This is the May 12th, 2026 meeting of the Fire and Police Commission's Testing and Recruiting Committee.

President are Commissioners Evans, Horwitz, Remy, myself, Commissioner Spencer.

Commissioner War Patterson is excused.

Also present as FPC Executive Director Leon Todd.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The first item is item number one, public comment.

However, we do not, I don't believe we have anybody here today for public comment.

All right, there being no comments, this concludes the public comment portion of the meeting.

Director, please proceed.

Second item on the agenda is FPC 212493.

Resolution to approve the March 10th, 2026 meeting minutes.

Is there a motion on this matter?

So move.

Second.

Okay, great.

Any discussion?

All right, I'll take a voice vote for this item.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, that's all of us.

Motion carries.

Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The third item on the agenda is FPC two one two four nine three communication relating to the minimum service requirements for the police sergeant promotional examination.

And Madam Chair, with your permission, just give a brief overview.

Excuse me.

So this uh was referred I I think at the uh second meeting in April uh to this committee.

Uh the recommendation that I'm making in this respect is to shorten the um continuous service requirement for the sergeant position from seven years to uh to six years.

Uh historically, this was set at five years.

Um, and then I believe in 2019, uh at the uh request of then chief uh Morales, this was increased to seven years.

Uh seven years is at the upper end of what is the uh um a reasonable range for the uh uh sergeant position.

Uh typically uh or my understanding at least is nationwide, the average is around five years.

Um so this recommendation would bring us more in line with that.

Uh it's consistent with uh separate recommendation that was made by uh former FPC research and policy analyst Barbara Cooley back in 2023.

Uh and although she recommended uh the five years, uh the department police department has indicated that it would be more comfortable with six years uh going forward.

Uh so that's the reason why uh I selected the number six.

Uh, you should also note that uh we've received a letter from the Milwaukee Police Supervisors organization, which had an alternative proposal.

Um, and I think that the alternative proposal was to excuse me to reduce it from seven to six years, but only for those members uh who are currently uh police detectives, um, and that they would prefer that rather than the general uh reduction for all members.

Uh we do have a representative of uh the MPSO with us here today, uh Chris Martin.

Um I'm happy to answer any other questions uh that you have.

I would also add that uh it's our it's still our goal to do uh police promotional exams on a two-year uh cycle.

Uh we did uh detective and lieutenant last year.

It's we're doing uh sergeant this year.

Uh we're a little delayed due to other other testing that we've had to do.

Uh but uh it's our our plan to bring the sergeant job announcement bulletin to uh the full FPC board at the next meeting on May 21st.

Uh and we're hopeful you can give us some guidance as to whether or not it should be six or seven years uh in advance of that meeting.

Uh okay, great.

Um I have a quick question, which is where is the push for decreasing the years coming from?

FPC MPD, one of the unions.

What's happening?

Originally uh it was from myself as well as FPC staff.

We had discussed it.

Uh we feel that seven years is is excessively long.

Uh members have to wait uh that amount of time when uh I think many of them are ready and able and willing uh to do it after five years or six years, and this would uh just make that time period a little bit shorter for those members.

Um again, that's the national average, and I think seven years is on the upper end of the scale in terms of what's reasonable.

Uh so FPC staff and myself believe it should be reduced to uh to six years.

Uh we did, we did we did we did discuss that again with the department.

Hang on, one second.

I think Evans, I don't think you're muted.

I'm not talking.

Oh, that's not you, yeah.

Where's the sound coming?

Oh, Miriam.

Miriam.

Yeah, I'm uh I'm on now.

Oh, okay.

So you might be getting some feedback if you've joined, I think she virtually.

Okay, I see what's happening.

Okay.

Sorry, Evans, you're the only one I can see more here.

My bad.

Okay.

Um, concurs uh, and again, the uh MPSO has a different take on the matter.

I I forwarded this memo to uh the Milwaukee Police Association.

Uh I don't believe they ever weighed in on this recommendation though.

Okay.

Do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments regarding this item?

I'm not sure.

Yeah, just for the record.

So FPC MPD are basically in alignment with this request.

Yes.

Okay.

MPD leadership.

Yeah, yes, and FPC staff.

Yeah.

Okay.

Any other anything else, Rami?

No, no.

Commissioner Evans, do you have anything on this one?

Yeah, just for clarification.

So these are just primarily uh for detectives looking to move into the sergeant position.

No.

No, no, just to clarify, um, so right now, uh, in order to be eligible to take the sergeant promotional exam, you have to have seven years of continuous service with the Milwaukee police department as either a police officer, uh, or as a detective.

So it could be seven years as a police officer, or it could be uh seven years with some combination of uh uh detective and police officer, or could be just seven, you know, you could have been a detective for over seven years as well, and then you would would certainly be eligible.

Right now you have to be a police officer for at least three years in order to test for detective.

Um so that's uh where the seven years comes in, it can be uh any combination of police officer or detective.

I think he's asking about the MPSO.

MPSO is proposing an alternative uh recommendation where the requirement would be seven years for members who are a police officer, but only six years for members who have some uh time on as a detective.

