Good morning and welcome to the Thursday, June 11th meeting of the Public Safety and Health Committee.

It is 908, so we'll get going.

If people could please keep it down, we'll get our business going.

We I am Alderman Scott Spiker, Chair of the Committee joined to my right by Alderman Burgelis.

Please folks, hello.

Thank you.

Joined to his right by Alder Taylor.

We'll be joined momentarily by Alder Moore.

Alder Chambers is on the big board.

We have a bunch of smaller items.

They won't take a super long time, and then we'll get to the SOP items, which I believe most people are here for, and we'll go on from there.

Thank you very much.

Item one, file number two six zero one five nine.

This is an ordinance relating to parking controls.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee, Scott Reinbacher with DPW.

Today we only have one proposed change to the city's parking regulations, and that is to alter the winter parking restrictions on the 1600 block of West Clark Street.

So we recommend uh removing the exception to allow parking on both sides of the street during the winter months between 7 a.m.

and 1 p.m.

This change was coordinated with the local Alder.

Happy to answer any questions.

Any questions?

Not Alder Bergelis would move to recommend passage and hearing no objections, so ordered item number two, file number two six zero one six zero, an ordinance relating to traffic controls.

Uh yes, despite there being many intersections in this file, uh today's um proposed ordinance change would only install new stop signs at two intersections, and that would be to install northbound and southbound stop signs at the intersections of Saveland and third, as well as Warnamont and third.

Uh this change was coordinated with the local Alder.

Happy to answer any questions.

Um quick question, this one's in my district.

Um there was a change of not regarding it as um, I don't know, basically SMIR material anymore.

What was the reason for that change in, was there a change in traffic volume or change in bus routes or what?

Uh correct, Alderman.

Uh upon reviewing a constituent concern, um we reviewed our intersections as we normally as we normally do.

Uh we did discover South Third Street, as you alerted alluded to, uh, was classified as a collector uh through highway within the city.

Um at one point in time it may have seen more traffic than it currently does.

Um, we did not do a traffic count, but we know based on experience that volumes are very low in this uh street, so we don't feel the through highway classification is needed anymore.

Um, thank you.

Um any questions?

Additional?

If not, Alder Taylor would move to recommend passage and hearing no objection so ordered.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um moving on to some health department files, which again are going to be relatively short.

Item three, file number two six zero one one eight, substitute resolution relative to acceptance and funding of the twenty-six through twenty-seven immunization action plan grant from the state of Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair and Committee members.

I'm Lindsay Page, infectious disease program director with the health department.

This item authorizes approximately 101,000 in funding from the state of Wisconsin.

These funds support our immunization program and will cover a portion of staff salaries and supplies related to immunization activities.

Okay.

Questions?

Committee members.

If not, then Alder Moore would recommend to move it up, would move to recommend adoption and hearing no objections so ordered.

Item number four, file number two six zero one four eight resolution relating to acceptance and funding of the 26th through 27 communicable disease prevention grant from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Yes, this item authorizes approxim approximately 27,000 in funding from the state of Wisconsin.

Uh these funds support our overall disease control and surveillance activities.

Okay.

Questions from committee members about this file?

I'll ask a question.

Alder Bergelis.

Thank you.

Um compared to previous years.

Correct.

Yes.

Um has support from the state for the health department increased year to year, or where where's the trend headed?

Yeah, for the specific communicable disease grant, it has remained steady at around 27, 28,000.

So there have not been significant changes to this grant.

For the last two years, for the last 20 years.

Um this is a newer grant.

I want to say it started approximately five years ago, and it's been uh steady around 27, 28,000.

So the need hasn't changed in five years.

The need does not match the you know what what we receive often.

Um, have the costs to provide services that the state is supporting increased or decreased over that.

I mean, because if the need is increased, but the but we have some cost savings.

Maybe we don't need to the any more funding than we were getting five years ago.

But if the need has increased, has the cost to provide those services?

I mean, I would say our our core communical disease team and activities has remained pretty steady.

There hasn't been giant changes outside of the COVID pandemic, obviously.

Um there have not been significant staffing changes or or major changes like that that would warrant um, you know, additional funding.

But we are doing more with less year after year.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

With that, Alder Taylor would move to recommend adoption and hearing no objections so ordered.

Item number five, file number two six zero one nine seven, substitute resolution relative to acceptance and funding of the 2026 through 27 Cities Readiness Initiative grant from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Hi Chair.

Uh Tyler Webber, Deputy Commissioner of Environmental Health for the City of Milwaukee Health Department.

And this is another recurring grant that we get from the state that actually trickles down from the CDC.

And this helps us with our um preparedness work, um, and coordination and response around threats, disaster, so flooding as an example, and it pays a portion of salaries, training, supplies, etc.

for our team.

Very good.

Questions?

Can I continue?

Can I continue that same trend?

Please.

Um, so has this a recurring uh this is recurring support through the state from the federal government.

Um has support for this program increased or decreased year to year lately.

Um this grant is slightly decreased.

Um but then the the next item to be discussed for the FEP grant uh increased slightly.

So these grants often co-occur together, even though they are different.

So right now it's more of a uh a wash in terms of um losing funds, but if um it would be nice to get an increase every year just to be forward.

Is that uh uh more from a as a result of a policy shift from the federal government, or why would these numbers fluctuate so much or the just the funding formula um criteria change?

There this is because this goes this funding goes to from the CDC to the state, then the state has a larger pool to distribute across the entire state to other health departments, and sometimes that state formula changes.

So sometimes it's impacted by how much we get from the state, and sometimes it's impacted by um the state formula and how they use it, population trends, needs, et cetera, across the whole state.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

Uh, with no more questions, Alderman Burgells would move to recommend adoption and hearing no objections so ordered.

Item six, file number two six zero one nine eight substitute resolution relative to acceptance and funding of the twenty six through twenty-seven public health emergency preparedness grant from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Uh again, this is similar to the previous grant, the CRI grant.

Uh the difference here is uh funding goes to our emergency preparedness team as well as to our lab uh for their emergency response capacity and as needed.

Okay.

Questions, comments?

If you haven't had a tour of the lab, you should go check it out.

It's pretty impressive.

Um with that, Alder Chambers would move to recommend adoption and referral to finance and personnel and hearing no objections so ordered.

Thank you.

Item seven moving on to the fire department.

Uh file number two six zero two zero one substitute resolution or resolution relating to acceptance and funding expenditure of $3,500 contribution to the Milwaukee Fire Department from Habish Habish and Rotier.

Good morning, sure.

Uh, this is Chief Parish Milwaukee Fire Department.

Uh so we received a uh a small contribution from a local law firm to help us with uh one of our safety initiatives.

Uh several years ago we were actually involved in um working with our local residents to make sure that cars were installed safely.

We received the reach out as part of one of uh their initiatives to basically donate some money to that initiative.

Um so that's what this is.

It is uh, you know, it's one of the unique things that uh that we do when it is all normally funding limited, so this allows for continuation of that until these funds dry up.

Happy to take any questions.

Okay, very good.

Are there any questions?

Not all.

Please tell them we said thank you.

We'll do it.

We missed it.

Thank you.

Uh Alder Moore would move to recommend adoption and hearing no objections, so ordered.

Item number eight, file number two six zero two zero two resolution authorizing the Milwaukee Fire Department to enter into agreement with the Milwaukee Board of School Directors on behalf of the Milwaukee Public Schools for continued operations of the Survive Alive House.

We are also adding the esteemed assistant city attorney, Angela Fowler Esquire, to the chat.

Or Andrea Fowler.

Um, so as you all may be aware, uh the Milwaukee fire department has an incredibly long history uh doing the survival house.

You know what?

Point of privilege.

All right, so audience participation.

Who are members going to survive a life house in second or fifth grade?

Raise your hand up high, elbow straight.

There we go.

Beautiful.

Um this has been multiple decades that we've been doing this program.

It's probably the thing that uh both the Milwaukee Fire Department and NPS is known the most for.

Um those documents that really build that collaboration do require the occasional tidying.

Uh assistant city attorney followers will work on this for the better part of a year and some change.

Um so we're happy to just uh revise that agreement, but if you all have any questions about uh what's in the revisions, we are happy to take those.

Or is there anything that you want to add to this?

No, I think the only um I it's it's actually very similar to the previous agreement.

We just sort of dialed in some of the budgeting elements, and then we made it evergreen, which I think is a good thing.

So we don't have to go through this process again in three years, although it's terminable, you know, sort of at will by either side.

Very good.

Yeah, very successful program, longstanding program.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh Alder Moore.

Just really quick, is it every second and third grader that goes through it?

Every second and fifth grader.

Second and fifth grader.

Okay, just amazing.

Absolutely such a beautiful experience, and I'm glad that we're continuing the collaboration with MPS.

So if you all haven't visited in a while, you want to stop by feel free.

We uh love to have guests.

Uh, we'd love to have uh presenters and whatnot.

So, brought me back down memory lane.

Oh, it should bring everybody back on memory lane.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh with that, Alder Moore would move to recommend adoption of the resolution.

And hearing no objections at all, uh gladly do so.

Uh so ordered.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and then for the sponsors, did we sort of all the commissioners?

Okay.

Alder.

Yeah.

All right, then we'll keep that's totally reasonable.

Um, yes, to be uh recorded in the affirmative for the previous item.

Uh let the record reflect uh Alderman Brigals in the affirmative on item eight.

Um moving on, I believe it's nine fifteen.

Yes, in fact it's nine twenty.

Um so we're able to move on to the next item.

Item nine, file number two six zero two two five motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department Standard Operating Procedures 660, vehicle pursuits and emergency vehicle operations, and modifying 575 video release policy.

So I'll just set the stage and then turn it to the sponsors.

So um with Act 12, FPC doesn't have the authority anymore to change an SOP, but they still have the ability, which they've done here to make a recommendation to the council, which can change an SOP on a two-thirds vote.

So whatever we do today, we won't be changing anything.

We'll be making a recommendation to the full council.

It's the full council's action that will determine whether that modification will take place or not, whether a two-thirds vote is achieved.

Um with that I will turn it over to the sponsors uh led by Alder Moore.

Thank you so much, um, Mr.

Chair and um my colleagues here um this morning.

I definitely want to thank the community for coming out um this morning.

Uh I value um sort of the structure that we have in place.

Um FPC is a place where a lot of those decisions are made where um extensive community input um comes into play.

Uh we don't have to have another hundreds of people here, you know, at this meeting because many of them showed up at your meeting.

And I we've I personally value the recommendation um that uh um the commission um brings to us.

Uh this was an opportunity for us to listen to community.

When we talk about, you know, and and and let me preface it by saying that um a lot of times when decisions are made uh it doesn't make everyone happy uh because there are always some nuances, you know.

If we don't do this, this could happen, but if we do do this, this can happen.

And so um it's up to us to be able to sort of siphon through that um and figure out what is best for our community.

Um last year, you know, we had um 10 deaths as a result of police chases.

Um I can't imagine like what those loved ones will go through for the rest of their lives.

I just I can't.

And as a body, it is up to us to be able to um look at uh different approaches and different angles as to how can we keep our how can we keep our community safe, right?

And for me, that is always at the premise of the work that I do and the decisions you know that I make.

So um the recommendation um came from um FPC and I value that recommendation because of the simple fact that you all have had extensive input um from committee.

Um and Mr.

Chair, I'll um just end by um by saying that this is not perfect, um, and if we you know try to move forward with something that's perfect, we typically lose out on just getting any real work done.

So this is an opportunity for us to move forward um with some recommendations um to uh change the SOP and you know uh there'll be folks that'll be at the table that'll explain sort of in detail what this SOP does.

Some people think that we're not chasing at all.

That's not that's not what this does.

And so um I'll have whoever you know needs to come to the table to sort of share.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So how we'll structure this.

Well, first of all, um there was a change to 660 that the chief promulgated.

Um that was brought before this committee was brought before FPC and then before this committee.

Um FPC as a body decided those changes didn't go far enough, and so are recommending further changes.

We can hash that out.

We're honored by the presence of two FPC commissioners, so I want to make sure to give them space to state their case.

We'll give a chance for MPD to respond, and then we'll have very limited um uh public testimony.

Just a few people on each side because we have a whole nother item that's going to be very involved after that and we'll want to be respectful of members' times.

So with that, um I guess I would call to the table um FPC executive director Todd and also um commissioners, um, any commissioners that are present, including Commissioner uh Spencer and Commissioner Fung, if they want to provide testimony as well.

And then we'll have MPD give their response and then we'll go on from there.

So welcome.

So, Director Todd, do you want to say what happened at the last meeting and then we can go from there?

Yes, good morning, uh Mr.

Chair, committee members.

Uh Leon Todd, executive director of the Fire and Police Commission.

I'm joined to my left by Commissioners Breeze Spencer, and then to my far left by Commissioner Chrissy Fung.

So the the recommendation that's before you builds off of prior changes to this SOP uh by the Milwaukee Police Department that you pre- one of which you previously noted uh that uh change modified uh the the grounds uh that allows officers to pursue for reckless driving.

Uh and essentially what that change did was say that vehicle speed in and of itself is not enough.

There has to be some other factor that shows uh a degree of recklessness.

There was a prior change before that that limited uh uh officers' ability to pursue for uh drug dealing or mobile drug dealing uh to limit that to uh significant uh cases of significant or long term investigations.

This change that's before you again builds off of those changes.

Uh and the intention is not to uh eliminate or prohibit vehicle pursuits in all or most cases.

Uh what this change would do is again it would focus on uh the category uh of pursuits involving pursuits for reckless driving.

That is one category that MPD is allowed to uh pursue individuals.

Uh they're also allowed to pursue for violent felonies and for again substantial uh drug dealing involving uh long-term or or significant uh uh investigations.

Regarding the reckless driving portion, that constitutes more than two-thirds of the vehicle pursuits that MPD uh engages in uh over the last few years.

Uh this and currently officers are allowed to pursue for reckless driving that is observed either before or after the attempted stop.

The proposed change focuses primarily on those uh pursuits that are for reckless driving that is per is first observed after the attempted stop.

So if an officer attempts to stop someone for s you know your garden variety uh traffic violation like speeding or an equipment or registration violation, and then the vehicle begins to flee uh and flees in a reckless manner.

Officers currently are allowed to pursue those uh those individuals.

Uh these cases tend to be uh the least serious type of traffic stops by definition, they're not for reckless driving, uh at least originally, they're not for violent felonies, they're usually for your garden variety traffic stops.

Um just to clarify and to underscore Alder Moore's point under the change to SOP you would still be allowed to pursue for reckless driving, but not if it was only initiated after the traffic stop.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Uh and based on information, the best available information that we have from a prior uh vehicle pursuit audit, uh I would estimate that the category of stops that we're talking about, those involving reckless driving first observed after an attempted stop, is does not involve the vast majority of traffic stops.

I estimated to be around 15% uh of all of the entire universe of stops.

So we're talking about a relatively uh uh small number of uh small universe of stops.

Um that's the principal uh recommendation uh to uh prohibit vehicle pursuits for reckless driving observed after an attempted stop.

And uh a final interruption, and I apologize, but under the previous SOP change um fleeing after a stop at a high rate of speed, you were not allowed to pursue um, but you were allowed to pursue if in addition to fleeing at a high rate of speed, you also were you know colliding with other vehicles, not slowing and stopping at intersections, causing other vehicles to engage in evasive action.

So that was the only condition under which you were allowed to pursue then under this new change, even should those um further reckless behaviors take place, there would not be an allowance of pursuit.

That's correct.

And the previous change that you're referring to that that uh said you need something more than than vehicle speed alone, I believe occurred in October or November of last year.

So it is somewhat or relatively recent in the grand scheme of things.

I just want to say one more thing.

There's also if there's another element, like they're pulling someone over because they suspect that the vehicle they're driving had been involved in the homicide or something, then that is also a condition under which they can pursue.

Um I just want to be clear on that.

Yep.

Uh the other change the other recommended changes include uh just to re-emphasize that's the principal change.

The other recommended changes include uh a requirement that uh department members would be required to terminate a pursuit for reckless driving if continuation of the pursuit increases the danger to the public.

Uh the the reasoning behind that being these pursuits are uh to uh apprehend and hold accountable and prevent uh individuals from engaging in behavior that is inherently dangerous to the public, i.e.

reckless driving.

And uh and the logic is that if that action by law enforcement officers increases the danger to the public, it should be uh ended.

Um thirdly, the recommendations would clarify that existing, the existing policy that a vehicle pursuit may not be initiated or must be excuse me.

