding out what's going on.

Why did you pull your gun?

Well, what did you see that was necessary to pull a gun?

I I mean you that's a very serious first step in a use of force incident.

I'm not saying that the officers are wrong in any step.

I'm just saying that if we have made a big point of emphasizing the sergeant as a supervisor.

We got some very young police officers out there, and we're rolling, and if they can't articulate why they did what they did, uh then the sergeant should be stepping in there and helping them because this is a training point in my opinion.

Um their perceptions, their beliefs uh are true to them.

No problem with that.

I'm just saying uh maybe we can talk through it.

Why did you do this and why like what could you have done differently?

Because the community sees it so he sees the incident of pulling the gun is very different from police officer self-defense or intimidation.

I don't believe the word intimidation should ever be used in that in this form in this uh use of force.

That's wrong, but um I could see why we should keep this form in there.

It it keeps us or this reporting element to the use of force thing in it, it has a uh a way to keep red flags going for censoring officers, not just because they're bad people because maybe it's bad time in the life, or that we can use them as a training point for the sergeants.

Burdensome 130 complaints in one year is not allowed, whatever the number was.

Um I'm sorry that to me that's too bad for the sergeants.

That's file report.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Will Patterson.

I appreciate um Commissioner Burgos Burgos's point, and I was really looking forward to the boots on the ground explanation, and I'm going to concur with what he has said.

Okay, your turn.

All right.

Uh well, I'll be quick.

Um I just wanted to point out as a procedural matter, this uh item is scheduled as a communication file.

Uh when we were preparing uh the agenda, uh, and I spoke with the chair, it was her decision that SOP um uh motion modification motions that come to the FPC as uh as a practice should be scheduled as a communication file uh for the first time.

And I believe another commissioner had indicated a preference for that as well to allow for a deliberative process for the commission to uh take its time and not rush any decision so that the practice would be at the first meeting a communication file, and then possibly thereafter a resolution file uh where they would make a specific recommendation.

Um I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is uh so this is a a motion of the country council.

I understand it's not a resolution that would be subject to a mayoral signature or veto.

This is an instrument of the body.

So once the council uh adopts or rejects uh a motion, that's it.

Yeah, uh so uh so there's no there's no ability for the commission to vote on this uh as a resolution or a change.

Um Act 12 took that away from you.

No, we'd be wouldn't we be voting?

Sorry to interrupt you, but wouldn't we be voting to recommend or not recommend to the common council?

That's what we'd be voting on, yeah, not the resolution itself.

So you would you would vote to recommend that the council adopted adopt a motion.

Yeah, just to clarify, do we have another meeting prior to when this is scheduled to come up?

No, the next meeting would be May 7th.

And that's why I wanted to bring up that procedural point that it was not scheduled uh for a vote on a specific um recommendation whether to recommend adoption or not adoption or some kind of alteration.

So what do we do given that our next meeting wouldn't be until after when they need to know what we think about it?

This does not have to be scheduled at the next next public safety.

It can wait a cycle.

It could.

Okay.

The reason I I like the process of having a communication file first is because we do want to get public comment and we do want to have a discussion.

And it may be that in the course of that activity, we realize that there could be some better language or there could be some addition, just as we are apparently doing with the pursuit policy.

So that just seemed like it was the right way procedurally to go.

This is pretty laser focused because you're putting back in something that was taken out.

So it's perhaps not as difficult to put our hands around it.

So um that's why it was scheduled for communication file.

Uh but given that you know it's not something that has to happen in the in a certain time frame.

Um I would uh suggest that we now know the temperature in the room and the uh opinion of the commissioners.

Is it appropriate to send it to committee?

Well, it yes, it could be if it was.

Unless that's already in committee.

In your committee, we have our committees too.

But I don't think we need to send it to our committee because we've had an opportunity to discuss it in it and and it is not um it's not multiple.

It's it is what it is.

You know, I I suppose another option would be uh if there was a a time sensitive uh matter or or aspect to it uh as a communication file, uh if there's a general cons unanimous consensus and there's no objection, um public safety with it, even though you would not have a formal recommendation, uh I think that could be conveyed to the public safety committee that there was no objection and the consensus was supporting it of the fire and police commission.

I don't know if you want to go that route though.

This this is this is brand new territory, yes, and that's that's it is and uh you know there are there are a lot of problems.

I'll just be on record for the 17th time this month.

Uh there are a lot of problems with Act 12 and a lot of um unanswered questions and processes and unfunded responsibilities.

Uh this is just this just highlights one more of them uh that we get to work through.

Madam Chair, and with that being said, I would like to keep it a communication file so we can formally follow the recommendation steps, right?

Because it's being introduced, we haven't a conversation.

There's not a time press to have this happen.

Let's let's make a formal, let's just keep it because Act 12 keeps us in limbo anyway.

Right.

This is a way for us to kind of control at least a flow to a certain degree in my mind.

Yeah, I I do think that we need to have our process.

I mean, it's been a while since Act 12, but we haven't really had much controversy on something like this.

So now's the time to get it in.

And we may this may just highlight the need to have a communication to have an ordinance change that spells out the process clearly so that uh we can be consistent.

Right.

Uh and other future commissions can also be consistent.

Exactly.

Thank you very much.

Is there anything else that we want to add before we move on?

Just thank you again for bringing this.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, uh Madam Chair.

Yeah.

Can we put the vehicle pursuit next?

Sure.

I think that given the interest of the participants, that's item 15.

So item 15 uh under old business is FPC 21, excuse me, 212429 resolution recommending modification of Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedures related to vehicle pursuits and video release.

Uh just as a brief overview um uh for the record, I did have discussions with uh a number of commissioners who had expressed interest in having a proposed substitute resolution.

It's proposed substitute A, uh sponsored by uh Vice Chair uh Spencer and Commissioner World Patterson, and so uh it has the same language and recommendation related to SOP six sixty that uh uh I apologize one moment um that recommends uh that 660 be modified to prohibit prohibit department members from engaging in vehicle pursuits for reckless driving that is observed after an attempted stop uh and would also recommend that uh it be modified to explicitly provide that if the continuation of a pursuit for reckless driving increases the danger to the public, the department members shall terminate the pursuit.

Uh the substitute resolution uh would further recommend that uh the Milwaukee Police Department or the Common Council modify SOP 575, which is the video release policy by adding vehicle pursuits involving death or great bodily harm to the categories of incidents uh requiring uh release of video evidence under the policy.

Okay, very good.

Um is there any discussion, Commissioners?

I have a couple things, sure.

Um first I want to thank the commission and the community for their work on this effort.

Um I think that the discussion that happened in committee was really valuable, and I'm uh I in particular I'm really I think it's a good idea to include the uh um recommendation related to 575.