Two years, two years as detective, thank you for that.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioner Evans?

No, that's it.

Okay, uh Commissioner Horowitz, do you have anything on this item?

Miriam.

I'm gonna guess no for now.

Or she can't hear me.

Also seems possible.

Um, okay, I have a couple of things.

So I I think it I do think seven years is too young uh too long, and I think that um I don't think that it significantly increases quality because we have issues with quality with our sergeants like the standard across the board, there are good sergeants, but there's a lot of variability, and so I don't think that the seven years in guarantees a certain level of quality.

So I'm wondering like I know there's issues with how long it is, it's out of step with the national thing.

So I think I'm like for this movement down to six years, but I also and I uh, you know, there's been a lot of stuff about I think very understandably a lot of stuff about detectives and like we have a lot of people want to be sergeant and MPD.

We are having less people who want to be detectives, partially because of like the structure, and I'm I really am not on team, you should go straight to lieutenant if you're detective.

I'm not, I I don't agree.

Um but I do think it is true that detectives, like I get why MPSO is saying the did I say the acronym right?

It's hard because MSOE, MPSO, MPA, like I get them all.

Okay, yeah, so um so I'm wondering if the suggestion that MPSO applied or said in this letter could be shifted, so that let's say it takes six years to be sergeant, but if you've been a DTEC for two years, you can go at five.

You get what I'm saying?

I do.

And so I I should have mentioned this too.

The last file on the agenda, uh which is titled communication seeking uh or relating to substitution of up to one year of required experience for the sergeant position in exchange for higher education degree, field training, officer service, and or leadership courses uh was in that uh that that type of vein, so to speak, uh where um uh what my hope was was that we could for the upcoming sergeant exam reduce uh the time period, the global time period from seven years to six years.

I do think it is worth having a a discussion if uh members should also be allowed uh to substitute one year of sir an additional year of service for other things, such as uh, you know, a bachelor's degree, time as a field training um screw excuse me, field training officer service or leadership courses.

Uh another thing that could be considered, although it's not specifically stated in the in the file title for number five, is time as a detective.

Um my thinking though was that we could make this change going from seven to six years for the upcoming sergeant exam and then continue to have further discussions for future exams about an additional service requirement um for future exams, but no.

I didn't I do I well, to be perfectly honest, I wasn't sure that the commission would be in a position to have an opinion on whether or not that's a good idea or bad idea.

I have a good opinion.

Amount of time.

So okay.

Um, okay, so I think uh Miriam's back in.

So Miriam, do you have any questions or comments on this before we get into it a little further?

I think I missed out when you asked the question, um, why is this uh up for discussion at all?

And uh I I missed who who brought it to our attention.

Really, it sounds like FPC staff.

Oh.

And what is the advantage?

Why why is there even I mean, why are we even doing it?

Who's what's the rationale from staff for doing it?

Sure, it's it it's my opinion and uh I believe the opinion uh of some other FPC staff that the seven-year continuous service requirement is a bit too long uh in in terms of fairness to members and giving them opportunities for advancement in a reasonable way.

Uh the national average appears to be around five years, uh within the reasonable range, seven years is on uh the higher end.

Uh uh it's it's not that we're hurting for uh candidates for the sergeant position, but I do think shortening the time frame uh would be appreciated by members would be would would open up the uh the opportunity to to younger members and and future leaders uh in a way that would not be harmful.

I I would hope it would have at least uh somewhat a positive effect on on member morale and retention if members don't have to wait so long before seeking uh.

Yeah.

Okay, okay, I I do get all that, and I I don't disagree, but why not just reduce it to six years across the board?

Why are we getting involved with detectives?

Well that that is the recommendation from FPC staff to reduce it from six to seven across the board.

The MPSO had an alternative recommendation, which was to reduce it from six to seven, but only for those members that have detect at least two years of detective experience.

I think commissioner or Chair Spencer was discussing the possibility of you know a general reduction to six years and then perhaps an additional reduction to five years for members that have detective experience, but uh yeah, so that's right.

So the MPSO was making the recommendation to sort of um they I think because they're you're I'm not gonna make your argument for you, I'm gonna let you do that.

But uh in the second, but um I was suggesting so I think we have kind of an issue with detectives that's has two different pieces.

One is they really do have a different kind of experience than officers because they do run scenes and so I think I think that sort of scene management which is inclusive of telling officers what to do um is like a helpful I think they have a little more experience basically that would lend itself to being a sergeant then there's this other issue where like people don't really want like people aren't climbing over themselves to get to the detective rank because you have to do this kind of extra or different thing to get to sergeant.

It's not a straight shot right so they're like why not just say an officer and become a sergeant so I I think go ahead.

I well I'm I'm wondering why I mean vifricating it so that some people have seven years and some people have six years.

That doesn't seem um like it'll go over very well you know well that's not what I'm suggesting I'm suggesting that it be universally dropped to six years and that detectives get an additional bonus year so that they can go at five if they've been a detective for two years.

Okay I agree with you.

Okay.