Uh we're recommending that uh the policy clarify that if a vehicle pursuit uh is initi may not be initiated may not be initiated or must be terminated when the only known reason for the attempted stop is an ordinance violation or a misdemeanor unless otherwise provided in the SOP.

Uh that's just clarifying what already exists under the policy, and then finally the motion would provide that vehicle pursuits involving death or great bodily harm would be subject to the video release policies of SOP 575, which require uh release to the public uh within 15 days uh and also they have to give opportunities to uh uh um the deceased next of kin to view the video within 48 hours.

Uh that is a uh an overview, a principal overview of the recommended changes, and with that I want to turn it over to uh commissioners Spencer and Fung uh for uh the policy reasons behind these recommendations.

Thank you very much.

Please introduce yourselves.

Sure.

I'm Commissioner uh Bree Spencer from the Fire and Police Commission.

Do you want to introduce yourself?

I'm Commissioner Chrissy Fung.

Um so I'm gonna kind of set the table in terms of I was the person who introduced this at the Fire and Police Commission, and um I I have found in my four years on the commission that it is helpful to help people like understand your thinking leading into a recommendation like this.

That's what I'm gonna try to do, kind of set the table.

So first, uh Milwaukee, the Milwaukee police pursuit policy is dangerous, and it's dangerous because it's too permissive.

We know it's too permissive because we are way like I cannot emphasize this enough way, way off the national standard for what a good police pursuit policy is, and that isn't just coming from community members, is not just coming from like a progressive think tank or something, it's coming from the DOJ, the police executive research forum, and the NYU law um policing project, which we have invited to come and they gave a presentation at a fire and police commission meeting several months ago, which was very informative and helpful.

The national standard of best practice, which is developed based on research, a lot of data, and looking at a bunch of different cities across the country with different circumstances, says that police pursuits should be extremely rare, not completely banned, but extremely rare, and that's because it is one of the most dangerous tools in the law enforcement toolbox.

Um another way that we know the policy is dangerous because it's too permissive, is because of, and I was so grateful to hear you say out loud, although we're more at the 10 deaths that occurred in 2025.

Um I just want to share a quick story here.

So a few of us went to the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, NACOL, longest acronym ever, last fall, and I attended a session on police created jeopardy, officer created jeopardy.

Um I started to think as I'm sitting in the room, I think our police pursuit policy might be kind of an example of this.

So I got up at the QA, the mic, you know, in a conference, and I said, I'm from Milwaukee, I'm I do oversight in Milwaukee, and um in our city, we've had nine deaths as a result of police pursuits.

And when I tell you the audible shock and gasps from people across the country who are in that room, like I knew it wasn't good, and I knew it was something we needed to change, but that helped hit home for me that what has been normalized here is not normal.

Like it is not normal and it is not acceptable.

Um we can make change one of two ways.

We can quickly and drastically make change, or we can do it incrementally and slowly.

I think this community and the city has learned that drastic change on this particular issue doesn't really work here.

Um we that's what happened before.

We had um a former chief who changed to kind of the national standard, but like super fast.

And we could talk about the details of that.

I suspect part of it was he didn't operationalize it very well and help bring people along to understand what he was doing.

But the end consequence was he sort of turned off the tap of pursuits and then turn it ended up getting turned all the way back on when people were very upset.

There was like it was right around when the Kia boys were starting, and there was all this stuff going on, so got turned all the way back on.

So to me, that says okay, that leaves us incremental change.

We can't go drastic, so we gotta do it bit by bit.

The thing about incremental change though is if you want to actually make change, each incremental step has to be meaningful.

And I would argue that what the police department does, though it's in the right direction, does not go far enough to make it meaningful to actually save lives.

Um, so then third, I just want to say to be explicit and to ground this in the thing that I think we're all thinking of, which is I worry a lot about the safety of the city and in particular everyone involved when a chase happens.

I worry a lot about the safety of the general public.

I worry about the safety of the people actually being chased, and I also worry very much about the safety of our officers being involved in these pursuits.

So, just to quickly uh recap, um, our policy is too permissive and therefore extremely dangerous, and we know that based on research and data.

We know based on past experience that for the issue of police vehicle pursuits, we need incremental change, and that this policy is grounded in the desire to save lives.

We have to do better.

We can and we and we must.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Uh, Commissioner Fung, do you have anything you would like to add?

Yes, I do.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair, uh, members of the common council.

Thank you for uh allowing me to speak before you today.

Um, first I want to acknowledge the Act 12-sized elephant in the room.

Um, after Act 12, as everyone knows, as I think this body is really good at reminding folks that FPC's ability to affect policy is now inherently intertwined with the powers of the common council.

Um, as an independent body, the FPC hasn't been in the position of needing to essentially lobby for our own recommendations before.

So this us needing to come sit before you, this is all new for us.

Now we have to figure out who has time on in this part-time board to um come do the very important work of speaking before you uh and also who is willing to do that.

Um I also acknowledge that uh our executive director is part of the mayor's cabinet, he has a positionality that I don't envy.

Um, even for myself, I am a mayoral appointee, and so I know that there is risk in coming before this committee in opposition to both the chief's position and the mayor's position on vehicle pursuits, but I'm doing this because the FPC has thoughtfully and carefully considered this issue and this recommendation for months, and because it is the right thing to do.

I hope uh as our relationship evolves with the common council that we can develop a healthier ecosystem in that ecosystem.

I see the FPC as serving as the experts in civilian oversight.

We hear from the community often late into the hours of the night, we hear from MPD who's out in the community every day, who have to take the risks that we're discussing today, and we also hear, um, as Commissioner Spencer mentioned from external national policing experts about national data and best practices.

We carefully craft a nuanced recommendation, and I will tell you policing is a nuanced beast, and you have to be a real nerd to want to engage with some of this stuff.

Um, and sometimes we also hear from the city attorney.

Um, we bring this recommendation to the common council who evaluates its merits.

I would hope that this means that most often the common council values and supports the recommendation of its expert civilian oversight body.

Maybe not all the time, but hopefully most of the time.

Playing chess knot checkers, there is also a darker way that this can play out.

The FPC can continue to listen to hours of testimony from the public, presentations from national experts, and input from MPD, and make recommendations as experts that the common council ignores.

Things can die in committee.

As we saw the other week, even no-brainer policy adjustments that originated from this body can be carefully discussed with the public, unanimously recommended by the FPC and still fail out of this committee.

In that world, the Republicans at the state succeed in hanging their albatross around our neck.

The public, the FPC, and the common council weaken.

In this world, the chief and the mayor decide what goes.

Effective civilian oversight is critical to a functioning democracy and a police department that has the trust of the public and is accountable to a democratically elected body.

Effective civilian oversight and policy making authority is critical to the ecosystem that we have here, and I fear for the soul of this city's civilian oversight if we don't figure out a way to create a healthier ecosystem here.

So I want to talk a little bit about the policy itself and sort of how we got here, because I agree with Commissioner Spencer that if we don't make a nuanced and careful change here, the writing is really on the wall.

We don't know that vehicle pursuits overall are a successful response to reckless driving that isn't borne out in the data at this point.

What we do know, one vehicle pursuits are very dangerous, perhaps the most dangerous of police activities.

Uh, and the police executive research forum uh report will tell you that.

Two, vehicle pursuits inherently at least double or triple and sometimes more, the number of cars driving at high rates of speed in our city streets.

And these pursuits, I was shocked uh when I first came into this work and saw the speeds at which these cars are driving.

I think 2024, don't quote me on this, uh, cars were going up to 117 miles an hour on our city streets.

Um, and for most of the instances of the deaths in 2025, uh, those cars were going in the 80s and 90s.

I think about my street, I live on Fratney.

If you go 90 down Fratney, I shudder to think.

Um three, vehicle pursuits do not necessarily shorten the duration of time that a subject is driving at high rates of speed down the streets.

And in fact, there is data that shows that it actually increases the duration because in studies where they interview uh people who sort of flee or continue to drive away from the police, they consistently say that they would have stopped earlier, except that they were being chased.

So as we increase the duration, we also increase the chance for harm.

Vehicle pursuits are also getting more dangerous and faster over the years.

We did not use to chase at these speeds, and we did not use to chase at this volume.

Um, and as Commissioner Spencer emphasized, current MPD policy does not meet the minimum standards of best practices as laid out by the DOJ by PERF, by NYU, bless you.

Um, no pursuit does not mean no accountability.

And I really want to emphasize this.

There are multiple tools in the tool belt.

Vehicle pursuits are an important tool in the tool belt in very specific situations, but they should not be used as often as they are being used now, and that's why it's incredibly important.

Uh, and I will commend the department for the work that they've done in looking into additional options, which include technologies uh like GPS trackers, like drones.

Y'all know I have complicated feelings about the drones, but they do work at the end of pursuits, and we know this from talking to other departments like Cincinnati who use them all the time.

Um, so I think when we have conversations with um constituents, members of the public who come to us and say, I am terrified to go out on the street because I am terrified of reckless driving, that's real.

But it is also incumbent upon us as leaders and people who think about public safety to to understand that vehicle pursuits are not the only, should not be the only and should not be the primary response to reckless driving.

We need to reduce the number of future deaths now before more lives are lost.

And we need to reduce the amount of taxpayer money that's being paid out in these settlements.

If we're in a situation in which our pursuit policy does not even meet best practices, to me, and I'm not a lawyer, that's a liability.

When we look at the data, according to data analysis from the Medical College of Wisconsin, the most common person to be pursued is male, is black, is uh between the ages of 18 to 34, with the highest number of those being ages 18 to 24.

So thinking about that, is it all black youth?

No, it's not all black youth, but is a high proportion of this folks whose brains are not finished developing and who have been systematically under-resourced by all of the things that I know we all talk and think about all of the time.

Yes, that's who we're pursuing the most.

Um, and in 2025, there was a very high percentage of subjects who were 17 and younger.

So these are kids that we're chasing, and that's not safe for them, that's not safe for the public, that's not safe for officers.

Um, I also want to note we heard from a member of the public whose house had front porch had been crashed into and destroyed twice in one year uh from a car that was in a vehicle pursuit.

So although this isn't necessarily the highest priority for me, I think the damage to property is real.

Um and that person, the last time I talked to them intended to move out of their house because they found that situation intolerable, and I think that's very fair.

So the long and short of it is that our current pursuit policy doesn't meet best practices.

Following best practices will not necessarily prevent every negative outcome from pursuits.

Um, but I think it's really important that we take a surgical nuanced approach here and make some small adjustments to see what additional harms we can prevent.

Um, as Commissioner Spencer mentioned, we heard from Josh Parker at NYU policing project, who said that restrictive pursuit policies save lives and results in more arrests.

And this is scientific.

In Roanoke, there were two neighboring agencies that had different pursuit policies, and the one with the more restrictive policy saw no increase in criminal activity, but also saw an increase in arrests for serious violent crimes.

So it is possible to still do the things that we need to do and to have accountability without having the extremely expansive number of pursuits that we are currently doing.

And I'll share um a quote from that presentation.

In cases of reckless driving, chasing that driver is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

And I think it's important to think about, I think, you know, when I look at it, I'm like, why would anyone why would anyone drive away from the police at 100 miles an hour?

Like, that's that's wild.

I wouldn't do that.

Actually, child me did a lot of stupid stuff in cars.

So I'll be honest with you, um, I think A, like we need to keep in mind the mindset of young people, the fear that they have.

Um I also can't imagine the fear that it is to be a young black person when you are in a police situation.

I I know from being uh in Bell Phillips detention center that that fear is real and that fight or flight is real, and sometimes that's flight.

Um but uh and in and I spoke before um about the increase in the duration of pursuits.

You're being chased, so you keep going.

Is that smart?

No, it's probably not smart, but is that really what happens?

Yes, that's really what happens.

Um I think that there's also a lot that we need to unpack about feelings of disconnection um from young people from their neighborhoods, right?

Like I wouldn't drive a hundred miles an hour down Fratney because I live there and I love my neighbors, but for people who feel fundamentally disconnected from their communities, yeah, it's a lot easier to do dangerous things.

Um, and so I keep that in mind um as well, and I will actually uh commend AC Sarno was on an incredible panel uh yesterday with uh Judge Trigiano and ACA Mueller, talking about kind of the ecosystem uh between enforcement and accountability and options for restorative justice and for genuinely preventing and changing young people's opinions on whether they would engage in just reckless driving in general ahead of time.

So I say that to say that there are a lot of options here that I think we need to explore.

Uh I understand that reckless driving is a very serious issue, um, but I I don't believe that vehicle pursuits should be the predominant way uh that we address this situation.

Um so I tend to talk for a very long time, but I'm gonna stop here in case there are any questions or any.

No, thank you very much for the testimony.

I guess I would ask for something unusual.

I want to have MPD chance to give a response, but I don't want to stop a dialogue from accidentally breaking out.

So if you all could move one seat to the right, make room for Chief of Staff Huff, Assistant Chief Sarno.

Again, uh it was stated that what's true, which is that the FPC commissioner job is ostensibly a part-time job that isn't reflective of the tremendous amount of hours um that you put into it, including your time here.

So I want to be respectful of that.

Um with that, we'll hear from MPD, and then um if members have questions for the people at the table, can ask those, and then we can move on to um a select few from the public that the sponsor or I um have received communication from.

So thank you.

With that, we'll turn it over to MPD, and um if you could state your case of why the chief is opposed to this change, um, and to the extent you can directly engage the points that have been made that will be more instructive than you know having a two-way monologue.

So thank you.

Sure.

Um, good morning, um, to this commission.

My name is Chief of Staff Heather Huff for the Milwaukee Police Department.

I'm joined by Assistant Chief Craig Sarno, who oversees our administration bureau in the department.

I will give just a brief few opening remarks and I will turn it over to AC Sarno, who can follow up with more detailed information.

Um, but the uh the post-act 12 weird world that we uh operate in now is real, and just we want to acknowledge as a department, MPD feels its pains as well.

Um it is we have the oversight of the FPC and recommendations made there.

We also have um the authority of the common council, and so navigating these worlds uh is difficult, and we too would like to find an organized process and path forward to figure out how we all coexist and how we make the best decisions with the most input.

That being said, in the file, um we did provide the chief did provide a formal response to the FPC's recommendations on the pursuit policy changes.

And we did not take the recommendations, the input at FPC, uh the community um comments lightly.

The chief never does.

We listen to those very carefully, and oftentimes they do effectuate change from the department.

For instance, we still strongly believe that facial wreck is a useful tool for solving egregious crimes in our city.

Um yet we understood that there were serious and severe concerns about our use of that type of technology.

And with those public comments that were made with the FPC's input with the community input, the chief made a decision to impose a moratorium on the department's use of such technology until a later time.

So it is not like the public comments from the FPC are falling on deaf ears.

And I do want to acknowledge that we're grateful for that public input because it makes us a better department when we can factor in those feelings, those opinions, those facts into our decision making process.

So I know that a lot of people here today have been part of that process and again want to thank them for their input.

That being said, we also have other sources of input.

We have crime and safety meetings that happen each of the districts every month.

And as we were having these conversations about additional restrictions imposed on our pursuit policy, we had asked our captains to have conversations with their communities to get their input as well, because community input is for the entire community that we serve.

And from that input, we heard from other community members who said, yeah, we want the pursuit policy the way it is.

We believe that the high rates of speed that are occurring in our city aren't you know the officers initiating that, it are these individuals that are causing harm to our community.

Reckless driving is real, and we want the pursuits to be able to deter that activity.

Input that included, you know, if you stop a car for traffic violation, and the entire community is aware that if I take off in a reckless manner, I will be able to leave and nothing will happen.

It may encourage that type of behavior to continue.

We do also review best practices.

We review other jurisdictions, SOPs, including our surrounding jurisdictions, that may have even uh more um accommodating pursuit policies by allowing pit maneuvers and other things more than Milwaukee, and we factor all of that in into our decision-making process.

So, all that being said, um, the police department did make changes that were effectuated in February of this year, 2026, to supplement those changes to the pursuit policy, and AC Sar now can go over that.

Um, we also implemented some technology or are began the process of implementing subtechnology to enhance our ability to not just use pursuits, but things like uh what's that thing called?

The Star Chase?

Or chase, yes.

Yes, the Star Chase, um, instead of pursuing and um things like technology to alert communities that there is a police presence or a police pursuit in their area so people could be more cautious, and other things that were implemented or in the process of being implemented at that time.

All that being said, um, the police department carefully reviewed the FPC's recommendations, carefully reviewed all of their backup materials, including the presentation at the FPC from the New York project, and came to the conclusion that at this time the police department did not feel it wanted to make additional changes to the pursuit policy.

