Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the Thursday, June 11th meeting of the Public Safety and Health Committee. It is 9.08, so we'll get going. If people could please keep it down, we'll get our business going. I am Alderman Scott Spiker, chair of the committee, joined to my right by Alderman Burgels. 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 1, file number 260159. 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. There was a church that was previously operating here that has since closed so we recommend 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 if 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 Yes, despite there being many intersections in this file, today's 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 3rd, as well as Warnemont and 3rd. This change was coordinated with the local alder. Happy to answer any questions.

Quick question. This one's in my district. There was a change of not regarding it as, I don't know, basically a semi-arterial anymore. What was the reason for that change? Was there a change in traffic volume or change in bus routes or what?

Correct, Alderman. Upon reviewing a constituent concern, we reviewed our intersections as we normally do. We did discover South 3rd Street, as you alluded to, was classified as a collector through highway within the city. At one point in time, it may have seen more traffic than it currently does. We did not do a traffic count, but we know based on experience that volumes are very low in this street, so we don't feel that through highway classification is needed anymore.

Okay, thank you. Any questions? Additional if not alder Taylor would move to recommend passage and hearing no objections. So ordered. Thank you very much. Thank you Moving on to some Health Department files, which again are going to be relatively short item 3 file number 260 118 substitute resolution relative to acceptance and funding of the 26 through 27 immunization action plan grant from the state of Wisconsin Department of Health Services and

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, would move to recommend adoption and hearing no objections, so ordered. Item number four, file number 260148, resolution relating to acceptance and funding of the 26 through 27 communicable disease prevention grant from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Yes, this item authorizes approximately 27,000 in funding from the state of Wisconsin. 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. Compared to previous years, this is a recurring grant that happens year after year, correct? Correct, yes. Has support from the state for the health department increased year to year? Or where's the trend headed?

Yeah, for this 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?

This is a newer grant. I want to say it started approximately five years ago and it's been steady around $27,000, $28,000.

So the need hasn't changed in five years?

The need does not match what we receive often.

Have the costs to provide services changed? that the state is supporting increased or decreased over that time? I mean, because if the need has increased but we have some cost savings, maybe we don't need any more funding than we were getting five years ago. But if the need has increased, has the cost to provide those services changed?

I mean, I would say our core communicable disease team and activities has remained pretty steady. There have been giant changes outside of the COVID pandemic, obviously. So there have not been significant staffing changes or major changes like that that would warrant 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 260197, substitute resolution relative to acceptance and funding of the 2026 through 27 cities readiness initiative grant from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Chair Tyler Webber deputy commissioner environmental health for the city of Milwaukee Health Department and this is another reoccurring grant that we get from the state that actually trickles down from the CDC and this helps us with our preparedness work and coordination and response around threats disasters so flooding as an example and it pays a portion of salaries training supplies etc for our team. Very good.

Questions.

Can I continue that same trend? Please. So this is a recurring support through the state from the federal government. Has support for this program increased or decreased year to year lately?

This grant has slightly decreased, but then the next item to be discussed for the FEP grant increased slightly. So these grants often co-occur together, even though they are different. So right now it's more of a, a wash in terms of losing funds but if it would be nice to get an increase every year just to be forward.

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

This is because this funding goes from the CDC to the state, and the state has a larger pool that they 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 the state formula and how they use it, population trends, needs, et cetera, across the whole state.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, thank you. With no more questions, Alderman Bergelis would move to recommend adoption and hearing no objections, so ordered. Item six, file number 260198, substitute resolution relative to acceptance and funding of the 26 through 27 Public Health Emergency Preparedness Grant from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.