I do I agree with you I think it should be six years and uh the detective situation would improve perhaps if they have uh some incentive to still be a detective right okay.

So there's a question then so with detective um is there you you mentioned this we're struggling to get people to take the test to be detective.

It's just not as like robust as a list.

I think people are doing it.

But not as many people as we've had in the past right so yes uh so since I've been here the first round of detective tests we ran was in 2023 and that had a really good turnout I think or relatively good uh we had over a hundred uh candidates on the eligible list when we did the test again two years later in 2025 we had significantly fewer applicants significantly more no shows and fails and I think uh the eligible list had around 45 names uh give or take a couple somewhere in that range early 40s is what I was remembering as well.

Uh so and I think over a two year period we may use around about 40 uh promotional candidates for the detective position it's also a position that we are required to increase up from about I think we have like one forty now ish up to one seventy five with in the next eight years on per act twelve so there is some concern that it is a position that's difficult to fill and that an incentive would be helpful.

Yeah.

Okay so I I would like to ask sorry just MPSF okay to make one point sorry um so I do think that this would provide an incentive for people to sign up to be uh detectives because you get that year benefit but the flip side of that coin is they can promote to sergeant one year early so on the back end you may lose a few more guess is that the benefits would outweigh the negatives but I'm kind of speculating on that.

So you need it to be a continuum.

And so if they're as they apply for detective on the back side of that we need as they're applying for sergeants we still need people to still be applying for detectives at a high clip or a yeah okay you'd want to make uh get more people relatively speaking increase that higher than you'd be losing people uh more frequently on the back end because you shortened the time period for them to promote to sergeant I would think again you'd probably get more than you'd lose overall but I'm I I I don't know for sure I think testing every two years is also gonna be helpful for this, but um okay.

I don't know the right way to call your name when you're representing MPSO.

Are you like the president or something?

I used to call you uh Chris Martin.

All right, come on through, Chris.

All right.

We're gonna make up a title increase.

Yes.

I'm the police leaders okay please yeah.

So w what do you think?

Um a lot of good discussion.

Uh you know, that's Wisconsin for I disagree, I think.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, you know, currently right now, um, right now there's um you have about sixty-five percent of MPD members, officers and detectives that could take the test by reducing it from seven years to six years, you increase your numbers uh as in the memo by sixty four members, which increases it to seventy percent.

So theoretically already at seven years, you have about two thirds of your members that could take a test uh to to sergeants.

Um so that's why we like it at the seven years and then six years for detective and to bring up uh directors Todd's point about um maybe reducing it to five years for detectives is that that flip of people could take it a little earlier and then you're constantly battling yourself for more detectives when we're trying to increase those numbers because of Act 12, right?

Act twelve.

Yes, yes.

We had nothing to do with that.

But Act 12.

Um Act 12 numbers.

So um that's so I think you're you it might hurt.

But everybody moves to six, everybody moves to six.

Correct.

Then you still incentivize people to be detectives because there's a little faster pathway.

Yeah, and then I believe in previous discussions, uh, maybe Director Todd remembers is when the the jump from when they brought the jump from detective to lieutenant, there was talking about preference points for detectives.

Do you remember that uh in that meeting?

Uh it was a discussion in this meeting.

That could be something that you guys could look at too.

Yeah.

Yes.

And that's something that I don't know that it's off the table, but it there's not haven't been more formal, serious discussions.

Um there was uh you know, truth be told, I was thinking that uh, you know, originally there could be some preference points for detectives, but then uh perhaps the uh the service substitution could be an even bigger incentive.

Um but I my my anticipation or my my expectation was that it was going that portion was gonna be talked about at a later point, but um so I haven't really formulated my thoughts on that.

No, I just I just figured I'd throw that out there as I think that was the la couple whatever the last time it was that we talked about that.

I don't think that I think that's enough incentive to change someone's career you know, to really consider career trajectory uh a shift.

I also think we have to be a little bit thoughtful about application of the of preference points.

Like I think we've been pretty laser focused on stuff that's outside of the position itself, like if you served in the military, if you went to college, like if you did volunteer work outside of work hours, you know what I mean?

Like, so I feel like using preference points for something internal like that, maybe it doesn't it's kinda feels like a mismatch to me, but then briefly just because I was brought up earlier about um possibly one year of service credit if you're a field training officer or attended some type leadership training.

Just because you attend leadership training doesn't mean you're gonna implement that in your daily life.

Yeah, um you go for 40 hours, you get a certificate, and now you're a leader.

You have to implement that into your daily life.

How are you implementing that?

That's kind of like how I like that uh uh the previous um FPC testing for Sergeant because you had to go in there and you had to you had to provide your oral resume.

How did you do leadership?

How did you do this?

And you had to provide that.

Now can somebody stretch the truth a little bit?

Sure.

But um you know, but at least you have to demonstrate you those core competencies of what how you do leadership and FTO, same thing.

You have really good FTOs and you have really bad FTOs.

How do how how do we judge which FTO is you know capable of getting this one year service credit?

When would it have to be all of them?

So that's the that's kind of the things.