We had made some, um, they went into effect earlier this year.

It has only been a few months to determine whether or not they're effective.

In addition, we have invested in some technological advances that we don't, and ACCR and I will get more into detail about those.

We don't um have a measure of their success yet, and we would like to see how all of those go before implementing any additional changes.

And one last thing before I turn it over.

Every incident that occurs, every time our officers are in pursuit, this brings up the conversation with the administration with the chief, who this is always on his mind.

And so this isn't uh one and done, make the change now or forever hold your peace.

It is a continual, constant review by this administration of our policy, and whether or not we want to make additional changes to keep this community safe.

Okay, let's uh take a breather there.

So I was listening and attentively to look for points of engagement with the previous testimony, and the one substantive uh point of engagement I heard is there is a concern from the chief that if this policy change were approved, it would offer folks, as it were, a recipe for getting away from the police, which is to take off recklessly, because then if there's a traffic stop and you take off recklessly, you know the policy dictates that you cannot pursue um if that so that was the one substantive engagement I saw.

Um, if that is the chief's concern, wouldn't he have had that concern when he loosened the policy to say the recipe is just speed away, but you know, pause at intersections, uh don't hit other cars, things like that.

So if the concern was you're giving folks a recipe and emboldening them to flee, um, why wasn't that concern present when he loosened it and allowed that speeding alone wasn't sufficient justification to pursue?

Thank you for that question, Chair.

And I believe assistant chief Sarno's information that he's gonna provide is gonna go more into that substantive um uh and provide you a better response to that question.

All right, I won't further get the question though, so um okay, we can uh Chief Sarno, if you would like, and again, I would ask that we say more than that we're listening to FPC that we care very much about their testimony that we carry very much for the input of the public.

I would like substantive engagement with the proposed policy change and why you think it's not a good idea, sure why the group does.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And um, so as you heard yesterday, I had the um privilege of being part of the Vision Zero Summit.

I was part of a three-person panel that consisted of myself, uh City Attorney Alex Miller, and um Professor Trigiano of Marquette.

We each had kind of a different area that we talked about.

I talked about enforcement and accountability, the city attorney talked about prosecution and Professor Trugiano talked about um restorative justice and how these things aren't competing priorities but are there to support each other in what we're all trying to accomplish, and that is um reducing reckless driving harm, reducing traffic violence.

So I shared with everybody that was present um data and information on crash and vitalities because we do, as the commissioner said, have a lot of tools on our tool belt.

It's not just vehicle pursuits.

Uh we do site, we do arrests from those citations, we do toll tow vehicles, and we're towing vehicles at a much higher rate now thanks to the um ordinance that was passed in November of 2025.

But we also still engage in vehicle pursuits when we um encounter individuals who make the choice, and I made this point yesterday, you're making the choice to engage in reckless driving behavior.

When they when they choose to engage in in um reckless driving the criminal negligent operation of a motor vehicle, we are going to enforce the law.

And we're doing that um even with the policy changes um to your question, uh, Chair Spiker, why would we incorporate that in there if um, and I'm paraphrasing what you said, if um if it was that big of a concern.

Well, I can share with you, and that those changes went to effect actually on February 6th of this year.

Um, and I'm preparing to do a presentation at the FPC on July 16th about the first half year's data, so we'll have a much bigger um uh a much bigger data uh analysis um uh during that meeting.

But I can tell you this that from the first quarter of this year, we had 202 vehicle pursuits, and of those 157 were for reckless driving.

So that's we are still seeing a large increase or I should say it's still remaining the same, kind of what we saw last year, where about 76% of our pursuits are still for reckless driving.

Um we have made some uh we made uh a lot of one question there.

So I thought Director Todd had said fifteen percent of pursuits for reckless driving, and I may have misunderstood this, were initiated only after the traffic stop.

That's based on a uh 2024 uh FPC vehicle pursuit audit looking at 2023 data.

Though the numbers are somewhat comparable, but uh in looking at that data set, which was a sample, uh uh it was approximately 15 percent of the entire universe uh would have been affected by uh this policy recommendation.

So vehicle pursuits for reckless driving first observed after the attempted stop.

Okay.

So overall, the universe being pursuits because of reckless driving, 15% of those were initiated after the stop.

No, the the total number of stops, so uh, or I'm sorry, total number of vehicle pursuits of which uh reckless driving is approximately two-thirds or a little higher, but of the entire population of stops that sample had approximately 15%, I believe.

Okay.

Um so then uh assistant chief Sarno, you said 2020 so far this year, um pursuits 157 because of reckless driving.

How many of those um would have been affected by this policy?

So how many were a pursuit that would not be allowed under this policy because it was reckless driving that was only initiated after the stock and none of the other conditions.

I didn't uh I didn't examine the 26 uh data.

I did look at the 25 data though.

So if you were to take 15% of our vehicle pursuits um from 2025, that would be out of the 742, 742 of the 970 were for reckless driving, which would uh eliminate 111 of those if this policy had been in effect in 25.

Okay, I did not examine the 26 data yet.

Okay, please continue.

Sure.

Um so I spoke at length yesterday about um these things, but with respect to um the proposed changes, the um the amendments severely weaken our ability to intervene in the most dangerous driving behaviors because under the current policy, escalation into reckless driving during a stop attempt is treated as strong evidence of dangerous uh dangerousness and criminality.

And the data that I presented previously um shows that um what the arrests and charges associated with those we take into custody for reckless driving.

Usually um what we've seen is not just reckless driving, it's a whole host of other things that go along with it.

The I'm talking about the criminal behavior that's associated to include the reckless driving.

Under the proposed changes, this same dangerous escalation would prohibit a pursuit, allowing the offenders, allowing the drivers to flee simply because their reckless behavior began after the stop attempt instead of before it.

So um this change creates an unintended incentive.

I believe the chief of staff mentioned this incentive for reckless drivers to flee.

Escalation into reckless driving after the attempted stop prohibits the pursuit, then fleeing becomes a rationale tactic for avoiding accountability.

The next point I just want to make um would be that the community trust depends on both restraint and accountability.

I believe the uh the department has shown incredible restraint in its uh exert in its authority when engaging in vehicle pursuits.

We had 970 pursuits in 2025, 270 of those, I repeat 270 were canceled by um law enforcement officers, either the officers themselves or the supervisors.

So that gives you kind of a base of 700 pursuits when um it's all said and done.

Furthermore, if you looked at the data that I had shared previously, we also had 1,0104 non-pursuits.

So the criteria existed to initiate a vehicle pursuit, but we chose not to do so because of the factors outlined in SLP six sixty sub-20 sub-H.

So I do believe that the department and the uh the men and women out on the street who are engaging this behavior because they have um they're putting themselves at risk um as well when they're trying to tackle this public safety crisis, engaging incredible restraint when they're um uh canceling these uh pursuits or just making decision not to pursue.

Uh policy that makes fleeing the least uh the least risky option erodes confidence and law enforcement ability to protect neighborhoods and enforce order on the roads.

Uh I don't know what else much else to say, um Chair Spiker, outside of what's written in the letter and what I haven't already um discussed here as well as at the fire and police commission meeting.

Okay, and I'll return to my question momentarily, which I don't think still has been answered, but I know under the current SOP as recently modified by the chief, it said members will not face disciplinary action for deciding to terminate a pursuit, if in their opinion the risk of pursuing outweighs the risk to public safety, other department members and/or the suspect.

Correct, correct.

Yes.

So that's that was a recommendation from uh the International Association of Chiefs of Police as things you should have included in your policy, which we adopted.

And it seems like the current proposed policy goes beyond that in saying not only will there not be disciplinary action, but one will be disallowed from that pursuit if they think there's uh, in their opinion, the risk of pursuing out weighs the risk to public safety.

Yes, I believe so.

And then back to my original question, then I'll be quiet for a while.

Um, it still seems like the main argument here is that if this policy passes, folks will be emboldened to flee an officer, which that's a felony, right?

Yes.

So they'd be emboldened to flee an officer because they will know the recipe for getting away is just do so recklessly.

And my earlier question was: wasn't the chief comfortable with giving a recipe to would-be fleers by saying, look, if you flee at a high rate of speed, go as fast as you like, as long as you slow it intersections, don't cause evasive action, don't run into other cars, that's how you get away.

So if that emboldening was felt to be acceptable in that instance, why is this emboldening felt to be different, not acceptable?

Uh we felt in looking at that, and we actually kind of modeled that after I believe it was Minneapolis's policy, we felt that those factors in an urine environment, um, it's more it there's a higher probability you're going to reach one of those factors uh than you're not.

And the data that I had shared, you know, 1570 or 202 for the first quarter of this year supports that.

Okay.

Oh, I've asked enough questions.

Uh let's open it up to questions from committee members for the folks at the table, and then we can proceed to others.

Alderberg Ellis.

Um, thank you.

And just to start out, I have to be pretty um disagree with my colleague from the 10th.

Uh, in your opening statement, in the opening statement, um, we heard that 10 deaths last year were a result of police chases.

I disagree.

I think those ten deaths were the result of people fleeing police, not from police doing their job.

But the devil's in the details, right?

And that's what we're here to discuss.

Um, Commissioner, one of the first things you mentioned that uh an incremental pace to modify policy was probably the most important proper way to do this.

When was the last change to the police pursuit policy?

It was turning it all the way back on before the one that they just made.

No.

The last police pursuit policy change was very recent.

Oh, before yeah, that's the one that they're talking about.

That's correct.

When was that adopted?

Uh last fall.

In fall.

So what has that incremental change resulted in since last fall?

Well, I can just tell you my thinking on it.

My follow-up is going to be well, if it's only been a few months, why are we making more change right away?

Yeah.

I think it's a good question.

Um, as I said, I think incremental change only works if you make meaningful change when you take the incremental step.

And my concern was that their change did not go far enough to actually address the harms that are coming, however you want to phrase it in terms of fault as a result of these pursuits, or because someone flew whatever, right?

Ten people did die.

That's an urgent concern.

And so to address it, we need an incremental step that takes a little bit further.

This one is actually trying to address the lowest level reckless driving related things, like someone you try to pull someone over for an expired registration tag and they don't stop.

That is not a situation that's appropriate for one of the most dangerous tools that MPD has to offer.

So that's what that's what I was looking for.

Does the current police pursuit policy allow a pursuit based on someone fleeing from a ta an expired tag?

Yes.

If it's more if they're driving recklessly, if they push away, that's not what you said.

You said if someone gets pulled over for an expired license plate, you should not pursue them.

Yeah, that's right.

That's my position.

That's your position, but that's not the police, that's not policy.

That's right.

They do pursue even with low-level traffic stops now, if they feel they should.

So I don't understand.

I think I don't understand why.

So there's a second if there's a second reason for initiating the pursuit.

No, if they drive away recklessly, that they can pursue now.

Chief?

That is correct.

Yes, we can.

If they um meet the um what the policy says for reckless driving uh after we attempt to stop, we can pursue.

Yes.

So that would be a pursuit after they stop, they take off.

If they're uh an attempted legal lawful stop for whatever it is, and then they take off in a reckless manner and they meet what's uh outlined in the uh justification policy to to meet now the new changes for reckless driving, then yes, we can chase.

All right, so now so now with the proposed changes that are before us today, uh, if someone is pulled over for the expired tag, they take off, would they would police be able to chase?

No.

Unless there was a another reason why.

Secondary reason, that's correct.

All right, thank you for that clarification.

Um does loosening up the pursuit policy increase the city's liability should we not chase someone?

So if if we call off a chase but the person continues on, is the city more culpable or more liable for civil damages?

That's a great question for the city attorney's office.

I I can't speak to that.

So has the city attorney's office weighed in on the proposed change.

I think they're here today.

Yeah, if the city attorney's office wants to grab a seat at the table, and I understand there's only so much we can answer in public before we'd have to go into closed sessions.

So if there's a question that requires us to go into closed session, we'll handle the non-closed session items first.

So if city attorney's office wants to come to the table and say whether they can answer Alderman Bergels' question in open session.

And Alderman Spiker, just a point of clarification.

I believe I uh previously stated that the last change that the police department made was last fall.

Um it may have been in February.

Oh that's I apologize if I missed it.

Yeah, it was February.

That's right, that's right.

So my question is has the city attorney's office um examined this proposed change?

Uh Deputy City Attorney Neomi Sanders.

Uh we were we're in the process of examining the proposed change.

So we don't have a city attorney, because I didn't see a city attorney letter in the file.

Correct.

You do not have one yet.

So we're not ready.

You don't have one yet.

We don't have one yet.

Um my question that we were trying to uh get to may not have an answer yet.

Um does changing does loosening up the police pursuit policy affect the city's liability or culpability in a civil case.

That's a question better uh answered in closed session.

All right.

Um I will not ask for that answer yet.

And mind I just interject here, is the city attorney's review incomplete with respect to both parts of the motion?

Is it the video release policy that you still want to look at more closely, or is it the other part, the 660 change?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

It's both.

Both, okay, thank you.

Um thank you for that.

Uh you talked about national standards and deaths elsewhere.

Um the I think anyone should gasp audibly when you hear that there are 10 deaths as a result of criminal activity related or unrelated to any particular policy in any community.

What do other communities do differently?

And how is are there um fatal and results different than Milwaukee?

I mean I can answer to the best of my ability.

One is I there is really good um reports.

There's a DOJ Perth report that's really good to review.

Uh there's also I believe report from the NYU law policing project.

I think you have both in a letter.

Um, like I think somebody summarized like what the discussion of Ben is uh at the FDC and then sent it to um to the So how does Milwaukee's uh fatal outcomes comp how do Milwaukee's fatal outcomes compare to other cities outside used regularly as the example of what not to do when it comes to policing policy?

No, but I'm not being but how do we compare?

Is it badly?

I mean, I don't have the specific numbers for you today, but very poorly, and I think it's connected to you looking at a very specific policy, and you're using justification of ten fatalities as the reason.

I need to know how we compare with other communities with similar policies, more restrictive policies, or looser policies and what their fatal res fatal uh fatality um results are.

I don't have those numbers memorized, but I think you have them in your inbox.

Great.

We need an email in every moment.

Uh hang on, we can't be testimony from the audience here.

Um did you finish your questions, Alder?

Uh I will pause for colleagues to continue.

Okay.

Alder Taylor is next in the queue.

Yep.

Um, if you can add me and then Alderman, thank you.

Okay.

Um couple of things.

I guess as I sat here and listened, um, I was a little disappointed to think that uh FPC would think that the council will ignore what is brought before them.

Um I think being uh frontline representatives to the community and being questioned about things that are happening that are risky to their lives.

Um I don't think that the council will ignore what's being brought.

I think that we take very um things very seriously, and we put a lot of thought and a lot of hours into those decisions that are made.

So um I would be disappointed to think that that's the thought behind that.

Um I think that there should always be checks and balances when you're looking at something as controversial as this, that um will cost the lives of individuals.

Even one death is one too many.

So I agree on that perspective.

Uh so I don't think that there should ever be a time where it just should lie on one body because of that.

I think um all perspectives need to be considered, and this is the way it's set up for us to do that.

Um I would like to know, and this may be um more MPD because when we talk about the deaths that are occurring, are those deaths the result of the perpetrators driving or have they been the death of the trained officers in in their pursuit of the perpetrator?

They are um at the results of the uh suspect or perpetrator.

And for the record, it was six incidents and nine deaths in 25.

Okay, so the officers' training um is being followed, not resulting in this.

That's correct.

In those instances.

Mm-hmm.

So I I think that's important to note that it is not the fault of the officers because they are trained in what they are doing.

Um so we can't um definitively say that the officer pursuing the perpetrator is causing the perpetrator to cause that death.

Because whether the officer followed or not may not be the reason why the perpetrator caused that death.

Is that fair to say?

Yes, that's fair to say.

Okay.

Um you also mentioned that there are some new tools.

Uh uh Star Chase, and you mentioned that it may be a way of alerting the community of what's that.

Yes, so um right now we use um stop sticks, um, that's the primary um uh tire deflation device we use.

We use that quite a bit.

Um we have um since uh purchased and are implementing Star Chase, the uh GPS tracker that will be used uh in pursuits as well.

We're looking at putting that on um two vehicles per district to start with.

That's just what the contract allows, and if it's successful, because there was some mixed results when we had it previously, we can look to expand on it, and um then there's the Haas Mobile Alert, um, and that's not just for vehicle pursuits.