Um so thanks everyone who worked on that.

I want to very respectfully request one edit to the draft that we have, which is to reflect that 10 people died in 2025, not nine.

Oh, because of the additional the Anne said it was gonna be added in 2024 because that's when he oh okay, is that's when the incident uh the vehicle pursuit was in 2024.

Okay, I didn't hear that part.

Thank you for flagging it.

That was discussed okay thank you for yes, yeah, no problem.

Okay, so then um I just wanted to articulate because I think it's a little bit hard, like I think that the draft is right and how it's worded.

I just want to say for the public, what is at least in part motivating um the request for this change, which is a scenario we saw not that long ago, which is somebody got pulled over for a reti uh expired tags, and that ended in pursuit, which ended in a shooting.

I don't think a retired or I can't want to say retired tags, that's not right, expired tags or low-level things like that should ever be resulting in death.

That's crazy.

So we need policies that restrict in ways that make us have less police pursuits.

I want to be really clear as well.

Like Milwaukee is way off the best practice standard, even with this adjustment.

And I think it's important to note that I also feel a sense of urgency of what we can do right now to reduce the number of vehicle pursuits, and this is one thing we can do right now.

But there is I want to be really clear.

There is more work to do on this issue for the city.

Um, and I just wanted to make sure I was explicit about sort of the motivation and the fact that I think there's still more work.

Um, but I'm hopeful that we'll pass this as a recommendation tonight.

Okay, any further Madam Chair.

I I just want to highlight something um that I think I've said at another FPC meeting, but um different folks in the room probably, but I just I think it's really important to remember that um no pursuit doesn't mean no accountability and that vehicle pursuits are not the only way um or even the best way to address reckless driving, which is obviously um a serious issue in Milwaukee.

Um and so I then I also just want to echo um Commissioner Spencer's uh comments about gratitude um to the community.

I know it's kind of been a long road um coming to this, but I hope that um I I'm in favor of this, obviously, um, but I hope that um addressing at least some of the core concerns here is a positive step forward.

Um, and also thank uh Commissioner World Patterson and Commissioner Spencer for your work on this.

Okay, great.

Um well um we seem to have come to some fullness in our discussion.

Is there a motion?

So move.

Second.

So um and just to clarify that's to adopt uh or recommend subst propose substitute.

Right.

Right.

Proposed substitute, that's the one with uh 575.

Right.

Yes, yes, yes.

Yeah, okay.

I have that here, I guess I can look at it.

Then I will take a roll call vote in alphabetical order.

Commissioner Burgos.

Aye.

Commissioner Fong.

Aye.

Commissioner Ramey?

Aye.

Commissioner Snyder.

Aye.

Commissioner Spence.

Aye.

Commissioner Spencer.

Aye.

Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

Motion carries.

Of course you mean that you understand the next step is to see if the department will adopt it and if they adopt it, great.

And if they don't, then the common council will make their own decisions on how to act on this.

Okay.

Um director, please proceed with the agenda.

Skipped around a little bit.

Oh, where are we?

Oh, yeah, lateral transfer.

So we're now uh we'll take out the item under examinations, which is item 14, FPC 212492.

Resolution relating to the firefighter transfer lateral job announcement bulletin for the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Okay.

Um do we have anyone to address this?

I don't look around the board.

Um, Chief Lovsky's still here.

He's he's hanging around.

Chief, you are you able to take this item?

All right.

Okay.

Lateral transfers.

Yeah, right.

Uh I'm gonna just start off.

Sure.

Okay.

So we are uh going to uh try to maximize our recruitment capability and try to reduce a little bit of the training time needed to onboard a new member.

We've never done this before.

Uh so we're we're putting some pretty robust guardrails in the way uh or or alongside rather, so that we don't create some sort of monster that we can't get away from.

Uh so the intent and purpose of this uh job announcement bulletin uh is as I'm sure you've read, uh, is simply to lay out that we're open for business in this way and that we will welcome people at the rank of firefighter uh who are already working and trained as firefighters and paramedics in other communities.

Uh and we're specifically looking for um folks from uh paid career fire departments that would adjust uh to the culture easier.

We uh we are not stocking the pond uh with only lateral transfer people.

We're just trying to kind of forestall if we would see some dramatic decrease in our recruitment uh the numbers showing up to actually apply or complete the testing process successfully on the back end.

Once they would start the fire academy, it would uh ideally be a shortened uh version of that to kind of teach them the Milwaukee-esque way of doing things so that they could be deployed in the field okay.

Any questions?

Just a quick question.

Do you anticipate like saying, oh, but we gotta cap this off?

Uh you know, there's too many lateral potential people who are applying.

Do you think that may become a problem?

Um people want to come to Milwaukee to be a firefighter at the end of the day.

Well, I I hope so.

Yeah, I hope so.

Uh I I don't know that we would need to cap it off.

Okay.

I I I don't know that it will be robust and long term this like constant flow.

I think when when we will enjoy the benefits of this early on, and it'll taper off.

So I don't know that we'll have to cap it off.

Okay.

Uh and if I gotta eat my words in a year or so, we'll address it then.

Okay.

Right here.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments?

Madam Chair, move for approval.

Thank you.

Okay.

I think this is a voice vote.

Yes.

Um I will take a voice vote.

All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

So we've already taken up item 15, so we'll now move on to the items under new business, starting with item 16, FPC 21, 2452.

Communication relating to the structure and format of public comment at FPC meetings.

And Madam Chair, would you like me to give an overview or uh Yeah?

I think some history and and um overview is uh a good way to start.

Yes.

So uh historically the commission uh has held at least so long as I've been here uh public comment at the beginning of all the regular meetings uh as well as um uh the committee meetings.

Uh when I first started uh public comment was uh this is you know five years ago up until uh the last year, I believe, um was two minutes at the regular meeting and then uh five minutes uh uh per person at at the committee meetings to uh the the theory was that uh there'd be more in-depth discussion at committee meetings, uh and so people might uh want uh more time or need more time to make their their positions known uh uh uh during public comment at the committee meetings.

That was during a time when uh the the policies and standards committee uh specifically would take up most if not all uh recommended uh SOP changes.

Um so there could be a lot of policy work with that.

Uh following um Act 12, uh which was in uh uh July, I believe, of 2023, there was a significant uh I would say decrease in uh public participation in public comment uh following uh uh that state law change.

Uh that began um uh I think it was sometime in in 2024, uh members of the public um felt uh voiced their concern that two minutes was not enough.

Uh it was in a time when uh the commission was not really receiving a lot of public comment, and so I think it was the consensus of the commission uh at some point in 2024 or early 2025 to move uh uh to five minutes uh per speaker at regular uh FPC meetings.

Uh fast forward, I'm sorry.