And I you know, those are some things that are really near and dear to my heart because I was in FTO for a really long time, so I took very pride in that, and obviously I'm in a leadership role, so I have to I take pride in those those aspects too.

So that's yeah, go ahead.

Uh madam chair.

So like here my thoughts as I'm spinning a few things come to mind.

Like one, act twelve is called a circular issue for us, right?

Like the mandates for us to do certain things, um, beyond our control, I do think creativity um is gonna be important.

I think the the the blessing around coming down from seven to six and being more aligned massly and and even potentially thinking about the five year or something, um gives us a good opportunity to to be seen as desirable maybe from a upper mobility, when I think about the latter movement, when that when someone becomes a you know rookie or cop and they get to think, oh, if I do detective in three, okay, now I may have a pathway to sergeant a little quicker.

Um so uh you know, as I'm thinking, I do think again, because we have to be intentionally creative, this this may be a way I love the idea of the five year um as a detective.

Um, as I was processing it, I was thinking people do detective to go to that next stage a lot of times.

And you know, and like well, some people I've talked to, so I think that may uh work.

So I'm just thinking that an alignment nationally helps us set us up for more success.

Um, even when we think about some of the other recruitment strategies we have.

Whether it's you know some, you know, recruiting, I forgot the term we use, but someone who's a police officer somewhere else and they come here and th this may all I think help us again grow as a desirable place, I think in the in the bigger picture.

So um yeah, so that's where my thought is.

So I kinda um I like the going seven to six because I think from a mobility ladder standpoint it's more enticing, but I think it's even more enticing to think about what you said read with the five year for DT.

So yeah.

I guess I wanna be really clear.

It's oh go ahead, Commissioner Horowitz.

Yeah, so the detectives for the five year requirement only have to show that they have accumulated five years, including two years as a detective, is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, or do they still or they so they don't have to make six years between the two?

I think I had a I think because I was looking at it, maybe I was wrong looking at it that for continuous service, everybody needs the six years.

But for detectives, they can use one year of detective rank to make up to the six years.

Is that any different than anything else that we're looking at?

That oh, sorry.

For a new officer, that would effectively amount to the same thing because you would have to have been a police officer for at least three years, then get promoted to detective.

Uh if you were only a detective for one year, you know, that would only be I mean it it would it would change things for newer detectives.

Uh like if you just became a detective a year ago and then you could substitute one year of detective service, you could be a police officer for uh four years and a detective for one.

Um versus but otherwise it just depends on what you want to do.

No, no.

That's not right though.

Cause I want to keep the same thing that MPSO said, which is two years as D tech.

Yeah gives you an extra, like I understand, but I think Miriam was asking.

I know, but what I'm the suggesti the the scenario you just mentioned, I think they would not be eligible.

That's why I'm under what four years as an officer, one year as a D tech.

They they couldn't go because they didn't they don't have two years as a detective.

That's right, but I think I thought Miriam or I'm sorry, uh Commissioner Horowitz was asking if it could be one for one, like substituting one year of um detective service for uh one year one year of the six uh minimum service years, that's sort of similar to what fire does, like you could substitute Molly, is that right, one year of HEO time for the tenants, the fire lieutenant exam.

So it it's just it would be a different rule, uh and you would just have to specify which one you want.

Okay.

Molly, uh, we're gonna hear from Molly now.

Okay, good.

Go ahead.

Yes, that is correct.

So the fire department, you can substitute one year of uh service required if you are an HEO, if you are a paramedic, or if you have 60 college credits.

So for example, for fire lieutenant, you need six years of service.

But if you have if you're a paramedic, if you're an HEO, or if you have sixty college credits, then you can use that as for one year's service.

So if you are a paramedic, you can test for lieutenant at five years instead of six years.

Yeah.

But alternatively, you could have a rule on the police side that says if you have at least five years total experience, of which at least two years is detective experience, you're eligible.

Sounds greater.

If that is the desire of the commission, yes.

Yes, okay.

And that's what I'm just trying to clarify just to give them their options.

So they could do it either way.

Either require one year of detective service as a substitute or two years just as part of the minimum service requirements as an alternative.

Yes.

If you're yeah.

And my suggestion, I want to be really clear is two years as a detective.

And I also want to be really clear that the motivation for this, like there is this motivation connected to incentivizing people to go and detective, but I do also think this would sort of honor the experience that detectives do in fact have that's different than police officers in their scene management.

We haven't thought that that was enough to fast track somebody to lieutenant, and I stand by that, but I think that there is this management aspect of being a detective that does better prepare them perhaps more quickly for being a sergeant.

And I I would just note that uh unfortunately we don't have a member of the department here to weigh in on this.

Um but um Heather, it looks like maybe has I see two H's.

Yes, I see.

Hello, can you hear me?

Sorry.

Yeah, we can hear you now.

Okay, yes.

Um, so we were aligned with the FPC recommendation on this for us.

Um we like the incentive for um, you know, people to be able to move more swiftly to a supervisory role, and it also helps with um keeping people in the department.

Um we felt it was uh a good retention tool.