That's uh can be used anytime a squad car uh engages in emergency vehicle operations, red lights and sirens going to any type of call with red lights and sirens, an alert would be put out, similar to like an amber alert, you would get it on your phone.

Um obviously, with that, we'll have to do kind of a strategic marketing campaign because you have to download the app in order to get it, but you can get on your phone, you can get on your car's infotainment system, anything like that.

And if you're in the area of where the vehicle is going at a high rate of speed with red lights and sirens, it'll be alerted to that.

Okay, so right now it's an app, unlike the Amber Alert, is not really an app, it just comes up.

Yes, you can it's it's an app, but you can get it either on your phone or if you have a newer car with an infotainment system, you can get it on that.

Um we are currently um updating the infrastructure and our squads to support this technology, and I we look to roll it out in kind of stages beginning in the fall.

Okay, but it is a tool nonetheless that could be implemented.

No, it will be implemented, it's just the timeline of it.

Okay.

Um I think that uh my colleague just asked for this clarity.

Um I just wanted to make sure that we were clear.

Um, so this is really is focused on the reckless driving piece, but if there is um other circumstances, um then the pursuit is permissible.

Um those three.

I think you mentioned um drugs, violent felony, and long-term investigation.

So currently MPD officers are allowed to pursue with certain limitations and exceptions, uh, principally for violent felonies, uh significant or long-term or drug drug dealing related to significant or long-term investigations or reckless driving.

Okay, all right.

I just wanted to make sure I had clarity on that.

Um, I think um you have answered the questions, thank you very much.

Um, so I'm gonna pause at this moment.

Mr.

Chair, may I make a direct response?

Uh to the question that was asked, yeah.

Of course.

Uh I I just wanted to um clarify that I don't think anyone here is saying that the individual officers pursuing are responsible for someone's death, they are following policy, so uh it's my understanding that no one at this table nor the FPC believes that is the case, but I do think it's important to clarify individual officer responsibility is not the same as city liability, and without getting into details, we are paying through the nose on this, and so that is of concern to me and should be of concern to taxpayers.

Um, and then just a second clarification.

We are certainly not at this time arguing that we should stop chasing reckless drivers entirely.

We are looking at a very narrow portion of reckless driving um that would be affected by the change here.

So we are not arguing to entirely stop chasing reckless drivers at this time.

Okay, uh, we have Alder Moore than Alder Chambers in the queue.

Um thank you so much, um, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I love that we have a democracy, and so um colleagues and residents and constituents they are welcome to disagree with any of us, and so I love that um I I want to echo my colleagues' sentiments on and I quote she said one death is too many regardless of how it happened it still happened and the goal is to obviously prevent innocent lives being lost um just a few questions um when you talk about when you went and talked about the the the policy um our our policy um what makes it so out of practice is it because of the number of deaths is you know what makes our policy so out of practice yeah the the permissiveness the amount of chasing we can do for the amount of circumstances we chase four um and it's a whole variety of cities small cities big cities Chicago New York I had some from Chicago come up to me and say that's outrageous to call me we can talk about what's what's better suited.

I mean it's it's it's hard to describe the experience of at every turn speaking at a conference or talking to other professionals who work in this field the the level of like bafflement they have when I explain to them what happens here and I do think it hinges on the permissiveness of the policy.

Um when we talked about the and thank you for um correcting me AC Sarnow um in regards to the numbers um so thank you for that correction so there were six incidents and nine deaths so mathematically um there were maybe a few incident incidents that had multiple deaths yes do we have the details of like you know two incidents had three deaths or one incident said like do we have the details of that?

Yes I do.

So there were six incidents and um hold on let me just find my slide here we had six incidents nine deaths four of those were vehicle pursuits that were associated with reckless driving and the other two were in conjunction with or were for a violent felony excuse me the first one um from April 30th of last year uh had um that was for reckless driving uh the two passengers in the um suspect vehicle were uh killed in that incident the next one was from July 14th one second next incident was in July that had um um uh that was for reckless driving that was when the uh the vehicle were pursuing lost control and struck a pedestrian at a bus stop next one was in July of that year as well uh 11th and Brady the pursuing uh suspect the driver um struck a third party vehicle and the driver of that vehicle uh was uh killed in that so one death august sixth nineteenth in Hampton the uh driver of the pursuing car the vehicle we're pursuing uh hit a tree and uh was killed August 23rd 2700 on 51st Street the driver of the third party vehicle was struck by the suspect vehicle and killed.

And then um the one on um 35th and valid uh from September third party vehicle, and there were three uh individuals killed when the suspect driver hit that vehicle uh for a reckless driving pursuit.

That was the one on the lead.

Yes.

Um, Alderman Moore, can I do a clarifying point?

So I just want to be clear why I say 10 and why uh AC Sarnell says nine.

So there were nine people last year who died in vehicle pursuits that happened last year.

There was another person, Anthony Higgins Jr., who was paralyzed in a pursuit in 2024 and who passed away from complications as a result of that last fall.

And so to honor sort of the recency of his passing, I I use that number for this year, but that's why we have a different number.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um, chief, thank you so much um for that.

Um, the other question that I have is, um, and this may and you all may or may not be able to answer this, um, how many lawsuits do we have for 2025 or as a result of the incidence of vehicle pursuits in 2025?

We would respectfully ask that we discuss that during close session.

Matters regarding litigation, potential liability, any of those questions should be discussed during close session.

Could you introduce yourself briefly?

Uh this is a uh assistant city attorney Mateo Reginado.

We do have matters in litigation, that's why.

So no, no, no.

Um I I think what I'm looking for is more of a um just the uh a number, so that we can't share.

We can't say I don't I don't have that off the top of my head.

I can't I couldn't tell you got to that number.

We have several in litigation, several at the notice of claim stage.

Got it.

That is that will suffice my um my question, my line of questioning for for that.

Um I have to say that this is definitely becoming very costly when we're talking about um again, you know, as I'm sitting here listening, we're not saying don't pursue.

Like I I want, you know, and I I want to be very clear with our public, we're not saying don't pursue.

But what we are saying is if a vehicle is stopped, expired plates, and the individual decides to without no this isn't expired plates and there's an abducted child potentially in the car, right?

Like, where we're we're saying sort of these low level offenses, and I'm and I'm glad my colleague asked um his question in regards to oh yeah, we we pursue right now.

If your plates are expired and you get pulled over and you flee the scene, we get to we get to chase after you.

So I'm glad he made that um that line of questioning so that folks are clear on what it is that we're pursuing.

It is not this level of we're only we're really focused on, you know, high level dangerous offenses.

We can pursue for anything, and that's and that's what is unsettling um to me, especially as we look at how do we revise how do we make just common sense practices because ten deaths is just still ten too many.

We have families in this room that have lost lost loved ones because of the actions or what has occurred.

Again, I have to reiterate and thank you so much, Chrissy, for saying we're not saying that the officers has caused this.

That's not what we're saying.

We're saying is how do we change the practice so that we can um strategize on um focusing on keeping community safe.

That should be the that should be the priority.

Because a child in this, you know, um uh, you know, outside, you know, crosses the street, whatever, and gets struck because of a a um uh suspect like that's devastating in neighborhoods, right?

I can't imagine, you know, even somebody going that fast down, even sh you know, Sherman is a nice little stretch, a street.

Can't imagine Frattney, but Sherman is a nice little, but going that high rate of speed, it's just it it's it's just a recipe for disaster.

So I as my colleagues um sit here today, I asked them to be um just objective in figuring out how do we move forward, you know, with this with this process and the recommendations that um you all have made.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um, Alder Chambers is in the queue, is there just along with this?

Very briefly, please, so we can get to Alder Chambers.

He's been waiting.

You just listed, um Chief Assistant Chief, sir now, the the six incidents.

Did any all of these were um just based on the reckless driving, or did any of these involve these other three um situations that were listed before you mean mobile drug dealing or uh drug substantial drug dealing?

Uh there were two two of those six were four were initiated for violent felonies or wanted in connection with a violent felony, other four were tied to reckless driving.

Right.

Okay.

Do you know which ones in particular were um, did you write the dates down?

Yep, you had the one in April where the perpetrator and the passenger died, the July 14th, where the pedestrian died.

April thirtieth, reckless driving.

July 14th, reckless driving.

Yep.

July twenty ninth, reckless driving.

August sixth felony.

Okay.

August twenty-third felony and uh September 16th reckless driving.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

And of the six incidents, I guess one extremely pertinent question was would be were any of those pursuits that would have been disallowed under the recommended change.

So, any pursuits initiated.

I I would I would respectfully ask for that question to be answered during closed session.

Okay.

Well, that's I guess what's influencing people's policy decisions here.

So uh we'll go to Alder Chambers.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, and forgive me for my not being there in person.

Um so I I guess I'll start with a comment and I'll ask for questi I'll say some questions.

Um there's some things that I do agree with um the commissioners on.

Um I I agreed that, you know, Act twelve did uh it was a travesty that took the way the community um input on policing matters um and and put it under the hands of us, which I didn't agree with.

That's why I voted against it.

Um but you know, to that point, this is the reality of where we are right now.

Um, where I I agree with my colleague from the 11th wholeheartedly um on the sentiment that the police and I know you clarified it, Commissioner Fox, I really appreciate it that the police was not the reason um for these deaths.

They were following policies.

Um I guess the question that I I would have uh the questions I would have is we are on the front line to my c to Alderwoman Taylor's point.

We are on the front line.

We do hear um we do hear from residents who are calling us consistently about you know the lack of police response and the lack of police um, you know, engagement far as the reckless driving, and one in particular um happened in my district, and I want to say it was in either twenty it was in twenty-four or twenty-three.

Um you know, in on fifty first and capital, um 51st and capital where the mother was killed teaching her son how to drive.

Um, you know, and that was a reckless driver.

So I guess the question that I would have for you as commissioners is what would you say to those to that particular family or families that experience something similar that wanted, you know, police engagement towards, you know, going after reckless drivers when when for situations have happened like this and we're trying to, in my opinion, I think it's a drastic change.

Um to change policies to take away tools in the tool belt for the police to to properly do their job.

Is he asking us?

Uh, Alder Chambers was so I understood your last question to the commission.

To the commissioners, yeah.

Okay, so commissioners Spencer and Funk.

Uh thank you uh Alderman Chambers um for that question.

I think um I I don't envy sort of uh as you say being on the front lines.

I know that's a really difficult position.

I do also want to share that uh because I am so public about um my opinions and my engagement with a community.

Um it is also true that members of the community uh come up to me when I'm at community events um and agree or often disagree with uh the positions that I've probably taken.

So I have also had to um engage with a lot of those difficult conversations.

Sometimes it's somebody angry calling you at 10 p.m.

So I feel a sliver of what y'all feel, although I cannot imagine doing that as a full-time job.

I acknowledge this is my very part-time job.

Um, but I I do think it's important to note a couple of things.

One, I think vehicle pursuits um are an important tool that we have right now in the landscape that we have right now, but they are a band-aid on a gaping wound.

We are pursuing this much, and yet we still have this much reckless driving.

Obviously, the pursuits may address some situations in some cases, but they are certainly not solving reckless driving on their own.

Um, unfortunately, I would love to tell the community that I have a magic wand and that I have the secret way to fix reckless driving.

Uh, and I do not.

But um I will also honestly say that um watching uh being at Vision Zero yesterday, um, and watching engagement between the city attorney's office um with AC Sarnau with Judge Triggiano gave me a lot of hope about creative ways that we can address reckless driving.

Um I wish those would happen faster.

Unfortunately, this is a really big problem that is going to take a really long time to solve.

Um I think it's important to note in those conversations.

Um, you know, first of all, if somebody comes to me telling their personal story, I'm just gonna listen, I'm just gonna empathize with them.

If they want me to talk about my position, I can.

I'm happy to, I have done that.

Uh, there are also situations in which as a sort of public servant, you just you are there to listen, and that is your job, and you are there to listen as long as you need to listen.

And I think I'm proud that that's something that we do at the FPC very well for very very many hours.

Um, but I I do think um it's important to not sort of to not expect that our constituents are so incapable of holding nuance.

Uh the community is out there, they are very smart, they can engage in conversations in which we are honest with them, and we say, I can't solve this right away, and I can't only solve it with vehicle pursuits, but here are some of the other things that we're trying, and those include to to commend MPD, those include increases in technology, uh, to commend the drone team, um, those include creative use of drones, which we've seen be very successful in other jurisdictions.

Um, those also I would hope in the future um include restorative justice elements and elements that are education-based and more preventative.

Um, but honestly, on an individual basis, you know, it's hard to say, or I think it's impossible to predict like in this reckless driving instance, could a pursuit have solved that or not, and so maybe to slightly address um Alder Taylor's question as well.

I I don't know that we that it's fair to definitively say this pursuit can or cannot address this specific instance of reckless driving, and therefore the city is not necessarily liable for not addressing a specific instance of reckless driving.

Um certainly, I don't believe that the police are at fault for not preventing every crime.

That's not that doesn't really make any sense.

But I agree with you, Alder Chambers, those are really hard conversations to have.

I think they're important conversations to have.

Some of that can be done at crime and safety, some of that can be done at Vision Zero, some of that work is just done out in the community.

And I hope that an increasing amount of that work can be done with multiple of the partners, sort of a cross-sector collaboration, talking about enforcement, um, talking about prevention, talking about education.

Um, but I I really believe that when we're talking to folks, we owe them an honest and complete answer.

Um, and so I think it is a huge oversimplification to pretend that vehicle pursuits are the only way to address reckless driving.

And Mr.

Chair, thank and thank you for that, Commissioner.

I have just a couple more questions and maybe a comment.

Um to your point, Commissioner Fong, what type of outreach have the FPC did besides the meetings, um, or commission meetings to engage uh with residents because I I I know I see uh a decent amount of individuals who may be in support of this change, um, but I can almost guarantee there would be you know the same if not a little bit more that will be against this change um far as the community.

So um to that point, you know what type of engagement have you did you say in far as these tough conversations.

I mean, I know we're having a tough conversation right now, but in order to engage more within the community, what type of conversations are we having then, and then my follow-up to that is you know, um well, you know what I'll I'll let you at that question and then I got a comment after that.

Sure, sure.

Um, I guess I I do want to clarify, like as a board member, because this is part-time, um, it's probably not realistic that there are um as many formal opportunities for public engagement um as the Alders may have, but certainly I as an individual commissioner try to be out in the community, try to be at as many events as possible, um, and I'm always happy to talk about those things.

Um I had several conversations at community brainstorming recently.

Um I think folks kind of generally know where to find me um and how to uh engage in those conversations.

But if there's particular places that uh you're inviting me as an individual commissioner to come and have those hard conversations, uh I'm really happy to do it.

Uh I've also done that at uh block earlier this, no, at the end of last year, where I sat in the room with folks and some of them said, We hate this, we hate these vehicle pursuits.

I can't believe what you're doing.

And a bunch of them said, oh my gosh, I can't believe I'm not getting enough police attention.

We need more enforcement.

And I engaged in that difficult conversation with them.

So as an individual, I will voluntole myself to uh head out wherever you'd like me to be.

Um, but I I don't necessarily know that um in this super part-time board where uh most folks have one if not two, if not three uh day jobs or boards that I can volunteer others.

I will say that the cumulative amount of time though that we have spent um at the FPC listening to public comment uh on vehicle pursuits is many, many, many hours.

Uh I didn't do the math.

I'm sure we're happy to do the math for you later.

And I also just want to note I do think in general, um, what I've heard from the community is that the FPC is generally much more accessible for folks from the community to come to because it is in the evening.

Um it's a lot, not everybody has the same working hours, but it is in the evening, so folks tend to be able to come out more.

Uh, and we also have sort of guaranteed built-in public comment for much longer stretches of time, which is not uh not the fault of this committee.

Y'all have a lot of work to do.

Um, but we certainly have a really expansive um amount of time and opportunity for folks to engage with us, and so we we do hear from the community that that is extremely meaningful to them.

Um, alternative chambers.

Oh, sorry, no, go ahead, go ahead.

If I could.

So I think we're also dealing with another issue that is true everywhere in the United States.

I think it's exacerbated in Milwaukee because of the history of the turn all the way off, turn all the way on, police pursuits experience that everyone had here, which is that um people tend to sort of view the universe as like you can have police doing all the police things, or you can have chaos, and that's the binary.

Um so that's where I keep trying to ground us back into the facts of the matter as has been researched and seen across multiple cities, multiple data sets, which is that police pursuits are not that effective at stopping reckless driving.