I think it was in 24.

Okay.

Uh fast forward to I would say really the beginning of this year in the last three or four months, uh, there have been some marathon uh public comment sessions.

I think it's fair to say that would run uh two hours over two hours, sometimes over three hours.

Uh those uh they it does create um uh it's a a very big time commitment, uh not only for the commissioners but also for uh department staff that uh attends the meetings both in person and virtual.

It can result in uh significant delays before their uh agenda items are heard, and that results in uh some late days, long hours uh for many members of the police, fire and uh departments, and department of emergency communications.

Um it also did result in uh a number of times um scheduled items had to be uh postponed until a uh another meeting because there simply was not time or bandwidth to take up those items as scheduled.

Uh that was not uh that that was not very frequently, but it did occur at least uh a couple of times.

Um and so there uh has been uh some communications or discussion between myself and certain commissioners if uh there should be changes to uh the structure format of uh of the public comment uh uh uh portion of the meetings.

Uh some of the recommendations or potential options for consideration that I've heard in my discussions with commissioners, FPC staff in the police department are the following.

Uh one one idea was to reduce the time each speaker gets from five minutes to two or three minutes.

Um if uh a certain threshold uh of registered speakers uh is exceeded, for example, 20 or 25 speakers or slips.

Uh one commissioner um noted that maybe there could be an exception for people who have lost a loved one due to uh for example a police shooting or a vehicle pursuit that they could potentially uh uh there could be an exception to give them additional time out of respect.

Another proposal was uh uh creating a limited number of slots, longer speaking slots, either say five or ten minutes uh for community organizations or for individuals uh if they had more substantive presentations, uh those would need to be requested and then approved by the chair in advance, and that would be on a discretionary basis based on the request and the information um uh submitted.

Uh that would also allow individuals appearing in support of that organization to indicate their support, you know, for example by raising their hands, but it would eliminate potentially uh the need for uh exceedingly repetitive comments while still allowing individuals to register their support for positions and allowing the commissioners to take note of that.

Other potential recommendations uh that I've heard are to allow individuals with uh comments related to an agenda item to speak first.

Uh alternatively uh you could move uh comments unrelated to an agenda item to the end of a meeting.

Uh there's another potential con uh idea to hold public comment after uh the consent agenda and promotions so that those departments that didn't have other agenda items could be excused thereafter.

Um there has been concern raised about uh question and answers uh during public comment and whether or not uh that's appropriate uh uh or that's the purpose of public comment.

I I would note regarding that that uh people with questions uh can always contact myself or other FPC staff to have questions answered.

And then lastly, I I there has been uh concern raised about uh uh people who uh this is not the vast majority of people, but there have been a handful of occasions uh and speakers who failed to keep their comments respectful and maintained decorum.

Uh that concern was raised uh uh a number of times.

So those are uh the potential considerations that I have uh heard in my discussions with others.

Ultimately it's up to uh uh the chair or the commission as a whole to decide how and if to change public comment going forward.

Uh and so with that I'll turn it back over to you, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Um do we have hands up over there?

No.

Okay.

Then uh I'll just say this.

Um I know and I remember um early on when it was two minutes, we got a lot accomplished still, right?

We had no knock warrants that we eliminated when testimony was two minutes.

We video release footage when it was two minutes.

I do believe wholeheartedly, um, this is not about censoring and/or reducing um voice, but it's allowing I think comment from the community to be concise, as well as you know, it still can be emotional on that time.

Again, we got some good things accomplished when when we were at the two-minute mark.

I do like some of the other ideas, um, such as when Turner did the presentation uh when they followed um us for several months, and they we gave them a platform to kind of speak to us.

I thought that was great.

Same thing we did with Lit.

Um so I do think there's some other options.

I think when it comes to just like testimony, you know, helping you know, community members learn to be concise, we can help everybody's voice to be heard then, right?

Too.

So that's just my two cents um and being here as long as I have I have been here and noticing the difference.

Again, I I'll take no knock warrants.

We had a lot of conversation and committee work, and then the voices were heard.

Um they had a longer time, but then came here with two minutes.

But we got that done with the community's help.

Same thing with the video release.

So I I think it's not a terrible thing to give out the two minutes.

I just think I would also like to see more of what we saw with Lit, what we saw with Turner's, to be more involved that way as well.

So just to piggyback on that.

I do believe that you're you're correct in terms of the initial comment.

Um I think that the issue that we face is this want to have a true dialogue and forms elements like what you just spoke of might give us the ability to have true dialogue.

Ums are not necessarily meant for ongoing dialogue, and we we struggle with that right now.

So if one of the options is to have an element where true dialogue can occur, that might be more useful.

And let me let me interpose this.

Getting something on the agenda, uh, it just needs to be brought to our attention, right?

Um if a community organization wants to address the commission on something that's of concern to their constituents, we just have to schedule it for the agenda.

And uh then we're not under a time limit.

We're also not um uh limited by the open meetings law that we can't discuss something that's not been noticed.

Um I think that um that would be a very reasonable way to proceed.

I think also that if for some reason uh me uh myself as a chair say no, I'm not gonna schedule that.

The rules allow that any commissioner.

Is it two commissioners?

I think it might be two commissioners.

It might be, I'd have I'd have to double check the rules.

But it's but it's not entirely up to me.

I mean, there's other ways in which this could those items could be scheduled for meetings, and I think that's a good point and and probably more productive.

And go ahead.

I was gonna say I think the uh the rule that you're thinking of is to call a special meeting.

You need at least two commissioners.

But my understanding of Roberts rules is um at the end of uh uh a meeting you could move to place an uh uh an agenda item on the file on the next agenda and vote on that if the chair won't do it.

But uh so there is a procedural mechanism uh to for other commissioners to get items on the agenda without the chair.

Right.

Well, you can you you don't have to worry about my attitude about putting these on the agenda because I think they're probably more important than um than we realize.

Um so any other any comment about the five minutes versus some other numbers.

Madam Chair, um I I guess granted I have only been here post-act 12, so I agreed to come to this body that doesn't have policymaking authority anymore.

Um but I saw uh there was a time when I would say in fire and police commission meetings.

I've also protested at fire and police commission meetings in my former lifetime.

Um I have seen a tremendous change recently in terms of community trust and community engagement um with I think some of the positive steps that this body has made um to perhaps be able to briefly answer like procedural type questions during question and answer um and also with um expanded time for public comment.

Um and so I hesitate to make significant changes here because I think we sort of in my personal opinion just barely got back on our feet um post Act 12 in terms of figuring out um and is re-establishing our identity and where the fire and police commission fits in the process of all this um in relationship to the community and to the common council, and I do think that public comment is one of the most like hearing public comment and being a vehicle for that and being able to translate public comment into change in the ways that we can is one of the most important things we do.