As for the debate about two years versus one year detective, um, you know, I don't think we're strongly committed to either one of those positions, just like wanting to see the uh the um timeline reduced.

So just to uh okay, so it sounds like you're saying you you all don't really have an opinion on whether or not detectives can go faster than everyone else to the sergeant.

That is correct.

The only thing that we're very supportive of is the um desire to reduce the time frame for being eligible for the sergeant's exam across the board.

Okay.

That's very helpful.

Okay, so if I understand if I understand the scenario now, if you are a police officer for three years and a detective for two years, you're qualified to take the sergeant's exam.

Right?

But if if you're if you're a police officer, um you have to be a police officer for six years.

And uh, so you have to put in six years of employment, and the and the detectives only have to put in five years of employment.

And I'm I I understand the the motivation and the justification because detectives are you know increasing their skill set being a detective.

But do you think the rank and file is gonna feel like that's kind of nasty, you know?

I mean they they have they've been an employee a year less than I am, and they're being given the same chance.

I mean they might, but they tend to feel that way no matter what we do, in my experience.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I would also say that this my guess is that this would apply to a very limited relatively small number of people because you'd have to get promoted to detective right at three years, and then apply and for sergeant after two years and that the timing works out, and then you'd have to be at the top of the list.

Uh so it's possible you could sneak in under six years, but most people are still probably gonna be over six years anyway.

I don't think it's very common for people to go straight to DTEC at three, is it?

I am not sure.

No, I don't I don't know.

That's not that's not your detective still MPA, right?

That is correct.

Oh yeah okay.

But it could allow a handful of people to test early and then uh they may wherever they fall on the eligible list uh they wouldn't have to wait another two years.

So it could help some people as I'm as I'm thinking this through.

I I really I I wasn't trying to be glib in responding to you Commissioner Horowitz like I really try not I think I personally try not to be in the prediction game about what's gonna upset people.

Like I think we as long as our reasoning is fair and makes sense and we can explain it then that's the most important thing.

And the fact of the matter is like we do have this obligation to get detectives in there because of Act 12 our favorite thing ever right and so um we gotta help figure out ways to get that done and also and also like most jobs if you work different positions your experience as you work up should be taken into consideration.

That's true.

Okay well I'm on board with it.

Jordan Hendry do you see any problems with this plan?

You're the one that has to draft the job announcement bulletin.

That's a good question.

I support this plan.

Okay thank you.

Oh okay um okay let's go uh one more time around here just to make sure we haven't missed anything.

Commissioner Evans do you have any additional pieces on this question?

No I do not have additional questions.

I do support the plan.

Okay.

And uh Commissioner Horwich just said herpes Commissioner Raimi.

Yeah I support yeah okay okay so then I I know this is a communication file but the you wanted if there was a consensus on a path forward that should be stated for the record so I'm gonna do that now which it is it's uh this group at least of commissioners um aspiring testing as part of testing and recruitment is pro shortening the window to become a sergeant to six years and incentivizing a little bit and recognizing the sort of experience and knowledge of detectives and saying that with two years of service as a detective detectives could go as um the earliest at five years could write for sergeant or Molly can we just clarify that you are replacing one year of service requirement for two years as a detective just that Jordan yeah.

Can you repeat that?

Yeah.

This is a language thing that's coming up yeah that the minimum service required for sergeant will be six years.

However detectives with two years of service can substitute one year of the six years required.

We know HR HR language and we'll let them work it out.

Yeah.

I'm not sure if it's a substitution so much as it's a reduction uh from six years to five years.

I think it's they don't do they need a total of six years somewhere down the road I think the goal is to make it comport with the way they talk about it in fire so that the um the language in the job postings is uniform right Molly if the effect will be the same and we can give um some FAQs maybe to uh just about how to communicate that to members.

Okay.

Okay well I think uh generally speaking firefighters are more adaptive to um saying oh is that what that means I I agree with you then officers because the if it's we have to see the language before we would know that I I'm kind of putting the card before the horse.

Well, I think we'll be voting on we'll be voting on the job posting.

Yes, yeah yeah yeah yeah.

Okay.

Um okay okay.

Yeah, but now that you're on this.

Um, great.

Thanks, everybody.

Um, please proceed.

Uh are you good?

Are you having anything else?

Sorry, I should have checked with you.

I believe it's the next topic too reducing it from that.

The next item on the agenda is item four FPC 212510 communication from FPC staff relating to the minimum requirements regarding discipline for the sergeant position.

Uh so this item uh did not originate from FPC staff.

I met a few weeks ago with uh members or representatives from the Milwaukee Police Association, they raised a concern about uh the disciplinary requirements for the sergeant promotional exam.

Currently uh a member, you know, it's it has been a seven-year continuous service requirement, and the requirements regarding discipline in the past have stated that you if you have five or more days, cumulative days of suspensions during that seven-year time period, you are ineligible uh for the exam.

Uh the so take the sergeant exam.

Now that could certainly uh be appropriate uh within uh or for in certain circumstances.

Their argument though, uh, they mean the the MPA was that if you get five days in your sixth or seventh year, you know, you won't be eligible uh then until 13 or 14 years into your career to test for sergeant, that could be half your career or more.