And to your point, um, Commissioner Fong, like we see that because right now we have maximal police pursuits, or we we did but prior to February 6th, we still have pretty maximal police pursuits.

Um, and and yet we still have a reckless driving problem.

So I think that does point to the scenario that one, there's like public education pieces of this that are really important, and then um I also wanted to just flag because you said Alderman Tamers, you feel like this is a really big change, and so I just want to to resurface some of the numbers that AC Sar now provided about 2025, which said that about a hundred and eleven of the pursuits that happened last year would not happen under this new policy, but that's out of more than 700 pursuits.

So it is like we've really been enforcing this idea that it's tactical, it's strategic.

And I was very, very surprised when like I introduced it before I I just introduced it.

The commission hadn't even discussed it yet.

And there were retired police officers talking about how no one's gonna be able to chase anybody and it's a disaster.

And to me, what I hear that in that is sort of traumatize folks from what happened before.

And this is I just want to be so clear that this is a really intentional move away from that type of strategy towards an incremental step that we can meaningful incremental step that we can measure and decide and then keep moving.

I'll thank you for that.

Yep, and then I'll uh I'll I'm I'm pretty sure I have more questions about that along.

I have one, I just have one comment.

Um out of person who have recently sat in um, you know, judiciary layer the judiciary and legislation committee for nearly four years hearing um you know legal matters in it.

Um, I can tell you the leading uh, no no no no, I'm not I'm not I'm not clear.

Please do not go into anything that has been discussed in closed session.

I I'm I'm aware, I'm aware.

I was just gonna say I dispute the fact that the police cases are the number one cause, because they're not that's what I was gonna say.

But okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Alderberg also had a quick clarification.

Well, um thank you.

Uh so we've gotten a correction on uh the dates since the last change.

So uh previously we had talked about having uh change in pursuit policy in the last in fall.

Now we were uh after I lost my turn uh with questions, um it was clarified that it was February.

So we had uh changes in February.

Uh Chief, what have uh pursuits looked like since this since our most recent incremental change three, four four months ago.

I can only tell you what it looks like in the first quarter because uh as I said, I'm just preparing to do uh six-month analysis um to the FPC on July 16th.

So we we don't have data on our incremental change yet.

I appreciate that.

Um knowing that uh recognizing that this last incremental change happened in February.

Why are we why is the why are why are you commissioners so ready to make more incremental change before we have any results or any data from the last change?

So it's because when we looked at the data, the audit that happened that the FBC did, it did not track that the most dangerous chases, like when there was deaths um and injuries.

It didn't um sorry, I lost my train of thought and looked away.

Um that it wasn't actually going to reduce deaths essentially from police pursuits.

Okay, and so then that's why we're trying to push it a little further to get a better outcome.

Couldn't we talked uh earlier, I had asked uh for um uh information about how the fatalities in Milwaukee uh and I'll use the the number 10 because I think that's a fair assessment from from impacts uh in the last year uh in our community um I asked for the data you said it was in my inbox it was in the file not the file the file is has data from twenty twenty two my inbox has no additional data so I would I would happily receive that uh if the city attorney hasn't reviewed this and hasn't issued uh an opinion on the proposed ordinance change uh or the the proposed change um I suspect we'll have more time to digest it but I really want to know what our policy level is for pursuits as it compares to other cities and what the corresponding fatality impacts have been probably not just in one year but in the most recent years.

That's right.

But at the very same time we've made a sub substantive change change in our pursuit policy that took effect in February and I if our goal is to be moder uh to be cautious and intentional and look for uh the best balance in policy we don't have the data to make the next decision.

I understand that's our position.

Yeah thank you very much.

Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Alder Moore.

Um thank you so much um and I uh again appreciate my colleagues' sentiments um but when we talk about incremental changes and I hear you um I hear you alderman regalism but when we're talking about lives oh do we wait till five more people die?

Do we wait till ten more people die and then we can say okay you know what the data says that now it's time for us to make incremental changes.

I reject that.

When we see something that's not right we do so immediately hear the fire trucks out there right when we talk about you know buildings c getting caught on fire sprinklers and you know I think you I think you I think you sponsored that file with the sprinklers.

Yeah you authored it yes did we say well you know what we probably need to have a few more buildings burned down before we're able to implement this no we said that there were lives at stake we're going to make some changes now.

And that's what this does it's not about being incremental it's about saying you know what we don't want any more deaths.

We want zero deaths as a result of police chases.

One death is just too many and if we can do something right now to impact that I'd bet I I bet my money on that any day.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

on that point, like a quick question here.

Well no go ahead Alder Chambers because my question might and to that and to that point and to that point I guess my I guess my counter to that point is what would you tell what would you tell the residents who were impacted by reckless driving and was not in pursuit um that was not in pursuit of police um you know that police were not pursuing and was impacted because you know I have a resident that lives on 64th and Villar where we had to do a roundabout and her property was impacted five times the property damage and then the lady on 51st in Capitol you know running the red light um trying to teach her some how to drive that was killed or even you know like what what's the counter to that it's easy to say one life is enough and I agree wholeheartedly but to the other side in the counter that we have to be cognizant of that.

This is the matter that we're facing but we also have the fa face the reality that they're the other side to the coin of this, and I think that's what's not being addressed.

So while I agree with the thermometer that one life is too many, I reject the notion that we're not caring about those lives, especially when the police department is not the ones that are causing this harm and destruction in our community.

So I really want us to just be mindful of that when we craft our words and and and say things of that nature.

So I'm done with that, but thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And thank you.

Thank you.

Um a quick um remark and then a question.

I guess it is unfortunate in many ways that Act 12 had the effect of moving the decision making from the FPC to the council, even though we're empowered by that, because then certain political considerations could potentially come into play.

Um it is very difficult and um to say to our residents who um in all districts I've talked to colleagues about say reckless driving is a big deal, it's having an impact on folks' lives, it's completely making their feeling of safety driving on their streets um evaporate, and then um for us to take an action which could be seen whether fairly or unfairly, is limiting the police's ability to address reckless driving, whether it's after the fact that it occurs or not, I have a feeling will get lost in the discussion.

Um again, I have a question here that I want addressed, which is it sounds like the main difference here is the department's position is if you pass this policy council, you will create a recipe for people to evade the police, and so you may unbeknownst to you encourage a sort of reckless behavior, um, because in this instance you break off a pursuit because it was for a nothing burger, and so you don't want to pursue and then cause somebody to flee.

But I guess isn't the concern that the department has that this will cause people to then you know flee recklessly, knowing that the police will then be unable to pursue them, and is it any part of this um discussion that we would look at that should that change pass?

Would it actually increase the number of reckless fleeings and would that be data that we'd record?

So, Chief Sarna, if you wanted to say your your thing before, but then if you could address that question.

Yes, to the uh question about um reckless driving fatalities outside of police pursuits.

So for 24, that number was 41, and in 25 the number was nineteen, and then through May 12th of this year, because that's when I was pulling data, um, it was it's seven for this year through May 12th.

Okay.

Um, could you repeat your question, sir?

Oh my gosh, my colleagues are gonna be furious at you.

Um, so the question is is basically your main argument says, if as I've been able to read it, is if you pass this policy change, then folks will be emboldened to flee recklessly because that is now how you get away from the police, assuming other you know, factors aren't present.

If if it was a traffic stop for an expired plate or a missing or expired tag or missing plate, um and somebody flees recklessly, the police can't pursue them.

And so in that instant, you might say, hey, that's for the better because we didn't drive somebody to flee recklessly, but if there's a general if it gets into the world that the way you avoid police is to flee recklessly, um, is the concern then that this will actually cause more reckless driving behavior because that's now the standard for getting away.

Is that your principal concern?

Uh yes.

Uh, and this is something so we've seen what restricted policies did in the city of Milwaukee.

I've spoken about that before, um, with one of the other changes, I believe it was when we changed it from uh mobile drug dealing to substantial drug dealing, which we still stand by, but I know I remember I recall two years ago being met with we're met with scrutiny in this room because I'm not saying that we don't want mobile drug dealing in our neighborhoods any more than any of you, but is that really worth taking a fifty five hundred pound Ford uh PIU and initiating a vehicle pursuit for it?

Um, particularly when we looked at the data and saw what the results of you know the uh arrests and the uh drugs recovered revealed.

So we changed the policy and tied it to substantial drug dealing, but we do know what a very restrictive policy look like.

I again I lived through it, I was a sergeant at the time, and I know what the landscape looked like.

So I think we should just you know learn from the past um and not go down that road again um because we know what that landscape looked like back then that that ultimately caused this very body to petition the FPC to change our policy prior to Act 12 when they had the authority to do so.

So that is our position on it.

And my data question was: should this policy pass at the full council level on enough votes for it to become reality?

Would you would officers be still measuring when somebody flees recklessly even if they're duty bound not to pursue them because of the conditions?

I guess that would be reflected in a non-pursuit.

Which we talk through the cat.

Because it would be good to know whether your fear is realized, whether we are seeing more fleeing recklessly because people are emboldened to do so as a means of getting away.

We you can worry about it, I can worry about it, our constituents can worry about it, but it would be helpful if we collected data to see whether that fear were realized or not.

Mr.

Chair.

On that point, just for yeah, on the the one right before, I just want to be clear that what the AC Sarnell just laid out where I said I think people are traumatized from what happened before with the policy.

What he just laid out would mean you can never change police policy in the city of Milwaukee.

The idea is we learn from the past, the past was change is bad, so therefore we keep it at this permissive.

And I that worries me a great deal.

So I just want to flag that I I don't think that should be the paradigm.

Okay.

Well, for FPC, then for my point, would you all be interested in having the police collect data to see if this policy change does go through whether there is an increase in reckless fleeing?

It would seem like we have a disagreement about what will happen.

Yeah.

If it passes, it'd be good to measure.

No, absolutely, and I think it would be captured in something they already capture, which is non-pursuits.

So looking at that number, it's a good flag.

It will be indicative of potentially indicative because there's a lot of causes, but potentially indicative of the impact of a policy like this.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, yes, please.

Uh on the point of tracking, I did want to clarify because this has come up several times in this conversation.

I understand that we had um a recent policy change, and so obviously not enough time has passed to have a whole bunch of data um on the effect of that policy change, but I do want to clarify that the FPC was already hearing public comment and already discussing and already developing our recommendation prior to when this came out.

So um so I think there's a little bit of two parallel tracks here is what happened.

Okay, that's fair.

Um I have a question for the sponsor and then Alder Brouwer would like to speak.

So Alder Moore, um, I know we wanted to have public testimony and all that.

We are in serious danger of not being able to discuss item 10.

Yeah, we've had a very robust discussion here.

There's been very robust public discussion um at FPC.

Um, so would you be comfortable with the idea of moving forward with a vote one way or another?

Um without so that we can discuss item 10, which I have a feeling is gonna be a lengthy discussion as well.

Yes, and and um before the alderman goes, I just had one quick question, Chair.

Um, just really quick.

What are the other ways that we hold reckless drivers accountable?

So for ex uh it so in in reference to um pull somebody over, they have an expiry plate, they flee, we don't chase.

How do we hold that person accountable?

We'll follow up and uh citation potentially could be issued later.

Um, but again, you know, we have a number of things we do.

Um the uh towing of vehicles for the citation that was put into place in November of last year has really um driven up vehicle tows for us as it relates to reckless driving um at the uh municipal level for the citations that are issued.

So, thank you.

What was that?

I just wanted to clarify for towing the vehicle it has to be stopped.

So um it wouldn't be um they're recklessly driving and then we stop them, it's after the fact, and that vehicle is done reckless driving, and we so it so with the so just really quick follow up with the citation we issue a citation based on um I'm assuming we capture a license plate and that's how we do that do that sort of follow-up.

Yes, responsibility yes correct so um and and also if it that information is in a system and um their plates are caught illegally parked whatever and it's like oh wait a second this citation is connected it could be towed well so for the trying to think of accountability what are the just the layers of accountability for the license plate readers we generally don't use those for the municipal citation stuff okay so if we're looking to do follow up on say uh you know uh a vehicle with uh expired plates we wouldn't use those um license plate readers to do a further investigation to track down that individual yeah yeah um yep no I was aware of that I'm just trying to get the get the sense of if we allow a vehicle to leave right I mean some people think oh well you know we're not holding these folks accountable you know and we close our report and we go on about our business that there is a level of follow-up that happens after the fact if we have the information yes I mean we'll tow for unregistered we'll tow for repeat offender and then we'll tow for the reckless driving which was the latest ordinance put into place but I also referenced the 1,104 non-pursuits in which we couldn't even get enough information to do anything about.

Got it and that was from that number was from 2025, yes.

Got it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, for allowing we'll go to Alder Brower and then we'll reach a conclusion here we've had a very thorough discussion and we want to make sure we get to item 10.

Alder Brower.

Yeah thank you so much Mr.

Chair um I just wanted to um I had thought I did this prior I would like to be listed as a uh co-sponsor please of item number nine um this motion it's I I think you know this is a really a huge issue.

I appreciate all the efforts been put in by the FPC and the Milwaukee police department um here I I do want to just comment to all the colleagues and everybody present that I think the question of who is more in touch with the public or having more comment with the public is missing the point of the substantive debate that we want to have here about whether this is the right path forward or not and obviously like the situation that we're facing on the streets here in Milwaukee is completely unacceptable.

It is it you know and for constituents of mine that are listening I hear you when you see unregistered vehicles driving around and see those people not following the rules that you've been following by registering your vehicle right there's a lot of reasons people don't register a vehicle some of it is economic.

We did have to raise vehicle registration here as a council um in this last budget we had no choice to be able to make um the services that our residents expect happen.

And so that's an economic barrier to having a fully registered vehicle.

There is also people who don't register their vehicles out of malice um who don't want to have a registered vehicle that's driving around because they want to do something that's not in line with good public behavior.

So you know we you know so this is that and and then there and then potentially those vehicles are driving recklessly or the ones that are even registered driving recklessly those people do need to be held um accountable and that behavior is unacceptable.

So the real question is how do we stop and reduce that behavior?

I mean I think that's the question we have to get you is the is the question of how do we actually reduce that I'm really appreciating you know the FPC taking the time to um connect with you know organizations that are researching using data to determine how we can actually reduce these kinds of behaviors that are unwanted um in our in our community and I'm really glad to hear nobody wants these kind of things to happen because what we can't do I think when we're making public policy is governed just solely by our feelings.

I am annoyed by people that do not register vehicles or people that are and it's an even worse and more annoying and more irritating and potentially life threatening when people are driving recklessly.

So obviously we want to we want to stop that, but let's look where we actually have data, you know, from these policing projects that say how we can actually truly reduce this stuff because we also just cannot expect you know our police department to be um completely omnipresent to stop every single violation of the law.

That's you know, for constituents that expect the police to be every single place every single time.

That is an unreasonable expectation of our officers on the ground who are only human and trying to do right by our community as well.

So I I do want to co-sponsor this.

I think that like the FPC has done a good job of of researching this and and let's let's follow their lead as far as um finding ways that we can actually reduce these things using using um smart policing um and data driven uh rather than you know I I do out here the concern that this could be a signal to the to the to people out there who don't have the community at heart that hey here's a way to avoid that if there's there's plenty of ways for somebody who doesn't have the community at heart or who has malice in their mind to um the mess with our community besides just um you know pulling away when they're stopped.

Um there's there's infinite opportunities to to be harmful to other people, and so we have to look at what is the driving force behind why those individuals are doing and engaging in that behavior, and and that's really gonna be our key.

Um and I you know loathe that we may not have you know fully the resource to accomplish getting fully to the route.

I mean, that's why we need more funding from the state.

That's why we need to be able to be looking at these things and and have you know higher wages across the board, um, you know, full Medicare uh Medicare for all, all kinds of things that will actually create the society where people aren't um driven or motivated.

Um and obviously that's not gonna reduce all crime, but where people aren't driven or motivated to do these kinds of things.

Um so I just I just wanted to offer those those thoughts.

I would like to be off uh as a co-sponsor, I would urge this committee to adopt this so we can adopt this at the full council.

Uh follow the FPC's lead here in engaging in um smart and research-based uh policing.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Alder Moore.

Um, can I make a recommendation to hold um until next um cycle?

That will give us an opportunity to um get more information from um the city attorney's office uh um get some data uh that you all had shared that you um can pull together.

Um and I think we can come back to the table with um a little bit more information just so everyone feels a little bit I mean this is you know for me it I I would love to take a vote on this now, but um I think you know many of you may still have questions.

Yeah, I would have if we were gonna hold it, I would like to do that two hours ago.