Um so I really hesitate to shorten the amount of time.

Um I will also say some of the comment, I appreciate all types of comments, but some of the comments that are most helpful for me are the ones that make sort of substantive arguments, and it is pretty hard to make a substantive argument, um, especially if you're referencing something or using a little bit of data in two minutes.

Um I have tried, but it is difficult.

Um for those reasons I'm kind of cautious about um moving to a world where uh we're not able to hear sort of someone's full public comment.

Um I would be interested, obviously, in hearing more longer form presentations or discussions with specific community groups.

I think that's I'll agree with Commissioner Ramey that that's a really positive thing.

Um, but I I just want to voice that I I have some hesitance um about sort of undoing or stopping some of the great progress I think we've been making.

Madam Chair, question for executive director um relative to Roberts rules.

Yes.

Does it allow an individual to cede their time over to another individual to expand on a thought that a group might have?

Uh I don't know the answer to that.

Um I I would think though that I one I my my suspicion is that that's not specifically addressed by Roberts rules and it's up to the body to determine the f the format of public comment.

But I I I'm not a hundred percent, so I don't want to overstate anything.

I I'll leave it as I'm not sure, but that's my my suspicion.

That the body could say yes if someone or a number of individuals um has a collective thought that one could cede time over to an additional uh to an individual to carry out that line of thinking.

It's just one other possibility.

I see.

Yeah.

I also think that as chair, we can uh we're not we can be flexible.

Uh you know, what we're doing here is to establish the expectations and what the rule is, but if there's exceptional circumstances from time to time where you know something is in the news and is really at the forefront of concern, um, you know, we just give people more time.

Uh but uh they uh the proposition is you know, are we keeping the five minutes?

Are we changing that?

Are we doing something else?

Go ahead.

Um yeah, so I think the arguments from tonight about like sort of the national environment being pretty closing more and more opportunities for people to speak, like the federal government trying to close down the need for public comment when there are rule adjustments and things like that.

Um I think does kind of mean that this moment is one where because I've been really thinking about this, trying to figure out what I think about it.

Um I think it is important maybe for us to be sensitive to the fact that this is as people are self-reporting to us, one of the only places people feel like they can come and speak on these matters and be heard.

Um I also want to flag that that's not just a national thing, right?

Like someone brought up, I think Tiffany, it was you tonight brought up that like be there's sort of uncertainty in terms of access to the common council as well, and so if the FPC can be uh you know, able to hear, I think that's important.

Um I also want to flag, I think there's a very particular thing that happens when we have two-minute um timekeeping, which is that a really high portion of speakers get cut off by the director because they hit their time really fast, and I think that is probably a number one trust relationship killer with the community that comes here.

And not having that, not having to have that interruption, I think has given like space and breadth to people to feel like they can say what they need to say.

Be present and say what they need to say, yeah.

And then um I do want to say, as also a slightly older timer on the on the commission, which is crazy because it's been like four years, not forever, but um it's a while.

And I think that there has been a shift in how these meetings feel clearly there's a shift, and whether or not people think it's useful to come and speak to us.

I mean, I think part of what was going on in October 2024, I was out on my like informal medical leave, but like we were still kind of stunned uh post-act twelve, trying to figure out what the heck we were doing.

And I think that's part of the reconsideration of the um of the conversation around the issue Brighells was bringing alderman Burkelis.

Um I guess I'm also thinking about that.

Like, how do we preserve the trust?

Kind of what Commissioner Fung was saying, like the the trust that has been built, there's of course still still work to do, more room to grow, but I do think having not having people cut off has helped.

Yeah.

Yeah, this is a tough one.

I I uh hear everything and all makes sense.

I I think like tonight, um, other than the superfluous Chief Lipsky junk.

Um there was uh we have a lot of substantive comments and and often and and it it was this wasn't tonight, but I think of like an Alex Larson coming in, he's always got a lot of documentation.

He's always Mr.

Villas, you've a couple times you come, you have like a lot of things that are very particular and you've done some research.

So I think of those things like okay, yeah, that's that's great, and that's what we want to hear.

Um then I think of the nights, and this is no group in sp specifically, but there's just a large number of people from one specific group say the alliance or lit or whatever, and they're all saying the same thing, and maybe as opposed to scheduling, maybe they come in and say we've got 20 people that are speaking to this, and we give their the the person they've noted as our our speaker ten minutes, yeah.

You know, and that certainly covers more than that.

So uh yeah, I I see that there's probably room for maybe improvement and it works all the way around, but uh yeah, it's hard to say let's just cut it off at two.

Um again, don't want it people not to be able to get a point across.

Commissioner Burgos.

You know, um I exactly reiterate what uh Commissioner Schneider just said that was that exactly was my point.

Yeah, I think over the year or so or the two years that we've earned a little respect from the community because we listen and we've acted at what they had to say.

Uh I heard some positive things about us from the committee who just tonight in other nights.

Maybe we could ask them exactly.

Uh we don't more is not necessarily better.

Uh so if you if I one guy comes in and says, uh I agree with what the Alliance just said or the lit has just said, or the group has just said, uh I just want to reiterate that we agree with them.

Well, I appreciate it, but if uh if we could work together to maybe shorten some of that.

Um we do want to hear why we have been listening and acting.

I just want to know if there's some way that we can work together to limit some of this conversation so we can keep it at five minutes instead of having to close it down to two Madam Chair.

I could I respond directly to Commissioner Burgos' point.

Commissioner Burgos, I think that's a great point, and I just want to share um that at least some of the county committees on the paper slip where you put your name, you can also mark off that you are just like in favor of something or opposing something, but that you don't want to speak.

So perhaps that could be an option.

Oh, that's a good idea.

And that can just be announced by the uh executive director.

Yeah.

I I guess too, just quickly I would emphasize like I I think because I I can see uh you know, looking down the road, someone's saying, like, hey, if I don't get to speak, then I don't know that that it's as seriously considered, right?

That doesn't land the same way.

But I will say just personally, like when we get we get from the alliance digital, like I think they bring both paper, and then you guys maybe digitize it, but we get the commissioners get the digital petition list, and I can look through and be like, there's 600 people out here.

Um, you know, we can do that.

So I think I do just want to emphasize that I do think written, like when we get emails from people, when people show up, a lot of times not everybody who comes here speaks.

Uh huh.

But I still notice how many people are in the room, you know, and like the petition, I think is particularly impactful.

So that is interesting.

But having maybe more avenues for people to express, I like the suggestion of the note slip.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, good.

We do have uh any other comments?

Should this is a communication file, right?

Yes.

Okay.

I also just want to say thanks for I'm glad we had this discussion.