Uh and you know there may be categories of misconduct for which that would uh be sort of uh so to speak an unfair second punishment.

Uh for example, if you totaled a squad car and got a five-day suspension in your sixth year, uh is kind of the uh the primary example of that.

Uh how often that happens is uh somewhat unknown.

Uh I did think even though this didn't originate with me, I I did uh see the merit or that there was some merits to their argument.

Um I I do believe in some cases it could be a little unfair to have your promotional clock start over entirely if it's running for a seven or even a six year period.

Uh so I what I came up with is my recommendation, and uh I am recommending this, although I don't I would not say I'm strongly recommending it, but I'm just recommending it would be to modify this so that if you had five or more days, cumulative days of suspension within the last two years, you would be ineligible.

You would also be ineligible if you had 15 or more days within the uh seven or now six year time frame.

So what that would do is, you know, if you had five or more days but less than 15, say, you know, for example, this squad car uh totaling uh example and you caught a five or six-day suspension.

Uh you would miss a promotional exam.

Uh you'd be ineligible for two years, but then that would allow you to be eligible in the next promotional cycle two years later.

So it wouldn't be a six or seven-year ban, but only a two-year ban.

Now that said, if you got other discipline or a larger suspension of 15 or more days, then your clock would restart.

Uh so it would be correlated, so to speak, with the length and presumably the severity of the discipline.

Um this would not take away the FPC's ability to, on a discretionary basis, interview members with less serious discipline or or less time of suspension days and still decide that you don't think that they're ready to be sergeants based on their uh uh their discipline history, but it would allow them to take the exam and potentially be eligible.

Um again, I'm not strongly recommending this, but uh I I do think this would make it a little bit more fair.

Uh that said whatever the commission uh ultimately decides, I I of course will respect and and uh agree with.

I I would add that uh uh I did run this by uh the police department.

They uh they did not have an objection to it, but they indicated that they would prefer that it if you are gonna do this, you're not do this for this round of promotional exams.

Uh, but uh do it in the f in the in for future exams of similar to uh the co-croft points.

Uh so that uh, you know, because we didn't do this for detective and lieutenants uh last year that it starts, you know, perhaps next year, um, or or for the the next round of promotional exams after this one.

Uh I'm okay sort of agnostic on that point as well.

Okay, thank you.

Um we're gonna hear from both the uh police department and MPSO on this matter, but I want to before we do that, check and see if anyone has any questions before we hear from MPD and MPSO.

I just saw Commissioner Evans shake his head.

No, uh Raimi.

No.

Yeah.

No, I no questions.

Right now, yeah, and Commissioner Horowitz also has no questions.

All right.

So we can go with um let's hear from the department than MPSO.

If you have anything to add, Heather.

Um just that sure.

So I mean, Chief Norman is uh more um supportive of accountability of his members, and so we recognize that his discipline metrics and his discipline decisions um are indeed more days for offenses that in the past were less days.

Uh we are supportive for certain types of offenses that this consideration be made.

Um and we're open to discussion if you want to parcel out, um, you know, like integrity offenses versus accident offenses or some type of metric to determine which discipline uh qualifies for this.

Um, but we are we do not object if a change was made like this to reduce the amount of time for uh promotional consideration.

Okay, thank you.

Um PSO.

Uh we like status quo the way it is currently, uh the way discipline is uh the way we look at it is this could be very convoluted about the 15-day rule.

Like is days fall off, then you can be eligible.

It could be you know, something where it could be this, and then we say somebody's ineligible, then you know, then it's a grievances filed and all the other stuff.

I think that becomes very convoluted.

Uh, talking with director Todd before, if you don't mind, I was just talking about it.

Um, is that the two years um the two years is designed to so somebody might be able to skip a promotional process, but the way it's gonna be written is it's if uh that list is extended and that person takes a two-year uh hyanus from being able to promote, if a list is extended, that person will be able to still take that next promotional test, where if you include possibly include some type of language where it's two years and must miss the next promotional exam, that could be possibly with that's what you guys are looking at.

So two years and must miss a promotional exam.

So that's that's the that was the design of the two years is because they theoretically they would miss one promotional exam, but if a list gets extended, then oh, I see.

If listening gets extended, then they could possibly not miss a promotional exam and take the next one.

So just some uh sooth for copy, you guys wouldn't be for you guys uh do that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Raimi.

I just want to say, so I would you know Heather alludes to kind of what I wrote down.

I would like to look at you know, like you brought up the accident, but maybe looking at the matrix to determine like what the offense is too, right?

Like I think that's a more fair like analysis of someone's because if it is integrity, that's a lot different than I hate to say the way it'll have, right?

Like, you know, so I just think that would be the one component.

I do think too though, when you talked about like currently it's the five five days, um, and then you said 15 or more.

I I you know I think still 15 is a whole lot, and I think it's more I you know I think it should be like 10, like you know, if we wanted to do something like that, I think again, accountability and looking at the factors of what the offense was.