So um, but if uh for the city attorneys um office, with the city attorney um I spoke to uh city attorney Goike yesterday.

Would you have enough time between now and council to address the legal issues and give us, if not a formal opinion, at least legal advice?

Possibly.

I don't wanna commit us to that.

We have a lot um of other things going on in the office currently that the litigators are handling.

Um but I we will do our best.

And if you can't, can you say we haven't had enough time?

So a motion to hold would be.

So I mean that's an alternative path is instead of holding here, we can see whether the city attorney can get us it in time.

If they don't, then we can make a motion to hold on the floor.

But it's up to you either way.

I would if if that's an option, I would like to take that option first, because again, I think that you know, between now and council um there's some work that can be done.

Okay.

Yeah, and this is this discussion has been very robust, it's fresh in our minds, and we can share it with our colleagues right now.

That'd be amazing.

Um, so uh Alder Moore, you're the sponsor of this file then.

Would you want to make the motion for approval?

Yes.

Okay.

Unless we've had a change of heart.

Um Mr.

Chair, I'll move to hold.

Okay.

So there's a motion to hold, which takes precedence over the motion for approval.

So we'll take first of all a roll call vote on the motion to hold, and then if that fails, we can take up the motion to approve.

Okay, on the motion to hold.

No.

Although more?

No.

I'll and Taylor.

Aye.

All the member gallows.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair, Clemens Miker.

No.

Motion fails.

Two three.

Um Alder Moore makes the motion for approval of the file.

Can we uh and again, this is a recommendation to the full council uh whose action will actually affect the policy.

Um, the motion for approval has been made by Alder Moore.

Can you, Madam Clerk, can you please call the role?

Hollering Chambers?

No.

Alderman Moore?

Aye.

Alderman Taylor.

No.

Alder Member Gallus.

No.

Mr.

Chair Alderman Spiker.

No.

Motion fails one four.

Motion to place it on file.

Motion to place on file has been made.

Again, this is a recommendation to the full council.

If Aldermore wishes to revive this at the council, that is obviously her opportunity.

So the motion to place on file has been made by Alder Chambers.

Madam Clerk, may you please call the role.

Aldering Chambers.

Aye.

Alder Woman Moore?

No.

Alderman Taylor.

Aye.

Aldermember Gallus.

Aye.

Mr.

Chair Alderman Spiker.

Hi.

Motion to place on file recommends place on foul.

Has been approved on a 401 vote.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh Alder Moore.

Just a question.

Is this something that I can still pulled at uh council?

Mm-hmm.

Perfect.

Just like what happened to my file last cycle.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um all right.

Well, thank you for the testimony.

Thank you also.

I don't imagine this is the last we're gonna hear this item.

We'll probably have a discussion on the council floor regarding it.

So thank you all for time and energy.

Item 10.

File number 251799, substitute motion modifying Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedures regarding the duty to intervene, investigate, and report unreasonable uses of force.

This has um multitude of sponsors.

Chief sponsor is Alderman Brower, so we'll start with Alder Brower.

Yeah, thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Um, yeah, I wanted to just uh you're giving me a moment to introduce this item here before the committee.

I was in the side conversation there.

I just want to clarify that.

Yes.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yeah, yeah.

So this substitute motion, um, and we're I believe on substitute two now at this point, which I appreciate there's been a lot of conversation around this.

This is a piece, um, and I think everybody's aware of this, but just uh for the record here, this is a piece of the ice out legislative package that was introduced by colleagues and I uh that attempts to prepare our community as best we can for the potential of a major ice operation here in this city.

And Alder um Brower, you would like sub-C to be before us?

That's correct.

Okay.

Alder um Bergales moves that sub-C be before us and hearing no objections to order.

Please continue.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Um I want to just appreciate um right now publicly the work of the fire and police commission to review this as well.

Thank you all so much for taking the time, executive director Todd and and everybody, and then the police as well for offering their opinion in the city attorney's office on this.

Um, what this is attempting to do, and what I am uh strongly in favor of here, and I know there's members of the public and community organizations here as well.

We do have um members of the public that will be commenting later today.

I got that I got that list over there.

Um but um what this attempts to do is to um have our police do more than absolutely nothing when ICE is here and uses excessive force or behaves um unreasonably and inappropriately um in the city of Milwaukee.

Now they've done this in other cities, and um, and they're I mean they're probably doing it you know behind our backs here in Milwaukee as well, but they've done this in other cities um in ways that are just completely inhumane and completely unacceptable, including murdering people on the streets, um and there was two murdered in Minneapolis.

Um, and so it's it's just absolutely unacceptable.

So what this motion is gonna do is gonna modify our police department's SOP to say that when is it safe and reasonable to do so that a police officer will take action to stop the unreasonable use of force um by a member of any federal law enforcement officer or any law enforcement officer uh for that matter, that our residents will know that in this community the police will do everything they can to protect them.

Um so that's what this that's what this um attempts to do that regarding the, you know, we we did remove some of the investigatory language.

That was removed from this substitute just so everybody's aware, some of the investigatory language was removed so that we um because that may need to be handled in a separate SOP, um, and there's one that more deals with investigations, and also it was clarifying that we were not expecting the officer um who witnessed it, um, who witnessed the unreasonable use of force to investigate it themselves, that that would be for the uh uh individuals who would be better designated to do so.

Um so we've had several conversations about this.

I'm really glad we're having more.

I'm really glad we're considering this.

Um, and with that, I um will turn it over uh back to you, Alderman.

Thank you.

Uh Alder Burgellis.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

And this council has watched what has happened in other communities across the country, and we are taking action to do what we can to address overreach from the federal government in our community.

Um I would be honored to be to add my name as a co-sponsor to this, and I ask unanimous consent for that.

I am oh yeah, that's fine.

You're that's entitled as a matter of right.

And when I hear that uh some members of our police department uh and leadership says, well, this is this is irrelevant, uh there's no point in doing this.

There's no way that uh our officers are going to arrest up.

That is a very dangerous statement for me to hear as someone who represents 43,000 people in our community.

If a law enforcement officer, if a member of our police department refuses to comply with this ordinance, chief.

What are the what procedures are in place to ensure that our members are following the law and following this ordinance?

Outside of the proposed change.

Is that with this change to uh intervene when other law enforcement is overreaching?

What uh what is available uh or what are the consequences if a member of our police department does not follow this and does not protect the public?

Well, they would be um if it's in our policy and there's found to be an allegation that's substantiated, they would be subject to um discipline by the chief of police.

What that looks like in the end, I cannot say because I have no past example of this to kind of latch on to as a reference.

So no matter what conjecture or rumors we hear, there are consequences for law enforcement not following this ordinance.

There's consequences for anybody that um violates department policy or does not violate an ordinance, yes.

Thank you, Chief.

All right.

With that, uh this again has come recommended to us from the fire and police commission if they want to say anything welcome to to do that as well.

Um I know the uh the Alder Brower uh put this forward, but um we sent it FPC's way to get their opinion on the matter, and it's my understanding it's been recommended unanimously.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um so uh for the police department, do you have an opinion regarding this SOP?

Is this something the chief is willing to do on his own or is he um this file to pass for that change to take place?

Um so we got the formal recommendation from the FPC, and the chief asked for 30 days before he provided a formal response.

What we wanted to do is the meet and confer process with the unions.

So on May 28th, um we did as we would with um SOP changes, sent it to both unions to begin the clock and requested them to review and let us know if they wanted to meet and confer.

I know as of yesterday, I believe the MPA has responded that yes, and so we're working to set up that meet and confer process.

We have not yet heard from the MPSO, but they have not yet made met that 30-day deadline to respond.

So you sent it to MPSO, and MPA.

And MPA, and you've received no response from they have 30 days to respond.

Up to 30 days.

Yes.

But you've not received a response prior.

Um only from MPA so far, correct.

Okay.

Uh and for the city attorney's office, uh, and again, if we have to go into closed session to discuss this, is their um a legal requirement that we hear back on this before we take action just for our edification.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, assistant city attorney Clint Mookie on behalf of the city attorney's office.

Uh we we have been in involved uh in this process.

We were we were present uh for the FPC meeting where these amended changes uh were were ultimately uh recommended.

The city attorney's office is satisfied that uh this version is is both legal and enforceable.

Okay, so there's no violation of the supremacy clause or anything in this version.

As as as amended and as presently reflected, the city attorney's office uh does not have concerns about legality or enforceability.

Okay.

Um and then to the sponsor Alder Brower, uh oh, I did ask, so is the meet and confer um a legal requirement we would be violating were we to proceed?

Um, I don't I guess I don't I don't really know, but I believe that it is a term of the CBA.

So um and I I'm not the employee uh the employment attorney, nor is that my section, uh, but I do believe that there is a requirement for the chief to um meet and confer with the uh members of the union prior to um making a SOP effective.

Okay.

So the question though is whether we would be violated of that agreement of that um we are the city.

We have um the chief isn't obliged, but are is this body obliged?

Yes, okay.

Okay, and do you think you can uh reach a determination on this matter before council?

I I'm I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair.

Can you please repeat the question?

Yeah, if are we saying that if we took action now we would be violating the CBA, or are we saying we're not sure, but we could figure that out by council?

I think the latter is is probably uh the furthest that I I would be willing to represent at at this time.

Okay, alright.

Um, and I guess to the sponsor, does any of that you still want to move forward, or do you have um anything different you want to do?

I'm not suggesting either way.

I'm just asking.

No, thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate it.

Um, that's you know, it's my opinion that you know the the state statutes allow our council to modify by a two-thirds majority to modify police standard operating procedure.

Um I have never heard of a labor agreement being able to supersede our rights under statute.

I do think we should proceed.

Okay, thank you.

Um uh co-sponsor Dmitrievich is on the board.

Uh Alder Dmitrievich, would you like to say anything?

Yes.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Hey, thank you so much, Chairman Spiker.

Um I was on for the latter half of the previous item, too.

Um, but you were all were concluding what I know was a lengthy debate.

Um, and I want to re-express my support for the item prior as well, the chase and pursuit.

Um and um Alderman or uh Chairman Spiker.

I'm a little disappointed.

Um, I think in some of this process, not no reflection on you.

In fact, you've been wonderfully gracious and thorough and asked that these two items both go to FPC where they came to us unanimously.

There's been months of meetings, tons of public discussion, and I'm disappointed to hear some of these last minute um questions that are coming up on both of these items.

I support both of them.

I'm a proud co-sponsor, and we need action now.

This ICE Out package was introduced introduced months ago.

So I just want to express disappointment.

We're trying to move forward.

That's what the um residents and constituents are demanding.

Um so I fully support going forward, and I um thank Alder Alderman Brouwer for his leadership here, and Alderwoman Moore for her leadership on the previous item.

And FPC spent hours and hours and hours on both of these items and carefully deliberated, and now they're before us for action.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other chair?

Uh Alder Brighels.

So I will just to be just for uh edification of the public.

This is uh a new newer process for the for this committee for the council.

Um this is not a resolution or an ordinance, this is a motion.

Uh it's a motion of the body, it's an instrument of the common council.

This does not go to the mayor's office for his signature or veto.

Uh this is this uh is uh a legal doc or legal process that begins and ends in council.

Uh and with that I would move uh approval of the motion.

Okay, um, so yeah, and the motion uh has to be passed by the council for two-thirds vote if if it's to be effective.

Um do we have any um uh Alder Brower?

Did you have anybody you wanted to hear from before we take up the motion?

Yeah, thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, I did submit to um to staff uh the list of the the three um members of the public who will be speaking here today.

Okay, and that ends um, yeah, it was uh it was uh Christina Minortiz, Emil De Tori, and um who's our last Pastor Walt.

Yeah, Pastor.

Pastor Lanier as well.

So it's the those three individuals that we that we submitted here for um public testimony.

Okay, and if we could limit our comments to three minutes just so we can have this item before us.

Um who would like to go first?

I could just because I have uh yes, sure, back in meeting.

You could introduce yourself.

Thank you.

Uh my name's Christine Numenortiz, executive director of Vossas de la Frontera.

Uh, just want to say formally that Vosas La Frontera strongly supports the legislation that's calling on local law enforcement to intervene and report excessive use of force by federal agents, as was just mentioned over the last year.

Um we've witnessed a disturbing surge of militarized ICE and uh CBP operations in many cities, and certainly um we've had the impact of those also in um kind of in the border in Minnesota and Illinois.

All these operations have been marked by secrecy, profiling, and excessive use of force in violation of our constitutional rights.

This goes for it ranges from pastors who were shot in the face to the zip tying of children to tear gassing and attacking peaceful protesters, reporters, and citizens who were documenting ICE abuses up to the aggressive physical assault against people who represented no threat, and the murder of immigrants, including Silverio Villegas Gonzalez from Chicago, U.S.

citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Um calls for accountability have been met with claims of immunity and secrecy.

The use of violence and the disregard for people's rights demands that we strengthen our local constitutional guardrails against federal abuse and overreach.

And I really um it's a very proud moment to see the leadership coming from uh city of Milwaukee uh in the ICE out package and particular and and this one.

Um this is an ongoing threat.

We wish this could be something behind us, but we know that there's a perfect storm on the horizon.

Yet another 70 billion dollars has been added to the hundred and seven seventy billion for immigration enforcement.

There's a lack of training and background checks for ICE agents and new slush fund without guarantees that it won't be used to reward capital insurrectionists and the creation of a private army of violent offenders, including those that attacked law enforcement on January 6th at the Capitol as they protected elected political leaders from harm and efforts to undermine our democracy.

Last year was the deadliest year for immigrants uh who are incarcerated in inhumane conditions in an ever-expanding private prison system that's dominated by geo group and core civic whose profits have been skyrocketing.

Elvira Benitez and Salah Sarsour are two Wisconsinites who have recently made their own cases public.

And Salah Sarsud, as we know is still not free, and uh so many more beloved members of our community.

This problem is systematic, it's violent, and it's deadly.

And VOSA's members and the larger community call on the common council to pass this legislation as part of that larger packet of bills to affirm and protect our human rights, our civil rights, and our constitutional rights.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker.

Thank you.

My name is Emilio Tutore, and I'm the executive director of the Milwaukee Turner's, the oldest civic society in Milwaukee.

Uh thank you committee for allowing me to speak.

I'm here to support the substitute motion modifying MPD standard operating procedure regarding the duty to intervene and report on use unreasonable uses of force.

I'd like to begin by echoing everything Christine said and anchoring that I'm grateful to Alders Brouwer, Dmitry Evicks, Amaripa, Perez, Moore, Bauman, and now Borgelis for co-sponsoring this important modification.

It seems that the most common reason people become police officers is because they feel a calling to protect the vulnerable and make a tangible difference in society.

They want to help people.

Police officers have a sworn duty to protect and a duty to intervene under Wisconsin Law, Wisconsin Statute 175.44.

Law enforcement officers are legally required to intervene to prevent or stop another officer from using excessive force, provided the circumstances are safe to do so.

We are asking for an amendment that empowers and shields officers to already follow the law to protect Milwaukeeans, to protect our neighbors and our communities from poorly trained violent armed strangers, many of whom joined ICE for promises of bounties and a thirst for violence.

These are very different reasons from why people join the MPD.

This past Saturday, when the Turner's were tabling at the King Center's 50th anniversary, I had the pleasure of sitting and talking with my friend Angelique Sharp.

She's the vice president of the board for the Wisconsin Association of Child and Youth Care Professionals.

She's also the executive director of a local nonprofit, and she's the Milwaukee Public Library's entrepreneur in residence.

She's dedicated her life to this community.

And on July 16th, 2024, less than two years ago, out of state police officers shot and killed her brother.

I can't but help wonder if there had been local MPD officers involved.

Would the outcome have been different?

Would they have intervened in the situation and initiated a more positive result for Sam Sharp and his family?

Ms.

Sharp asked me to keep her brother's name alive and centered in this testimony to foster a culture of safety and accountability for all of us.

As we currently see two dozen ICE agents being arrested and tried for bribery, sexual abuse, and firing weapons through closed doors, it only underscores the need for us to be proactive and prepared.

This modification, let's be clear, it's not perfect, helps strengthen the ability of the MPD to intervene and report when ICE and other federal officers exert force.

Beyond that, which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, it get bet gets back to the reason so many initially become police officers to protect hearing from the city attorney's office that this is legal and enforceable is very reassuring.

Please do the right thing for Milwaukee and pass this modification to SOP 460.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

We're almost there.

My name is Walter Lanier.