Like I think the more we can have these kind of process discussions in front of people, the better, because I think it helps people understand how we're thinking how different people think.

So thanks for that.

Okay.

Um well, I don't know if there's a consensus, but I don't know if there's consensus.

I guess um would the I guess another question would be would you want uh hold this to the call of the chair to have to discuss this on a subsequent meeting or place it on file um as you're done with it, uh or something else.

Well I guess it's just a communication file, so you could always just do another one to uh yeah.

If somebody wanted to put uh an agenda item on making a substantive motion to codify something about public comment right now, what we've got is practice.

Yes, and we just went from um years and years of practice of two minutes to uh five minutes.

So um we can just put it I I would suggest hold it to the call of the chair.

Yeah, okay.

Madam Chair, there's there's no magic between two minutes and five minutes.

No, really, and I think you brought up an appropriate point earlier in that there is deference to the chair.

And so I would actually give the chair that ability to look at what's occurring at any particular meeting and adjust.

We learn from that, and maybe more dialogue can be had once more learning is is done.

Okay.

Well, just to respond if I can to that.

Sure.

So I I do think that that's dangerous territory because switching up on people without notice is one of the trust killers.

And so I I think that's part of why you wanted to have this discussion because we didn't want to be like, hey, welcome to today's meeting, by the way.

Two minutes.

Two minutes or three minutes on the fly.

And I think that could I think that could really have some very negative consequences.

Can I just give you a converse on that?

So there have been meetings where we've had 50 people who want to speak.

53 was it?

53.

And and people can get a little stirred up.

We're running late.

Things are backing up, and they're looking for somebody to manage the process.

The chair in particular is the one that manages that process.

Now I guarantee you most people come up.

Don't speak for five minutes.

I know, but it means we don't have to cut them off, which is like the big and I don't think that we do that that often.

Because it's five minutes, not two.

That's that's we used to do it a lot when it was two minutes.

Yeah, and yeah.

I can't speak to that.

But uh I do think that there is the necessity for the chair to sort of manage expectations.

Well, I'd say that you know it makes a big difference, at least to me, whether or not we're hearing anything new or whether we're just hearing the same thing over and over and over again.

Because if it's going to be the same thing, I certainly it's great to have somebody who wants to speak come up and say that, but they don't have to take five minutes to do that.

No, because the points have already been made by somebody else in public comment.

So on those occasions, if we get another marathon, 50 people, whatever, I think that it could be appropriate to just ask the person, do you have something more than what's already been discussed?

Do you have something uh additional to tell us and uh not cut them off, but to kind of steer it in the direction of let's not just keep repeating everything over and over again.

I think even the audience gets weary of that.

Um so okay, so when we're I would just add there was one comment.

Well, I'm sorry, one comment that was made tonight that you that we do codify what we're going to do, and I think that's what we're talking about here, and that's great, and that's why we should maybe continue the discussion since we certainly don't have a consensus at this point in time, but I'm sorry, Chris doing it.

Oh no, that's okay.

I just I I wanted to add, um, I think you know, I I think about what it's like to sit up here, but I wasn't always up here.

Um, and I think one of the really beautiful things about this body is that a lot of people come here to give their first ever public comment.

I think that even happened tonight, and we hear that a lot.

Um, and certainly we've heard from a lot of young people who I know for a fact write out their public comment, type it up, and practice it with each other in community, sometimes with my staff.

And so I just want to make sure that whatever we come up with, um, we aren't sort of switching things up on them at the last minute, because I think it's really wonderful and something that we can be proud of.

Um that we are so welcoming to new commenters and young people.

Um, and and a lot of times it's very scary to sit up there for the first time.

Um, and so I want to make sure that everything's sort of clear for them and they know what to expect and they know how much time that they can expect because I'll tell you folks really are like practicing in front of each other, which I think is a wonderful thing.

Big point.

And I don't think we want to surprise people with any sort of change.

You can give them fair notice.

Okay.

Well, now I still don't know what we want to do.

Madam Chair, I'll make a recommendation.

I like Commissioner Fong's uh point about the county and adding that checklist.

Keep it as it is time frame, but let's see if this helps reduce potentially people feeling like they just have to talk, but at least they want to be seen in her from that way.

So that would be the only recommendation.

Let's add that piece, keep the time as it is.

Again, my thing is not to mute voices.

If you know, not too many things let's get more, right?

But uh, you know, I I'll go with the crew, but I like the idea of the slip.

We can always revisit.

We can always, yeah.

Anything you got cut off.

Oh no, no, no.

I I yielded to uh I was done.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay.

Well, with that in mind, I think uh the chair will adapt the recommendation to uh have the slips uh uh be long enough so people can write their comments and they state you know what what their position is and um we'll leave it at that for now and if there is uh any further discussion wanted we can schedule the matter again.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, good director.

Please proceed with the agenda.

The next item is item 17, FPC 212493 communication relating to the minimum service requirements for the police sergeant promotional examination.

Uh and uh this is something that I requested uh be placed on the agenda uh in advance of our next meeting on May 7th, where uh FPC staff plans to bring uh the sergeant promotional uh job posting for approval to the commission.

Uh as of right now, um by practice or since at least 2019, uh the commission has required that police members have at least seven years of continuous service in order to uh to meet the minimum requirements for uh promotion to sergeant and and take the promotional examination.

Uh that was changed in uh in 2019, it used to be five years, and it was increased at the recommendation of then Chief Morales to seven years.

Um since that time uh we've run a couple promotional uh sergeant exams in uh I believe 24 and 26 will be the next one.

Um we had a uh a presentation from our uh uh policy and research analyst Barbara Cooley.

She had presented a number of best practices for promotions.

Uh and that that did note that the uh the average time uh that other departments uh require for uh promotion as sergeant uh the average seems to be more in the in the neighborhood of five years, uh seven years while still in the range of reasonableness is on the upper end of that.

Um I've always thought that it it seemed to be quite uh an extensive amount of time uh and perhaps it could be lower in in the range of five to six years.

I did reach out to uh MPD uh and I spoke with assistant chief Craig Sarnau, who in turn spoke with Chief Norman.

Uh the chief uh was hesitant to go down as far as five years, um just because uh they do feel that uh you need a certain level of experience and maturity uh to be in that supervisory role as sergeant.

Uh but the chief indicated that he would be comfortable uh moving down uh that requirement to s from seven years to six years.

Uh at the same time we could continue.

I mean, that would be for for this promotional round uh that we're planning to bring in May.

Uh at the same time, uh moving forward for future promotional examinations.

We could continue the discussions about potentially giving a a year of service credit for members that uh have uh done a certain amount of time, for example, for FTOs, or if they have a bachelor's degree, for example, or perhaps if they are detectives.