Again, this is similar to the previous grant, the CRI grant. The difference here is funding goes to our emergency preparedness team as well as to our lab for their emergency response capacity 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. 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. File number 260201, substitute resolution relating to acceptance and funding expenditure of $3,500 contribution to the Milwaukee Fire Department from Habush Habush and Rottier.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Assistant Chief Parrish, Milwaukee Fire Department. So we received a small contribution from a local law firm to help us with one of our safety initiatives. Several years ago, we were actually involved in working with our local residents to make sure that car seats were installed safely. We received the reach out as part of one of their initiatives to basically donate some money to that initiative. So that's what this is. It is, you know, it's one of the unique things that we do, and 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? Please tell them we said thank you. We'll do it. We just did. Thank you. Alder Moore would move to recommend adoption and hearing no objections, so ordered. Item number eight, file number 260202, 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.

So as you all may be aware, the Milwaukee Fire Department has an incredibly long history during the Survival House. You know what? Point of privilege.

All right. So audience participation. Who remembers going to Survival Life House in second or fifth grade? Raise your hand up high. Elbow straight.

There we go, beautiful. This has been multiple decades that we've been doing this program. It's probably the thing that both the Milwaukee Fire Department and NPS is known the most for. Those documents that really build that collaboration do require the occasional tidying. Assistant City Attorney Fowler has been working on this for the better part of a year and some change. So we're happy to just revise that agreement, but if you all have any questions about 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, 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 sort of at will by either side.

Very good. Yep. Very successful program. Yeah. Longstanding program. Yeah. Mr. Chair. 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.

Absolutely. And if you all haven't visited in a while, you want to stop by, feel free. We love to have guests. We love to have presenters and whatnot, so.

Brought me back down memory lane.

Holly, she's bringing everybody back down memory lane.

Thank you.

Thank you. With that, Alder Moore would move to recommend adoption of the resolution. And hearing no objections at all, gladly do so. So ordered. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

Thank you.

And then for the sponsors, did we?

Yes.

Yeah, all right, then we'll keep that's totally reasonable Okay, yes Recording the affirmative for the previous item let the record reflect Alderman burgellas in the affirmative on item 8 Moving on I believe it's 915. Yes, in fact, it's 920 So we're able to move on to the next item item 9 file number 260 225 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 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. With that, I will turn it over to the sponsors led by Alder Moore.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and my colleagues here this morning. I definitely want to thank the community for coming out this morning. I value sort of the structure that we have in place. FPC is a place where a lot of those decisions are made where extensive community input uh... 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'd personally value the recommendation uh... that uh... on the commission brings to us uh... this was an opportunity for us to listen to community when we talk about you know in and And let me preface it by saying that a lot of times when decisions are made, it doesn't make everyone happy because there are always some nuances. If we don't do this, this could happen. But if we do do this, this can happen. And so it's up to us to be able to sort of siphon through that and figure out what is best for our community. Last year, we had 10 deaths as a result of police chases. I can't imagine 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 look at different approaches and different angles as to 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 that I make. So the recommendation came from FPC and I value that recommendation because of the simple fact that you all have had extensive input from committee. And Mr. Chair, I'll just end by saying that This is not perfect. 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 with some recommendations to change the SOP and 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 what this does. And so I'll have whoever needs to come to the table to sort of share. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. So how we'll structure this. Well, first of all, there was a change to 660 that the chief promulgated that was brought before this committee, was brought before FPC and then before this committee. 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 wanna 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 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, I guess I would call to the table FPC Executive Director Todd and also commissioners, any commissioners that are present including Commissioner 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 Mr. Chair committee members. Leon Todd executive director of the Fire and Police Commission. I'm joined to my left by commissioners Bree Spencer and then to my far left by Commissioner Chrissy Fung. So the recommendation that's before you builds off of prior changes to this SOP by the Milwaukee Police Department that you pre one of which you previously noted that change modified the grounds that allows officers to pursue for reckless driving. 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 a degree of recklessness. There was a prior change before that that limited officers' ability to pursue for drug dealing or mobile drug dealing, to limit that to cases of significant or long-term investigations. This change that's before you, again, builds off of those changes. And the intention is not to... eliminate or prohibit vehicle pursuits in all or most cases. What this change would do is again it would focus on the category of pursuits involving pursuits for reckless driving. That is one category that MPD is allowed to pursue individuals. They're also allowed to pursue for violent felonies. and for, again, substantial drug dealing involving long-term or significant investigations. Regarding the reckless driving portion, that constitutes more than two-thirds of the vehicle pursuits that MPD engages in over the last few years. 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 pursuits that are for reckless driving that is first observed after the attempted stop. So if an officer attempts to stop someone for you know your garden variety traffic violation like speeding or an equipment or registration violation and then the vehicle begins to flee and flees in a reckless manner, officers currently are allowed to pursue those individuals. These cases tend to be the least serious type of traffic stops by definition. They're not for reckless driving, at least originally. They're not for violent felonies. They're usually for your garden variety traffic stops.