Because again, if someone has been on the force in the case, let's say six years, and they've been suspended like 15 times or 15 days, I don't care what it was they did.

And my mind is saying that's too much, right?

But I think if we say 10, but one was for against your point an accident, then maybe that's worthy of talking about.

Uh, but I still think that is a lot of days if we're going to have any because I do believe as well the matrix was designed to to have accountability, um, but fair accountability for whatever the action was.

So I would have to definitely, I think look more to that's like that number um in a particular song.

And I think that would be totally reasonable as well.

I was kind of thinking 15, maybe 10, and you know, ultimately 15 is where I came down, but I do think 10 would be reasonable as well.

Um just uh to the point of uh separating out different types of an offenses, that's something we could look into, but I just in real just to be realistic, I don't know that we could get that done for this surgeon round, if that makes sense.

But yeah, continue to discuss.

Okay, um, Commissioner Evans, do you have any thoughts?

No, no, I I'm just uh really picking back off uh Commissioner uh Remy, as far as the matrix and you know we do want um detectives officers, you know, to be high level morale people, integrity, people of integrity, and accidents happens, right?

We can learn from that, but a lot of times with the integrity piece, that's just who we are, I think in a lot of cases, and we want the best people.

So I'm in favor of trying to look into doing a matrix and looking at that.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Horowitz for a minute.

Yeah, I would say that's um reasonable, but I think I'm more I'm more concerned about disciplines for integrity and you know, things that are more to the heart of a person's character, um, as opposed to oh, they just messed up and made a couple mistakes.

Um, so I I'm not sure how you get there from here.

Um but if if we can't get there for this round, is there some reason why we need to do it right now?

What couldn't we put this into um more consideration from the chief to identify the identified the uh the discipline?

So I have some thoughts about this.

Um I'm totally against the 15 day thing.

I think that's outrageous.

You have got to be kidding me.

Um I think it's important.

There's a lot of stuff kind of built in in the law enforcement structure that is completely unique to law enforcement that I have not seen in any other field ever.

And the idea that that's an acceptable limit is wild to me.

So I want to be really clear.

I I think that the path forward based on what everyone is uh the commissioners have shared, where there's an interest in looking at the matrix and maybe how the matrix treats things that are like a squat accident versus other types of violations.

And I'm pretty like I want to be really clear from my perspective, that's probably the only differential.

Um that's really like it's been a very interesting thing, and like I've really appreciated actually Chief Norman's attention to the discipline and matrix and like trying to kind of right size and and do and do discipline better.

Um I have been surprised as a commissioner, like how many days someone will sit for a squad accident over sometimes something else, like disregard or something.

You know what I mean?

And so um I think the position based on what everyone has shared that would make sense for going forward would be to keep the status quo with the time as MPSO suggested, and then it's a separate issue to look into related to how disciplines being applied, specifically around this issue of like a squad accident, and I'm not and I think we gotta be careful there too a little bit because there's pursuit accidents, and then there's like I backed into a lamppost, which we also see, to be fair.

Um, and I think what everyone's talking about are the backing into lamppost ones.

Um, not the like someone's high speed chasing all the time and they're getting reckless and it's and then there's an accident, you know what I mean?

Sure.

Um, how do commissioners feel about that?

Yeah, I think we uh it'd have to be more discussion because to your point.

I was just doing an average in my head when you just said that number out loud.

And if someone was suspended 10 days, which means they were suspended every year their career almost, which is scary if they're gonna be applying to be a leader.

So I think yeah, let's have more dialogue about it.

Let's look at the status quo I think works for now, and it makes the most sense.

Um, so but I think we can dig into it.

I do think there are some things that are anomalies to allow someone to say, hey, this that shouldn't be counted against that person, but let's take those as we look at the matrix.

So you do do you still you still want to keep the question of the discipline limits related to sergeant on the table or take those off and just talk about and say we're gonna nope we're gonna do SASQ, but let's talk about the way we'll tweak it is in the matrix.

That's what I wanted.

That's what I'm trying to get clear clarity on.

Let me what's the word too?

Have you heard ponder that because again, yeah, let me ponder because I hear what you're saying.

Um because my concern again is someone who wants to be a leader.

If they've been suspended, that worries me.

So what can be discussed?

So let me let me think about it.

I don't want to talk about how that yeah.

I guess I want the uh to further bolster my point.

I guess I want to say I think this is trying to solve for a problem we don't have.

We got a ton of people on the sergeant's list, so much that we're extending the list.

Um people are clearly able to get through this bar of eligibility, which is honestly not that hard or shouldn't be that hard to not get suspended for five days, uh or more.

So I think it's more a matter of a matrix issue than uh and then and that goes to back to start, you know.

Then are we gonna create a problem that we don't to your point that we're not seeing, right?

So I think you might be spot on.

So okay.

It may have convinced me.

Uh Commissioner Evans, you got anything more based on no, I'm I'm I'm I'm hearing what you're saying, uh Commissioner uh Bree.

Um, as far as the status quo, yeah, yeah, but 15 is is ridiculous.

I I 100% agree with that when you do the matter.

You said that you're right.