Um so I wanted to give you the the notice before we actually bring the the new job announcement bulletin at the next meeting um and and spring on you that we want we're we're we're saying six years um and see if you have any objections to that, but it is my recommendation uh that we go uh in the future to to six years of minimum service requirement for the sergeant position.

Again, the department is supportive of that.

Um the I I did notify the uh Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization uh about this uh uh recommendation that we would be making.

Uh they submitted a letter with an alternative proposal um which would maintain the seven years uh generally speaking, but would allow uh uh individuals uh who have served at least two years in the detective position uh to have a year of service credit such that they could uh uh be eligible to take the sergeant's exam if they've served a minimum of six years total and two years as detectives.

Um I I did discuss that proposal with the department, and they are are are not supportive of it.

They think it should be six years uh across the board.

Okay.

Do you know why the union has that position?

Yes, uh are you with the uh the MPSO?

Um, you're at the supervisory union?

Oh, I didn't realize that.

Perfect timing.

I'm sorry, I didn't recognize you.

All right.

Then I won't have to speak for you.

Good evening, Commissioner.

My name is Christopher Martin.

I'm with the Market Police Supervisors Organization.

The reason why we have that position on the detective uh getting that service credit for a year is we looked at the detective eligibility list, which has 46 candidates.

It appears that right now that detectives have a harder time of getting qualified candidates to take that position.

Where currently on our eligibility list, we have 161.

And that's not even who took the test.

That's who just passed all the phases of the test.

So right now it doesn't look like that the eligibility list of the supervisors organization or the sergeant's list is in jeopardy of qualified candidates.

We have a lot of qualified candidates.

We only have 39 that have been promoted out of 161.

So you still have a large group of candidates.

And then when I asked Dr.

Todd, if we reduce the number from seven to six, how many more eligible candidates will be eligible to take the test?

That number wasn't given to me.

He didn't know it at the time.

So if we're gonna reduce the number of from seven to six, what is the reason why we're gonna reduce that number?

Do we want less senior office sergeants supervising less senior cops?

Uh which could create a problem, right?

Um such as litigations.

Commissioner Bur Burroughs said earlier today that the supervisor should be supervising and should be seeing patterns.

That comes from maturity, that comes from time service on the job.

That doesn't come from five years on the job.

That takes a long time to understand where if I could see a pattern, I could address it.

I can address those training needs.

Five years on a job is you're barely just learning that job.

So as a police officer.

Why the detective difference?

We see that in the detective role that they gain knowledge in that position that could serve them well as a supervisor as a as a sergeant.

So we looked at that and said, well, if you're having a hard time having candidates apply for a detective position because they're just not applying, why don't you give them some type of credit to make that job role a little bit more of interesting to them saying, Oh, if I do take this detective position, I can take the sergeant's test one year sooner, and I can still become a detective and gain that extra knowledge through a detective.

So you're kind of addressing the anomaly that occurred because of their not being lieutenants of detective and lieutenants of police that only sergeants get promoted to lieutenant now.

Not necessarily.

We just see that they're when they that they as they serve a detective role that that just become makes them become a well-rounded uh sergeant.

Because most of the time when they get promoted, they stay inside the bureau and then so and so on.

So that uh when they do have detective that detective role, it makes them just a better qualified candidate for sergeant.

Okay.

And I would just add the the flip side of that is you're allowing sergeants to test, I'm sorry, detectives to test a year early, so it encourages them to leave the position on the back end.

Although I will admit that it may encourage uh more people to apply on the front end in future exams, that won't be until 2027, I believe, uh, will be the next round of detective exams.

Um do we have trouble getting people to apply for detective?

So when we ran this in 2022, we got a good number, uh I don't know the number off the top of my head, but uh I I believe it it it was over a hundred.

Um I uh I don't quote me on that, but we did not have problems getting sufficient numbers um uh to to make a good eligible list.

We have more than uh more candidates uh than vacancies for that.

In 2025, when we ran uh detective again, we got significantly fewer applicants, a significantly lower pass rate, a significantly higher withdrawal from the process rate, such that the eligible list I believe only had 40 some candidates, which was uh significantly lower than in 2023.

Uh I believe we again I'd have to look it up, but I believe I want to say over a hundred um in in 2023 uh on the eligible list versus 40 something uh last year.

May I add something?

Yes.

124 executive director.

Thank you.

It's it's not for the last couple of lists, it has not been on a comment for those lists they'd be exhausted or everybody on that at uh for the detective list be promoted versus as a sergeant's list, you tend to have candidates that are left over, numerous candidates that are left over.

So that is the the huge difference between the two lists.

I still think that seven years is a very long time to wait to have to uh take you're just taking the initial test.

You may or may not pass, you may and may not score high enough uh to make it on to or high enough on the eligible list to actually wind up getting promoted to sergeant, but if you do very well, you will have that opportunity.

Six years is still above uh what the average is um in other departments across the country.

And and I think that this may have a positive effect on members uh uh the morale.

Um that uh uh giving this a little bit of an earlier opportunity to seek a promotion uh might be a positive move.

But ultimately it's up to the commission.

So um, can I so I think I just have a few things?

I'm glad this is a communication file because I feel like I need to learn a lot more about this, but to kind of get my head around it.

I feel like you could just end if you do the six years for detectives and not for other people, you could end up having a back end problem with your detective eligibility list, like by losing detectives faster and still not addressing the fact that people don't want to be detects.

Like maybe this shift changes that, but maybe it doesn't.

Let's say the recruitment stays the same, and you keep having 40 uh on the eligibility list, which is very small, and then you also supercharge it by getting people into sergeant faster from the detective.

So that's interesting.

I I want to think more about that.

I I do uh think it's a really long time to get promoted in a way that's out of step with normal practice.

And I don't feel great about that.

I also don't feel great about the caliber and quality across the board of sergeants right now.

Like I have in this role on the ground at scenes seen an incredible variability in terms of performance from sergeants, and so I'm all this is the way we do it is and no one really said that tonight, but this this idea that, like, oh, we should just keep it to seven because that's how we do we want mature people or whatever.

Like I think that that's that's not irrelevant information.

It's just like what we're doing now isn't, I think, necessarily working to the standard we'd like it to, and so what does that mean in terms of what we should do?

I don't have the answer, but I think this is like a good line of inquiry related to how to improve consistency and quality across the board.

Commissioner Burgos, you should have your hand up.

Well, he's in like the bottom left.

Nothing.

Um detective and supervision, so I won't I won't hold it.

Yeah, well, we obviously do want to hear it.

We do want to hear it.

That's not that's not just set up admitted.

Okay.

Anything from anyone else?

Um do we need to decide by, I guess, if we're gonna make the shift.

So we were planning to bring the sergeant job announcement bulletin to the board at the next meeting on May 7th.