I'll serve as a senior pastor of the Progressive Baptist Church, also chairman of an organization called Black Man Organizing, and also chair of the Pastors United Steering Committee.

I appear before you in support of today's motion, of course, and I want to thank as uh Emilio did, Aldo Grand Brower, uh Dmitry Evits, Zamaripa, Perez Moore Bauman, and also Bergelis.

And uh I was reflecting on uh the moment that brings us here, uh, not only the policy, but the question that underlies it.

Uh I think that we're in this season where people are looking to Washington and feeling powerlessness, and I've been reflecting on that a lot as a community leader and as a lawyer and as a pastor.

Most of us can't determine what happens at the federal government level and what it does tomorrow, but everyone in this room has the ability to determine what kind of city uh Milwaukee will be.

And that's where our new power is collectively.

So what I've concluded is that nationwide, really the next chapter of our history and the names that will be significant will not will be those, not that so much come out of the White House that's easy, but what happens in rooms like these, mayors, city councils, county boards, pastors, community leaders, people like Angelique Sharp, who I serve on the board with her, Milwaukee Services Inc., who decide when the moment comes how we will use our authority and our leadership influence that we actually possess.

Uh, and that brings us to the matter before us.

I'm excited and pleased uh to see what we've done with the ICE out package, uh, local control, local autonomy, local power, local communication, local community uh building is very significant in this season.

That is going to be what happens in the 21st century.

The motion is precise, it's necessary.

Uh SOP 460 already requires officers to intervene when they observe unreasonable force.

This motion motion closes a definitional gap, makes it clear that the duty to intervene applies when the person using excessive force happens to carry a federal badge.

The law is clear, we've already heard about that.

We've heard from the city attorney.

There's also a report from the Unity of What's University of Wisconsin Law School saying the same thing about the supremacy clause.

Uh, an officer who assaults a member of the Milwaukee community without probable cause, regardless of the agency they work for, is not acting under lawful federal authority, they are acting outside of it and harming our community.

The motion gives officers clarity.

When they witness unreasonable force, they will know that their duty applies.

They will know that we have their back when they do the right thing, and when they are protecting our community.

We're in an unusual season with a common question.

Everyone in this room knows our country's history.

Excessive force under color of law is not a new story.

It's not uh the only story, but it's not a new story.

The forms change, uh, the uniforms change, uh, but the challenge is still real.

The question remains the same.

Does power exist to protect our community or to intimidate our community?

And um, pleased to see the movement uh to move on the side of the ladder, which is greater protection of our Milwaukee community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you for your testimony today.

Um, I've also been contacted by Mr.

Ayah from the Milwaukee Police Association who would like to provide testimony.

In interest of fairness, we'll hear from multiple sides on this issue.

So, Mr.

A, you would like to introduce yourself and then give your testimony of three minutes.

Yes.

Uh, thank you.

My name is Alexander Allen, I'm the president of the Michael Police Association.

Uh, thank you for giving me uh a few minutes to talk about this.

Um, we are not uh in favor of this change.

Um, and let me make something clear.

I don't represent ICE, I don't represent the members of the federal government, I don't represent uh law enforcement agencies on the federal level.

I represent the Milwaukee police officers, uh rank and file uh police officers and detectives for Milwaukee.

So the reason why we are against this is uh the very change on this, it states that if an officer observes based on their training, so based on our training, not based on the training that another jurisdiction has, not based on the training that another federal agency has, because we have different training that they have.

We there's no way that any police officer can intervene and know all the policies that another jurisdiction or a federal jurisdiction has.

If we used to have uh chokeholes back in uh, you know, a few years ago, those we don't have them anymore.

I don't know if West Dallas has chokeholds or if any federal police uh agency has chokes available in their policies.

So if that's something that I've foreseen as a violation of a use of force for our policy, it might very well be something that is in policy with their uses of forces.

So there's no way that and a police officer from the state of Milwaukee is going to arrest any other officer from a different jurisdiction or any other federal officer.

Um intervening is a very vague and loose term here.

And I'm sure that's why uh it's you know okay by the city attorney's office, because it's just the word intervene.

It could be as far as you know, maybe just selling a supervisor, which is not gonna do anything.

Um, and my officers are not gonna get arrested by federal agents because that is uh obstructing an investigation.

If I see a FBI conducting a search warrant, where police officers are not gonna go and stop them and say, why where is your probable cost to do the search warrant?

We don't know what their intentions are because we're not in their heads, we're not in their investigation.

So why this is why this policy is just not the right thing to do for my members, and this is probably a violation of working conditions for my contract for the CBA that we have standing.

This is working conditions.

Um my police officers cannot intervene in the manner that I think is expected of them to go intervene and arrest somebody else from a different jurisdiction while probably they are acting lawfully, if they're acting unlawfully, their agencies will deal with them just like MPD deals with MPD officers that act unlawfully, they get arrested, they get investigated by internal affairs.

So there's a process when a police officer is not conducting themselves in the proper manner, uh, those jurisdictions also have the same uh processes that we have, but to have the expectation that a police officer from the city of Milwaukee is going to stop in the middle of a federal investigation and arrest or or push away or intervene uh a federal agent that just calling for a recklessness and having our police officers get arrested um federally.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um PD, could you come to the table just briefly in light of the testimony?

Um I guess the question is how robust would the enforcement regime be for this SOP?

What um activities would you be looking for from the officers for um leveraging this SOP in a disciplinary sense that was just raised?

Sure.

So first of all, I cannot predict how robust the enforcement of this particular policy uh language would be, not knowing all of the what ifs that could occur um or do not occur in our city.

Um so I there is no prediction of the robustness.

What I can tell you is that MPD investigates every and all complaint against our MPD officers, whether that be through the FPC complaint process or through our own complaint process, a citizen or a resident can choose either track.

Um and if something is substantiated by those investigators, be it FPC or ours, then uh a discipline determination would be made by the chief.

As assistant chief Sarnal said before, what that looks like, uh, don't know.

We don't have comparables um for a new provision, and also it depends on the nature of the offense and the violation of our policy.

Okay, thank you.

And um, I think this underscores the point I've made to some folks, which is the FPC and the council have to work together because even if the council makes an SOP change, if for some reason they're displeased with how that is effectuated, um FPC has direct oversight over the chief in a way the council does not.

So it's to all our advantage to work together on these items.

So with that, are there any other questions or comments?

Any concluding remarks or any questions from members, and if not any remarks from Alder Brower.

Mr.

Yes.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Um, just to address to address a few points here.

Um what we're seeing, what what I have heard from activists who are on the ground in Minneapolis will uh when the ICE invasion occurred, is that in many instances, Minneapolis police did absolutely nothing.

Just just absolutely nothing.

In it w and while witnessing um situations that were occurring with with ice.

I mean not, and when I say absolutely nothing, I mean I mean absolutely nothing.

Not even turning on their body camera, not even uttering something at all.

Um so those, in my opinion, though I mean I guess I guess to to the uh president of the MPA's point, um, that that word intervene is I guess vague.

Um, but that could mean even those, in my opinion, could mean even those small steps.

Um, so is that is this and but I I would rather other interventions.

I mean, if a you know the federal officer is not immune from our criminal statutes here in Wisconsin, if they murder someone, they should be arrested and investigated.

Yeah, that's I mean, I just frankly, I mean that's that's my opinion.

Like that, you know, and so that that that should be that should be dealt with and and it and that could be aided an investigation against a federal agent, whether it occurs in a federal court or state court, could be aided with evidence that's been gathered um by Milwaukee police department.

Here, I'm just wanna you know, pull this up here.

Um, yeah, yeah, um Yeah, they should, you know, they're saying here they should they should report their observations.

If excessive forces of the observing officer is a position to do so, so already that's a huge loophole, right?

If they're in a position to do so, ideally before the situation escalates, they should intervene.

And if that intervention does not jeopardize safety, that's that language is in the SOP mod uh, actually, I believe that's in the original SOP, uh that we're modifying here.

Um, and so I believe that gives us um gives an officer uh plenty of opportunity to to exercise their their good judgment and not you know force someone into a situation where they themselves as well would be would be harmed by a federal agent.

But no, they're it is it is my opinion strongly that in a federal agent is subject to our criminal statutes um here in Wisconsin, and I would argue that an intervention um could be as simple as doing something rather than absolutely nothing when one of our officers who's been called to the scene, you know.

Let's say there's an ice abduction, we have um, you know, we mobilize our protesters uh to be there, and then there's a uh confrontation between ICE and the protesters, and the police have also showed up, obviously, because they've been called, like there's the potential for them to do something, say something, turn on their body cameras, collect evidence.

I mean, is this I I just want to argue that these are tools that this uh uh modification puts into the toolbox.

We were talking about tools in our toolbox earlier, so I'll use that metaphor.

Um, that this puts in a tools into our toolbox and compels, and I do want our officers to be compelled, that's why it's a change to a standard operating procedure.

This compels our officers uh to do something rather than absolutely nothing, like we've seen um in other communities.

And I I do believe that should include up to including arresting a federal agent who commits murder in the city.

Um and I just also real quick in response to that, and I'm not pushing back, but I do want to clarify we already have that body worn cam directive.

Um so our officers any time they respond have to and are required to activate their body worn cam.

And when the incidents were occurring, um, you know, throughout this nation, the chief did issue a directive to all of our members that this is particularly important when there's other law enforcement agencies pres present.

So I'm certainly not um objecting to anything you said.

I just want to clarify for the public that there is that expectation already.

Okay, very good.

Um if members don't have any questions, do we have a motion?

Uh Alder Bergellis has moved approval of the sub-C, which is before us.

Um, are there any objections?

Uh looks like we're missing a couple members.

If not, then it passes on a three-zero vote.

Thank you.

Okay.

Wait a second.

Is that that part of the council, yes?

Okay, yep.

So this uh as was said goes to the full council then for the action.

Would you want to be added?

Yes, could you please add me?

Okay.

Recorded as a yes vote, Alder Taylor.

Four zero.

Okay.

And so, okay.

Item 11, file number two six zero two one nine, an ordinance relating to penalties for the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabinoid products to minors.

This is sponsored by Alders Bergellis and Dmitrievich.

Alder Bergelis.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

This would you want to take a minute?

Yeah, maybe it won't take a minute because no one can hear me.

Excuse me.

Thank you for that.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Moving on to item number 11, file 260219.

This ordinance increases penalties for underage sales of tobacco alcohol to state maximums.

I was shocked to learn that many cities comparable to Milwaukee hold their clerks and store and stores to much higher standards and more expensive fines for underage sales than Milwaukee does.

There is still some work to be done researching this particular researching what the city can and can't do for uh enhanced penalties uh or enhanced accountability.

Uh we do have mechanisms in place uh at uh for licensing to uh have a I'm sorry.

Uh we do have mechanisms in place in the city uh from licensing uh businesses that sell to underage people, but sometimes that can uh only take place eleven and a half months after the incident.

I'm concerned that we're not able to take immediate action that would um hold uh clerks or people who sell uh to underage children uh immediately.

We do have mechanisms for revocation, which generally comes from MPD, and we would be able to do that on a second offense within a certain time period.

Uh however, revocation is not the only penalty or punitive measure available to the council in a revocation hearing.

So there's a little bit more work to be done.

I appreciate Alder uh woman Dmitrievich's uh collaboration on this.

Uh and I will ask for a hold uh because we are not quite ready for prime time.

Okay, very good.

Alder Bergellis has moved that we hold this item.

Mr.

Chair?

Alder Moore.

Um, can I be added as a co-sponsor to this file, please?

Yep.

That's your matter, that's yours as a matter of right.

So you're a co-sponsor now.

Um so Alder Bergells has moved that we hold this item and hearing no objections, so ordered.

Item number 12, file number 260240, communication relating to the issuance of temporary noise variance permits.

This is sponsored by President Perez.

President Perez.

All the good stuff is gone.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um this uh communication is really to set the tone and to let people know that uh we are farm working with LRB, Department of Neighborhood Services, and the police department on changes to noise variances.

Currently, the rule now is uh someone can apply for a noise variant, and then in once granted and very small print, we'll tell you that you can to please keep it at a reasonable level, and whether you violate that level, whether you understand what that level is, uh there's no limit to the decibels.

It's created problems, concerns, complaints in the neighborhood, and based on that uh we are looking at um modifying the ordinance to include uh a level that's reasonable.

Um we've we've asked that uh applicants notify residents within the two block radius of the event location, and the notification shall specify the event dates and times, the specific source of the noise and the contact information for those responsible for uh the noise variants, and they'll be present on site where the noise is being approved.

Uh the applicant shall post a copy of the approved permit in a visible place uh during the event, establishes a curfew of 10 p.m.

Sunday through Thursday and 11 p.m.

on Fridays.

Applicants have their own decibel reader.

Uh any applicant that violates the rules of permit could lose their right for another variance within 18 months.

Uh there's annual reporting requirements, uh, the removal of late application fees.

I think it's really unfair that um we're getting to approve noise variances on a Friday when the events over the weekend, we have no time to contact neighbors, make sure things are done in a in an appropriate way.

Um so we want to extend the window to apply at least 14 to 60 days prior to the event, and we're kind of looking at the our test model is the 75 decibels of 75 feet away.

There's also an exception to the applicant to request a higher um decibel limit, but that requires them to provide some written uh statement explaining why the the limit should be uh higher, and we're finding a way to exclude uh events that have been around for many years, whether it's jazz in the park or chill on the hill, things of those things of those natures.

These annual events that happen regularly.

Uh Pride Fest is one of them too that that exceed uh the decibel level at times and we want to be appropriate to those larger this is really to to get a handle in the neighborhoods where we have a lot of noise variances that are applied for block parties and things of that nature.

And so we want to just uh you know talk a lot, um we have DNS at the table who's been very helpful uh LRB some here somewhere, and we want to continue to to expand because they'll they will have to do enforcement.

Very good.

DNS, would you like to add anything?

Um sure.

Um, Samila Royovega, commissioner with the Department of Neighborhood Services.

Apologize, I was just running.

So let's take a breath.

Um no, I just wanted just to cover a little bit more of the process in Milwaukee.

It's issued by us by the DNS um department, uh, when an event noise levels are expected to exceed the city noise ordinance limit, but the applicant can actually demonstrate that the noise will be kept at the lowest practical level and have the measurements to minimize disturbance.

Um noise control definitions, the criteria to determinate excessive noise, the methods of measuring that noise, the variance permit process and application process are all on the MCO chapter 80, um, under the subchapter of noise control.

Um I think like um for us this has been very important that the temporary noise variance permit process is completed in a follow in a sequence that is determined by the code of ordinance.

Um in the last few months, as Alderman Perez was mentioning, um, in the lieu of continue addressing divisions, processes, refinement, and standardization.

Um we have been collaborating with President Perez, City Attorney, and our team to just like create some updates that are really um kind of address um our latest um events or issues to the community.

Um a little bit of data sharing.

If you're curious, um since 2020, we have um issue around 1647 um permits for noise variants, denied 53, uh repetitive events, those are like we were mentioning summer fests and um other community events are repetitive in a yearly base.

We have around 160 that we know like every year usually they have like the same kind of like permit applications with us.

Um if you're curious about all the many districts that have over 50 permits issues since 2020.

I didn't want to walk away too too way back.

Um District 3 has 208, district four, six hundred twenty-seven, dig street 617, Dick Street 12 147, dig street twelve, one forty-seven, and these 315 104.

These are Aldermaned districts.

So happy to answer any questions.

Um I just wanted to provide just an overall of how we do things and all that.

Uh super quick question.

When was the last time the chap that section of chapter 80 was touched?

It's been a million years.

Yeah.

Oh no.

Well, thanks to the president, DNS and the LRB for for tackling this.

I know this is something that um probably is needed to be taken a second look at.

So Alderberg Ellis.

Um thank you.

So uh are you waiving the requirement for annual events?

No, I just wanted it to have like a measurement of how many of those are gonna be the regulars of how we see it.

Well, um, because people move to neighborhoods and don't know, right?

Um, so I think the a neighborhood or a neighbor notification should still happen regardless if it's an annual event or not.

Um, but I I think it I think it is important that uh this is we can also use we don't have to wait for the mail.

We can still uh we we have uh the ability to send out e-notifies um so that you know a timeline or something, or we don't have to wait for the post post office uh but uh a quicker response, quicker notification, I think would be uh very valuable, uh especially if there's a a last minute um I don't know brewers event um running down uh Wisconsin Avenue to celebrate their um championship uh in the world series.

There might be there might not be an opportunity for a delay yes uh for that notification.