Wait, I can't hear Commissioner Evans.

Sorry.

No, no, I said I I understand what you're saying.

Uh regarding the uh the 15 years, that's that's a lot, and maybe we do need time to, you know, kind of get this together and make sure we're making the right moves here.

Okay.

Commissioner Horowitz, anything additional?

Um yeah.

Yeah, I think we need more more consideration than just the meeting right now.

I would like to understand more how somebody with a with a poor disciplinary record uh might uh still be qualified, um, and what that means.

Um, could you could you hear me?

Yeah, I can hear you.

I was just thinking.

So um I think what we'll do is hold us to the call of the chair, and I just want to flag for everyone that there's only one more meeting of this committee where I'm the chair and gonna be here.

So I think that um it means the conversation will probably happen past when I'm not on the body anymore.

So I just want to be really clear about my position and why it is the way that it is.

But I think I've gotten it across.

And the next round of promotional testing wouldn't be until spring of 27.

Yeah.

If you wait if you waited to do it until after this round, which it sounds like we are.

We didn't talk about that.

I would say yes.

Oh, you're right.

So you're right.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Gotcha, gotcha.

I didn't understand.

Okay.

All right.

You good?

Okay.

We're good.

Okay.

Thanks everybody for the good discussion.

Okay, please proceed, Director Todd.

The next item, item five is FPC two one two five two five communication relating to substitution of up to one year of required experience for the sergeant position in exchange for a higher education degree, field training, officer service and/or leadership courses.

Um I think the the title of the file makes it kind of clear given uh uh what uh the given the prior discussion.

Uh, although that said, this might be moot now.

Um but uh it I guess the this would facilitate a discussion if there's anything else you wanted to give credit for so to speak or substitution allow members to substitute for years of experience um I was not intending that you would make any kind of decisions today that would go in the the job announcement bulletin that's gonna be at the next meeting but just putting this in there uh for discussion either now or at a later time if uh there was any other things you wanted to incentivize like FTO service or um you know bachelor's degree or or higher education's degree um but um I'll leave it at that for now.

Okay um wow Commissioner Raimi's really looking at me on Commissioner Raimi.

But I'm not thinking no I was looking at executive director.

This is kind of muted because if we're going to six already this we would have to outline this to almost give them another year potentially on this.

Oh that's what that's why you said that I was confused.

Well no uh it but I I said that because I I assume that since you had uh kind of had or come to a consensus on the detective thing that that was the only thing you wanted to do but just to be clear um you know for this proposal you could only substitute this any combination of these for up to one year total like you don't get one year and another year such that you're a eligible at three or four years.

Uh and that's how um FIRE does it that you know paramedic HEO or uh 60 credits you can substitute one of those uh or more but only for up to a maximum of one year.

Okay.

So this is just to facilitate a discussion if there's anything else that you would want members to you know in addition to detective be able to sub substitute for like again a bachelor's degree or FTO service.

But uh my my my suspicion was that you did not given uh the prior discussion but maybe I was maybe I misread that.

Yeah okay I I mean I of course have an opinion but I will um I will take comments from other commissioners first um commissioner evans no no uh um I'm understanding um what uh Commissioner Remy and Director Todd are saying so that was my understanding as well.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Horwitz um yeah I think that well I'm hearing that this is going to be uh subject to more discussion so I'm in favor of that action on this um I haven't I you know I think that another issue is whether or not they need some uh they can file need some advanced notice if we're gonna make this change um because if you change things too close to a uh a deadline and it gets a little difficult for people to understand what you're doing uh so that's that's what I think okay thank you um so uh I do not like having field training officer or leadership courses included in this you already get higher ed bump preference point when you come into the department you get preference points like that if you have higher ed if you got a degree of an um either bachelor's or an advanced degree while you're an officer I'm not quite sure how that shows up but I think it probably shows up in how you rate it as a as your promotion you know how your promotion exam and responses go.

Field training officer who gets to be FTOs is controlled entirely by the police department who's allowed to go to leadership courses during work also controlled entirely by the police department and so I worry that there's kind of a backdoor way of baking in preference for the department that I'm not comfortable with.

I also want to flag the same concern I have stated, like I'm sure MP PSO sick of me, uh, but about variability with sergeants is also there's massive variability with FTOs as well.

And so just to exactly um Chris, you made this exact point, like just because someone's an FTO doesn't guarantee that they're a good FTO.

And so I I don't think that that's baconable in the same way as some other things.

Um so heard that we're I think we're gonna also do this to the call of the chair.

I don't think we need to vote on it.

Why is that okay?

So um I don't know.

Uh sorry, I didn't give the police department.

Heather, do you have something you want to say about this item?

Chief of Staff Puff, sorry.

Uh no, I do not.

Okay, okay.

And you're good, MPSO.

Okay.

All right.

Um, well, it's held to the call of the chair.

So we can proceed.

And that concludes the agenda.

Hey oh.

All right.

Okay.

Uh do we have a motion to adjourn?

Move.

So move.

So move.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh that's everybody.

Motion carries.

Thanks, everybody.

We stand adjourned.

Thank you, B