I believe we can hold it till May 21st.

But is that Jay?

Yeah, I think that's I think I think that's what what Jordan Hendry had indicated.

Um so we prefer to bring it May 7th, but it will still work if we could bring it May 21st.

And it sounds like you may want to is there a uh is there a testing and recruitment meeting uh coming up?

There surely is.

It would be in May.

It would be May.

I have it on my calendar.

Hang on.

The following Tuesday after May 7th.

Um May 11th.

May 11th?

May 11th or 12th.

12th.

Yeah, 12.

We could refer it to committee to have more a deep opportunity to hear from the department and from can you remind me?

Are are we losing people because of the seven years?

Uh are they leaving to go to other departments?

I have not those opportunities.

I've not heard that, but um uh the department would be better suited to and it might be in a better position to answer that.

I don't know.

It's a good question.

Yeah.

Chief Sarnaw, do you have any opinion on that?

Uh where I see the most number of voluntary resignations is between that five to eleven year period of time because you're not so yet invested in the number of years you have to stay here, you and then you have the ability to move on.

Now, you know, with everybody being in the state pension system, it's literally like a college athlete in the transfer portal going to another department if they're available.

I'm I'm sorry to say it that way, but that's what it is.

So we feel that uh I understand what Sergeant Martin's saying.

I do.

Uh Sergeant Martin and I, though, we had we we were promoted to sergeants.

It was five years.

And I think we turned out okay.

I do think that I do think that um six uh yes, we turned out okay, Commissioner Spencer.

Um the um going from seven to six years, is that really uh you know make gonna uh making you that much more mature going from six to seven years?

Um I don't think so.

I think a lot of it depends on the character of the individual we're talking about, and where I see the biggest bang for our bucker, the opportunity is develop supervisor school to a much greater level than it is now.

So they understand even more so um what the responsibilities are because uh I do agree when the chief says it at the promotion ceremonies, having been a sergeant for 12 years, it is the most important rank in the police department.

So I think somewhere the answer lies in there.

I do see an opportunity, and I did speak with uh the executive director about this, making it, and this would be for the process, not this process, but a future process, um, having members who uh are FTOs in good standing who have taken leadership courses and who have done all the work ahead of time to get uh an extra year of eligibility shaved off of that six and being allowed to take to five because now you've shown um a desire to get promoted, and you've done the work to warrant that kind of consideration.

Okay, so Sar now wants it to be five.

For sure.

That's what he just said.

No, I'm just giving a hard time.

The supervisor union says six years only for DTEX, right?

Some version of that.

Yeah, we're open to further discussion, obviously.

That was just our we we were given uh maybe like a day or two to give up a to give our opinion.

Okay.

But we're open to more discussions.

I was just giving you hard times right now.

Um that's very helpful information.

I like the idea of this going to committee for that committee.

I'm the chair of, so I'm happy for us to take this on.

Yeah, I I think uh it's kind of the issue that merits more discussion.

Yeah, and um, you know, it's getting long in the tooth here now for our time of our meeting.

We're getting a little worn.

Yep.

Um sorry, I have one more thing.

Which is just I agree with the F I like the FTO idea, but I have the same questions about FTO quality caliber performance like standardization across that and expectation.

So I just wanted to flag that because I will have that question when we have the committee meeting as well.

So maybe doing maybe Leah, you and I could talk about diving into some of that.

And uh just to be clear, we I I wasn't suggesting that we would sort out the FTO um or or education or detective service credit year by May.

Uh it would be that we would move it to six years across the board and continue further discussions on those other service credit things for uh future exams, but we can sort of still talk a little bit about it.

Nothing happens quickly.

Yes, there's no worry about that.

Yeah, okay.

So do I need a motion to send it to committee or we just do it?

Oh we can do it.

We just do it.

Okay.

Okay, then um director, please proceed with the agenda.

Thank you very much for coming and waiting for this.

Thank you for all you do.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so we've already taken up item 18, so then we will move on to item 19 communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to recent changes to standard operating procedures or standard operating instructions.

And there's five policy changes before you.

Uh modifications to uh SOP 090, prisoners and booking 300 directed patrol missions, 375, electronic satellite pursuit system, 780 police facilities security, and then a new standard operating instruction for crash reconstruction unit.

All right.

I'm temporarily stepping in as chair.

All right.

All right.

Okay, turn it over to what's happening next.

Uh Chief Sarnau, can you uh do you want to make any comments regarding these policy changes?

Yes, I'd love to.

Um we have four SOPs and one SOI.

Uh the SOI uh is a newly created SOI that covers the crash reconstruction unit, which um when um Commissioner Burgos was a member of the department was the accident reconstruction unit, but it's same unit, just a different name.

Uh never really had an SOI before.

Um, and it outlines um everything that's associated with the investigation that these five members that are assigned to SPD um have to do regarding all fatal motor vehicle crashes and crashes that involve um serious bodily harm, the training that's involved, and the certifications that they have to achieve in order to get on the unit.

The uh SOP 300 directed patrol missions.

There was some references removed to um the language that centered around no action encounters, as they were eliminated after all parties associated with the Collins Agreement that included the fire and police commission agreed to discontinue their use and incorporate them into the field interviews platform.

Uh SLP 780 police facilities, uh one name change from inspections division to the compliance management section, same uh division, same work, just a different name.

SOP 90 prisoners and booking.

Uh, the major update to this is that it is now codified that related to persons who are arrested and have wheelchairs, they must be conveyed by private ambulance to the criminal justice facility.

There's a lot of liability surrounding this, and we don't have the equipment in a conveyance wagon to um transport and keep these individuals safe.

So policy matches uh essentially practice.

And uh that concludes oh, wait, I missed one.

The SOP 375, electronic satellite pursuit system.

So this um reflects the technology that is used to track uh simply uh it's restricted to money stolen from banks, other financial uh institutions stolen prescription drugs from pharmacies, merchandise from electronics and cell phone stores that have the tech uh related technology in it.

Uh there was some uh name changes going from TCD uh to Department of Emergency Communications, and then the responsibilities that are associated with that is we cannot dictate policy for another uh city agency, city departments.

Happy to answer any questions on any of these um if you have any.

Thank you.

Um do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments regarding the policy changes?

Just a brief question.

Um I just try to ask this every time there is um an SOP that comes up that has significant redaction.

Could you just briefly explain the reason for the redaction?

Good flag.

Uh yes, as uh this it's not too often, but there are certain SLPs that have um critical information in it that's um for department use only, and it's not meant for the public.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else, any other commissioners.

I have a quick question, which is, and I don't know if you know the answer to this, uh Chief Sarnell, but who pays for the private ambulance conveyance when that happens.

Oh no.