Um, and you know, we still need to have room for exceptions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I mean, there there is an exception that allows the applicant to be an exception for certain applicants.

You know, we you kind of mentioned that before.

Um, and it's part of the reason we're hoping to have this done by now, but as we dig deeper, you know, we're plugging another hole, we're pivoting, making sure we're inclusive yet fair.

Uh so our goal was to have this done now, considering we're getting noise permits or requests for them now as as we speak.

So our goal is to finish this up and get this done as soon as possible.

But we wanted to get out in public, make it a communication file, advise the public safety and health committee that um we're going in this direction.

We want to hear feedback uh from the community and other elders if there's any concerns uh moving this forward.

Yep, and I I would ask, um, I don't know if your work is too provisional yet, but if there's something that can either be added to the file or sent to members, then you can review it before because it sounds like it's gonna be pretty complex.

So I need some time to process it's getting the package getting thicker and thicker as we speak.

So okay, sounds good.

We will do that immediately.

We'll send you the draft now.

Okay.

Um any other questions from committee members.

If not, then Alder uh Taylor would move that this item be placed on file.

Is that okay?

Um and hearing no objections, so ordered you.

Thank you.

Um moving to the last substantive item on the agenda, item 13, file number 260182, communication from the fire and police commission and MPD relating to the 2026 fire training classes and associated departmental vacancies.

This is sponsored by Alderberg Ellis.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

This file came about uh as a result of a a shocking uh vacancy report that we saw in finance and personnel, where although it looked like we had a lot of firefighters um on uh firefighter positions filled, uh there was a uh disproportionate number of leadership in the department that was unfilled.

Uh so we so I started asking questions, and um uh here with the answers, are uh the fire police commission and uh the department uh chief parish.

Very good.

Alright, well, there is a uh PowerPoint in in the file uh that I was able to prepare yesterday and and forward this morning.

Um Join, I don't know if you can pull that up on your end.

I don't have it, I don't know what it is.

Okay, I received it while I was in here.

Okay.

Uh well it is in the file.

The first uh this the first substantive slide shows our uh firefighter applicant recruitment numbers uh over the years uh starting in 2023.

Uh and you can see that in uh we have been conducting uh um yearly recruitments for the firefighter position.

I think we're getting good numbers uh in 23 and 24.

Uh it was in the 700s, and then uh the last recruitment that we conducted for the firefighter position was last summer in 2025, and we got and we had even better results.

Uh over a thousand applications.

Uh we haven't even touched uh that batch of candidates yet in terms of new hires, so we have plenty of uh firefighter candidates uh to draw from going forward.

Um, it jump in it's like a 40% jump in applications.

Yes.

I think uh that is largely due to the good work of the personnel at the Milwaukee Fire Department.

They really uh uh hit the ground and uh did a lot of outreach and the fire police commission.

Yes.

Yes.

But weren't y'all doing good work back in twenty-three and twenty-four?

Uh I think they went above and beyond uh last year.

Yes, probably some of the uh post-COVID lag, to be perfectly honest with you.

Um there's a lot of residual things that we're still seeing in staffing that uh traced back to being under quarantine for a couple of years.

So a lot of this is actually a direct result of uh of that when we see it in you know both of our recruiting pools.

Okay, all right.

And this year we did conduct a uh a lateral firefighter or fire paramedic recruitment.

We have 39 candidates uh uh current firefighters and fire excuse me, fire paramedics that uh uh have experience with other departments that we can also draw from.

Uh and uh those candidates will likely uh comprise our March class in 2027, or at least a portion of it, although we'll ultimately have to see how many uh hires we get from that.

That's our first uh firefighter lateral recruitment.

So it's something pretty new.

Uh on the third slide uh this graph shows uh the number of firefighters.

Uh this includes firefighters and fire paramedics that are within uh Milwaukee Fire Department uh and the reason why it starts in Q2 of 2023, that is when Act 12 uh, or I guess it was um at the start of Q3 of 2023 when Act 12 took effect that requires uh MPD, I'm sorry, MFD to make uh staffing increases over a 10-year period and also to maintain or increase uh their sworn strength on an annual basis.

And you can see there's generally been since then an upward trend uh starting from in the 350s, and we're currently at 420 now.

Uh there's been a slight dip uh since Q4 of 2025 when we were at about 450 firefighters.

That's largely due to the fact that uh we have not had a class since then, since August of 2025.

There was no March class this year.

Uh the next class will be in August of 2026.

Uh next slide does show the uh heavy equipment operator or uh HEO staffing levels, and you can see there has been a uh a modest decrease over the years uh going from 125 or approximately 130 uh currently.

Well, at least as of Q2 of this year, we were at 113.

Uh that is a position that we have struggled uh to fill.

We've been conducting uh promotional recruitments for that position uh at least once if not twice every year, going back to 2021.

Um the good news for this is that uh Milwaukee Fire Department or the city actually recently executed an MOU with the fire union so that uh the department can appoint long-term acting HEOs, and hopefully that'll get the department uh some relief in this position.

Uh and then the last slide, slide five is just showing uh the overall progression uh in staffing increases since Act 12, uh, when the department was at 192 uh daily staffing.

Daily staffing is different than the total sworn strength.

That's the number uh of uh firefighters uh and other sworn members that are on call ready uh on any given day.

Um and so while the two are correlated, they are not the same, and uh you can see that uh uh since 2023, uh MFD has increased its average or its daily staffing level from 192 sworn members to 209 as of 2026.

Um I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Here from the chief, okay.

It's here from the we would like to hear assistant chief parish.

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh assistant chief parish, Milwaukee Fire Department.

Um the items that Director Todd, you know, uh, you know uh are accurate numerically.

One nuance about our staffing is that like that we only hire at a certain point in the year.

So we do experience and predict, you know, relative dips throughout the course of the year until we do another recruit class or then another promotional exam, and then those numbers reliably jump, you know, Q3 or Q4 of every year.

So we currently run our promotional processes for lieutenant and captain uh every other fall.

And then uh HEOs are normally in the summer, because that's a weather dependent test, it has to be done outdoors.

Um, and then the hiring for firefighters is also done in the fall on a schedule to correspond also with our fire cutted hiring.

So there's certain pay periods uh throughout the year when those numbers you know just drop or jump rather.

Um and then the uh decreases are either due to promotions or retirements.

So if somebody is in a um in the HEO position, then when they promote to lieutenant, then you'll see a drop in HEO and an increase in lieutenant.

So we always promote and hire from within.

So a lot of the numbers really do have an effect on other numbers when it comes to the promotional ranks.

Um, and then we have a uh lieutenant exam, lieutenant and captain's exam plan for this fall, and then we have a HO exam tentatively tentatively planned for next summer.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um, so this is a predictable uh shortage of leader uh leadership or a predictable increase in vacancy for supervisory staff.

Uh correct.

So we have currently I want to say 13 openings for lieutenant, uh one for captain, which we're I think it's gonna be in the next F and P, we're gonna fill that one, and then uh the HEO vacancies are currently 28.

But I said that exam is gonna be next summer, so then that number will then compress.

So there's no way that we're gonna compress it until we run that exam.

So there's no recruitment in 2026 for HEO.

There's no test for HEO this year, no.

There's no because we're already at Q2 is 113 from a high of 132.

I guess there are 135 positions here already 20% vacant.

Uh the HS I have 139 allotted.

I have 28 current vacancies as of uh last week.

So yeah, so 20%.

Um that um it seems like we would have wanted to alleviate that sooner than next summer.

Great question.

So we we used to do that examination every year.

Um we saw actually a few people were taking it, so we've been looking at different ways to uh address that that deficit.

One of the items actually a few items different a few different items came up.

Um one was the realization that you know if you do lieutenant and HEO that exact same time, so you're pulling from the exact same applicant pool to fill both of those spots.

You end up with not doing a great job on the other or uh another one was preparation for the candidates, so that's one of the things that we're really focusing on this year.

Is um we actually created a mechanism to identify people who are interested and then make sure that um they're getting the appropriate mentoring to prepare for that next level of testing.

Then there's also uh state level testing that is um that is also required to take state level certification that's required to take that examination.

So it's also limited people a limited pool of people that we can pull from.

So we're always monitoring that pool of qualified applicants as well as their interest level, and they're really looking to focus in on the things that we can do to make sure that a higher number of them will be successful when they actually go and sit for that exam.

Were there more position more firefighter positions that uh we should have added in the budget as a response to the last bargaining agreement?

So we're currently negotiating the current bargaining agreement.

So I'd have to talk about the last one.

So parental when parental leave was added, did we add any positions to make up for it?

That would be a question for the uh for the budget office on how they do those calculations.

Um, so yeah.

Did you add more positions to cover parental leave?

Yeah.

Because the bargaining agreement required parental leave, right?

But all that does is put a stress on firefighters for or increase overtime to cover those vacancies, right?

Or those absences.

Yeah, so the having other leaves um that are negotiating the contract do create vacancies.

Um one thing that Director Todd kind of indicated is that when we do the fall classes, you know, we've done the class that we had planned for the fall anyway.

So we plan a class about a year and it's some change in advance.

So um for a contract that's negotiated in the fall, there's really no way to add people immediately to that anyway, because we can only have some we have about a class capacity of 50 at any given time that we run one.

And we or 56.

Uh that sometimes.

A very unique situation.

Okay, all right.

And then also what we'll do is like we'll if we have vacancies within like the very beginning of a class, we'll actually add people.

So there are times when we do like add additional positions to a class because somebody didn't show up the first day, so that gets counted as a hire, but we didn't necessarily hire the additional person.

We created a vacancy, somebody didn't show up day two.

We call a new person, bring them in day two, so that's when those numbers fluctuate slightly over 50, but our capacity normally for an academy class is 50.

When um so why was why did we skip the March 26 class?

We didn't skip the March 26th class.

We only we started doing double classes uh as a result of COVID.

That's another one of those COVID lag items where we had such a large exodus of individuals that we had to start running two classes a year.

Um but you have 50 vacancies and you're only doing one class this year.

Correct.

So if I have 50 vacancies and I So no one's gonna retire between now and March of 27?

Like it it's I'm sorry.

So could you ask your question again?

Um so we have we have a number of vacancies in the department now.

Correct.

Right.

Um we'll fill these uh with a class that uh comes out in August I guess well this is twenty august twenty-five, but August 26 is the next class.

Correct.

They'll be in the field about November-ish.

Okay, they'll be in the field November, and we won't have any vacancies between now and the next 2027 class.

Finishes next summer.

Correct, yeah.

So there will probably be some retirements we try to project that out.

Um that's interesting another COVID thing where like the number of people who are eligible to retire is shrinking because we didn't have that nice beautiful bell curve of people that we hired regularly every year.

Um so that's part of our projections as well, and we're looking at the next class.

Um we also have to get, you know, to be able to plan for a class that following year.

One of the difficult things about our current budgeting process is that it's hard for me to plan for additional classes that I don't have budgetary approval for the positions because I have to do that a year in advance.

So the classes that I am running next fall and twenty-seven are for our normal anticipated retirements and vacancies, of which we normally keep a cadence of about fifty-ish for those.

The years following COVID, we had to do a couple of classes because we saw hundreds of employees leave as most industries did.

So that's when we started doing two classes a year, but that was not our normal cadence, nor has it ever been in my recent history of the walkie fire department.

Our firefighters uh so I did a I recently did a 24-hour shift.

Um very eye-opening, 20 calls for service uh in that shift from engine 24.

Um, but two of the people that I was working with had already done a 24 hour shift the previous day and they were doing another 24 hour shift.

Um how much has overtime increased or decreased over the last couple years because of staffing levels?

I'll be honest, I didn't bring our overtime numbers.

I can definitely look into that and get back to you.

Um yeah, I I'd be happy to look at that and and see what the actual differentiation was year to year to year for overtime.

Um, I it uh I'm not hearing that we're um adding positions based on uh additional benefits allotted through collective bargaining agreements.

I'm hearing that overtime is continuing and we have uh dozens of vacancies that we're not preparing for to fill until the next year, which perpetuates the overtime um the the perpetuates more more and more overtime moving forward.

I realize the department is very young.

Uh there uh there are hundreds of firefighters that are 26 or younger.

Um I got that quote this morning.

Um but I I still think it's important that we continue recruitment with a lot of interest, which is great to have.

But if we're not having the training classes to fill vacancies that we have so that people can move up, we're going to perpetuate a culture of requ of uh uh mandatory overtime uh and that does no one uh a service uh and and does not help protect the public uh as if there was someone fresh coming off of rest protecting us.

Yeah, absolutely.

We we would agree.

One of the um nuanced things about our hiring, like it it has to go in these spots in the year.

So we really only, you know, unless we're planning for a very large deficit that we saw in COVID, we really only plan the preceding year to do that immediate class in the fall, which always occurs pay period like 19 or 20.

We do that in the cadet, so like they're all aligned and overlap in these, you know, perfect calendar positions.

Um so it's not that um we don't really have the ability to be like, you know, if we see a large deficit in November, we don't have the ability to flip on another recruit class in like August, right?

It takes us about a year to do pre-employment for a Milwaukee firefighter.

That is with the medical testing, we run them through EMT class, we run them through psychological evaluations, the candidate physical agility test is about a 10-ish week process.

So there's a lot of components that have to be done before, which is why we do recruiting the way we do.

Um so yeah, we will and the FPC was actually great in this where we said, okay, we know we have a valid list now, but next year we won't have that list anymore, so we need to run recruitment a year in advance, knowing that there's still a valid list to then get the people in EMT class to get them ready to then do the background checks and all of the things.

So we're kind of unique in that uh capacity, even from the police department where it takes at least a year runway prior to us having a class to get a class up and running.

Um unfortunately doesn't allow us to pivot as fast as we would may like.

Um but that is you know a part of unfortunately what it becomes to Milwaukee firefighter this time.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um one question from the last slide.

Um I see that it references the Act 12 requirement, the MOE, that we have to reach a daily staffing level of 218 by 2034, which isn't as far in the future as you might think.

Um it looks like given our trend, we're looking pretty good way better than police.

Um do we expect we're gonna hit that mark in time?

Yes.

Um we have been steadily increasing and I expect that to continue.

Uh we have uh a batch of laterals that uh we can also draw on, and then beyond that we have a uh uh the uh the recruitment from 2025 and uh if necessary we'll be able to conduct additional recruitments.

Okay, so the landscape is markedly different here with fire than with the police.

So yeah, we don't have a uh we don't have a recruiting issue, it's mostly a timing issue, and I'll be honest.

A lot of our focus on recruitment and retention for that list has been on the timing aspect.

That's probably what we hear the most about, you know, from candidates, that it this does take a long time.

So we want to be really really communicative and supportive during that time for our applicant pool.

Um, but we've actually seen a lot of success with that, you know, from uh probably the mid 20 teens where we probably saw, you know, fifty sixty percent drop rates in a given list where we were only using half of the or less than half of the candidates.

Um we've actually seen that number decrease as well, which keeps people both engaged in the process, and then we find it makes them more successful going through it.

Okay, very good.

Uh Alder Taylor.

Um so are you saying that that list does not just extend that list doesn't make stand into the following year but you start over again or so what we do we we actually have to overlap them so old practice was we would have butt them against another but then to your point Alderman is it creates that gap where without the approval they can't do the recruiting so then I may need people but not have a list so that's a worse situation so what we're doing is we're actually overlapping the eligible list so that we can use a list and then start pre-employment for people with the next list while that old list is still being used and is going to eventually expire.

So it's slightly confusing for the candidates was like well I'm still on the list but you're asking for a new list but doing it the other way is worse because then you end up with a gap there where I have no people to hire the FPC doesn't have the budget authority to do a recruitment and then we end up with a year where we do the hiring so that's a much worse situation.

So we've addressed all those timing issues um a big challenge for us is that we have a multi-year process with a year budgeting cycle.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Absolutely with that Alder Brios would you like this placed on file?

Alder Bigeless would move that this item be placed on file and hearing no objections so ordered thank you all thank you, uh Alder Chambers.

Please record me in the affirmative for the items missed.

For item for items that I missed if any recorded in the affirmative without objection so ordered on the items that were missed.

Alder Taylor would move that this be placed on file and I guess with item 15 file number two five zero nine seven six um Alder Brigals would move that we hold this to the call of the chair and hearing no objections so ordered session is fine.

I just came through okay Alder McGallis would move reconsideration hearing no objections so ordered and for item 15 the motion he's making is to uh place on file.

So hearing no objections so ordered um that concludes our meeting for today thank you to members for their patience and we are adjourned.