Uh Chief Sarno, if you're talking, we can't hear you.

Sorry.

Sorry, I had it, I had it muted.

Um takes care of that cost.

The department the police department.

Yes.

I don't have a number of how many people we convey by wheelchairs.

I don't believe it's that many, but um it does happen.

Okay, thank you.

Um director, please proceed.

All right.

Thank you, Chief Sarno.

Oh, thank you, Vice Chair.

Yep, you got it.

Uh the next item is item 20, FPC 212496 communication from the executive director relating to fire and police commission staffing and operations.

Uh my report is in the file.

I will keep this very brief.

Um the only thing I wanted to note was that uh under staffing we do have another anticipated vacancy.

Uh research and policy analyst Barbara Cooley will be retiring at the end towards the end of the month.

Uh and I do want to give her a shout out.

Uh she uh has done excellent work.

Uh I think she started uh shortly after I did, either in 21 or 2022.

Um I I remember uh one of the uh commissioners who are who is no longer uh on the board uh made a comment shortly after I started, just emphasizing the importance given that the board is uh a part-time board and it does uh to be effective, need strong staff, including staffing services, and it's one of the things that it needs is a strong research and policy analyst.

And uh uh Ms.

Cooley has been uh uh a big asset to the FPC over the last few years.

So I just wanted to say that publicly, and I will other than that be quiet and uh congratulations.

Yeah, for her question and for any questions.

Yes, we'll look in finding uh replacement.

I think we need a retirement party.

Yeah, definitely.

Well, there is something coming up, right?

Spring fling.

Yes.

Oh, yeah, we can thanks for your service.

Yes, thank you, Barbara.

Well, thank you.

I'm I'm going to miss it.

I'll miss all of you, and uh I had no idea how much this job would mean to me when I first took it, and it it's hard to go, but it's time.

But thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

I will now read the items under the fire department starting with item 21, FPC 212497.

Resolution relating to the promotion of fire captain Christian Hoos to the battalion chief position.

The board met earlier this evening in closed session to interview Captain Hoos and consider this matter.

I will say that he has a very impressive record.

And um I'm happy to see his being up for promotion.

Uh Chief Lipski, do you have any comments that you wish to add?

Absolutely, thank you.

Uh Captain Hoos uh has a very long pedigree of working in a variety of, but also a uh series of extremely busy, the busiest companies uh in the city of Milwaukee, the state of Wisconsin, uh for sure.

And uh he has regularly sought out that duty, and I think that's important because uh especially in his tenure as a captain, we've seen year over year uh run totals increasing.

Uh and he's been in the spots where that is even worse.

He is a teaching officer, meaning he takes his crews out and trains with them.

That extends even then beyond where he instructs in our company officer courses uh uh formally for other people seeking promotion.

Uh of the five people that uh were placed in my pool to promote the battalion chief, he is by far the senior person with time on the job, time as a captain.

And I think that that's important too, because it has uh seasoned him and given him uh a maturity that uh not that the others lack per per chance, but uh it it's just a nice little burnish uh that that is gonna serve him very well in this role.

So um I'm just ecstatic to promote him.

Uh we've we've worked around each other forever uh and I'm very hopeful that you uh go ahead and promote them.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions, comments?

I'll take a motion.

So move.

Second.

Okay.

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

Commissioner Burgos.

Aye.

Commissioner Fung.

Aye.

Commissioner Ramey.

Aye, Commissioner Snyder.

Aye.

Commissioner Spence.

Aye.

Miss Commissioner Spencer.

Aye.

Commissioner World Patterson.

Aye.

And the chair votes aye.

The motion carries.

Congratulations to our new battalion.

It's a great name.

Yeah, who's who's okay.

All right, item 22, FPC 212498 resolution relating to the promotion of Lieutenant Matthew D.

Thundercloud to the fire captain position.

Appropriate name, right?

Yeah, yeah.

Yes.

Um Chief Lipske, please uh let us know uh about this candidate.

Sure, of course.

Uh so he's gonna be stepping into a captain role, a very crucial role.

He's gonna be overseeing all three shifts uh wherever his assignment takes him.

Uh let me just tell you a little bit about uh the fact that since the year 2015, he has been uh almost exclusively assigned on paramedic units.

And I had a chance to talk with him as part of a normal pre-promotional process.

And uh I always ask uh candidates when when they're uh sitting with me, it's one-on-one.

You know, if there's if there's something that we can be doing different, or if we're screwing something up, tell us.

And as you might imagine, not a ton of people really take that opportunity to uh take me up on that.

But uh he did.

And and very respectfully, but but he he pointed out that uh we have issues within our paramedic uh ambulance assignments, and this has been a forever problem uh where people promote into a lieutenant or uh excuse me, into a lieutenant position and they have a paramedic license, and they just get they get kind of trapped in a loop and they can't get off the paramedic unit.

Now, some people that's they love being on the paramedic unit, but it is it is especially mentally taxing.

Uh whereas, you know, any time a paramedic unit is going on a run, you also have an engine or a ladder truck going on a run.

Mary's or out to St.

Mary's Lazarki and it's a longer uh uh time frame there they're on those runs I appreciated him telling me that and uh what I've also observed about him is he has an incredible wit and humor and he spares no uh expense when you bump into him somewhere just lighten the load so despite all of that he's maintained uh an exceptional attitude so I'm happy for him is this uh Mr Thundercloud related to the police officer thunderclouds you know I am not sure I don't know there's several okay thank you also superfair probably okay okay any questions comments move for approval second second okay being a promotion we'll take a roll call vote commissioner burgos aye commissioner fong aye commissioner raimi aye commissioner snyder aye commissioner spence aye commissioner spencer aye commissioner world patterson aye and the chair votes aye motion carries director please proceed with the agenda I will now read the item under the police department which is item 23 FPC 212499 resolution relating to the promotion of Jack Renecki to the crime analyst three position okay um let's see do we have uh this is this is from an uh eligible list isn't it or no is this a civilian position it's a civilian position my understanding is that uh uh when a crime analyst uh reaches a certain uh experience threshold they are moved up to different uh categories of one two or three uh and so uh uh he was uh he has met those requirements I'm assuming and uh and is thus being uh recommended for promotion to the next level okay good yes director that is correct it's Pamela the uh police department okay so this is a career um path move to yes move up in and move up in the status grade or whatever grade yeah okay uh do I have a motion so move second second okay again I'll take a roll call vote commissioner burgos aye commissioner Fong aye commissioner Ramey I commissioner Snyder aye commissioner spence aye commissioner spencer aye commissioner world patterson aye and the chair votes aye motion carries director please proceed with the agenda and that concludes the agenda okay good motion to adjourn oh yeah move second one million favor aye we stand adjourned aye brother