So just to clarify and to underscore Alder Moore's point, under the changed 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. And based on information, the best available information that we have from a prior vehicle pursuit audit, I would estimate that The category of stops that we're talking about, those involving reckless driving first observed after an attempted stop, does not involve the vast majority of traffic stops. I estimate it to be around 15% of the entire universe of stops. So we're talking about a relatively small number of a small universe of stops. So that's the principle recommendation, to prohibit vehicle pursuits for reckless driving observed after an attempted stop.

And a final interruption, and I apologize, but under the previous SOP change, fleeing after a stop at a high rate of speed, you were not allowed to pursue, but you were allowed to pursue if in addition to fleeing at a high rate of speed, you also were 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 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 said you need something more 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 a homicide or something, then that is also a condition under which they can pursue. I just want to be clear on that.

The other recommended changes include, just to reemphasize, that's the principal change. The other recommended changes include a requirement that department members will be required to terminate a pursuit for reckless driving if continuation of the pursuit increases the danger to the public. The reasoning behind that being these pursuits are to apprehend and hold accountable and prevent individuals from engaging in behavior that is inherently dangerous to the public, i.e., reckless driving. and the logic is that if that action by law enforcement officers increases the danger to the public, it should be ended. Thirdly, the recommendations would clarify that the existing policy that a vehicle pursuit may not be initiated or must be, excuse me, we're recommending that the policy clarify that if a vehicle pursuit is 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. 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 release to the public within 15 days, and also they have to give opportunities to individuals the deceased next of kin to view the video within 48 hours. That is a principle overview of the recommended changes. And with that, I want to turn it over to Commissioners Spencer and Fung for the policy reasons behind these recommendations. Thank you very much. Please introduce yourselves.

Sure. I'm Commissioner Bree Spencer from the Fire and Police Commission. Do you want to introduce yourself?

I'm Commissioner Chrissy Fung.

So I'm going to kind of set the table in terms of, I was the person who introduced this at the Fire and Police Commission, and I have found in my four years on the commission that it is helpful to help people understand your thinking leading into a recommendation like this. So that's what I'm going to try to do, kind of set the table. So first, 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. It's 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 Policing Project. which we 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 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 i'll throw in 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. And 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 Q&A the mic you know in a conference and I said I'm from Milwaukee I do oversight in Milwaukee and 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 were 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. 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. That's what happened before. We had 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 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 got to 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 recap, 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 must. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Commissioner Fung, do you have anything you would like to add?

Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Common Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak before you today. First, I want to acknowledge the Act 12 sized elephant in the room. After Act 12, as everyone knows, as I think this body is really good at reminding folks, the FPC's ability to affect policy is now inherently intertwined with the powers of the Common Council. 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 in this part-time board to come do the very important work of speaking before you, and also who is willing to do that. I also acknowledge that our executive director is part of the mayor's cabinet. He has a positionality that I don't envy. 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 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 is out in the community every day, who have to take the risks that we're discussing today. And we also hear, 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. And sometimes we also hear from the city attorney. 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 chestnut 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 policymaking 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, and the Police Executive Research Forum 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, 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, cars were going up to 117 miles an hour on our city streets. And for most of the instances of the deaths in 2025, those cars were going in the 80s and 90s. I think about my street. I live on frat me. If you go 90 down frat me, I shudder to think 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 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. 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. Next, 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 and I will commend the department for the work that they've done in looking into additional options which include technologies 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. So I think when we have conversations with 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 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. I also want to think about who's being pursued. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. But I think it's really important that we take a surgical nuanced approach here and make some small adjustments to see what additional outcomes. harms we can prevent. 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 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 drive away from the police at 100 miles an hour? Like, 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. I think, A, we need to keep in mind the mindset of young people, the fear that they have. I also can't imagine the fear that it is to be a young black person when you are in a police situation. I know from being in Val Phillips Detention Center that that fear is real and that fight or flight is real, and sometimes that's flight. But, and I spoke before 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. I think that there's also, a lot that we need to unpack about feelings of disconnection from young people from their neighborhoods, right? Like, I wouldn't drive 100 miles an hour down Frattany 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. And so I keep that in mind as well. And I will actually commend AC Sarno was on an incredible panel yesterday with Judge Trigiano and ACA Mueller talking about kind of the ecosystem 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. I understand that reckless driving is a very serious issue, but I don't believe that vehicle pursuits should be the predominant way that we address this situation. So I tend to talk for a very long time, but I'm gonna stop here in case there are any questions or any.

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 y'all could move one seat to the right, make room for Chief of Staff Huff, Assistant Chief Sarnow. Again, 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 that you put into it including your time here so i want to be respectful of that with that we'll hear from mpd and then if members have questions for the people at the table can ask those and then we can move on to a select few from the public that the sponsor or I have received communication from. So thank you. With that, we'll turn it over to MPD. And if you could state your case of why the chief is opposed to this change and to the extent you can directly engage the points that have been made, that will be more instructive than having a two-way monologue. So thank you.

Sure. Good morning to this commission. My name is Chief of Staff Heather Huff for the Milwaukee Police Department. I'm joined by Assistant Chief Craig Sarnow 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 Sarnow who can follow up with more detailed information. But the Post Act 12, weird world that we operate in now is real and just we want to acknowledge as a department MPD feels its pains as well. It is we have the oversight of the FPC and recommendations made there. We also have the authority of the Common Council and so navigating these worlds 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, 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, The community 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 rec is a useful tool for solving egregious crimes in our city. Yet, we understood that there were serious and severe concerns about our use of that type of technology. 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 they 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 the officers initiating that, it are these individuals that are causing harm to our community. Reckless driving is real and we want pursuits to be able to deter that activity. Input that included, if you stop a car for a 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 more 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, 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 Sarno can go over that, we also implemented some technology, or began the process of implementing some technology to enhance our ability to not just use pursuits but things like, what's that thing called? The Star Chase?

Star Chase, yes. Yes.

The Star Chase instead of pursuing and 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, 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. 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 AC Sinai will get more into detail about those, we don't 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. We're constantly reviewing our pursuit policy. Every incident that occurs every time our officers are in pursuit. This brings up the conversation with the administration and with the chief. This is always on his mind. And so this isn't a 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 take a breather there. So I was listening and attentively to look for points of engagement with the previous testimony and the one substantive 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 if that so that was the one substantive engagement I saw 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, don't hit other cars, things like that. So if the concern was you're giving folks a recipe and emboldening them to flee, 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, and provide you a better response to that question.

All right, I won't further get the question, though, so. Okay, we can, 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 care 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.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so as you heard yesterday, I had the privilege of being part of the Vision Zero Summit. I was part of a three-person panel that consisted of myself, City Attorney Alex Miller, and Professor Trujillo 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 Trujillo talked about 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 reducing reckless driving harm, reducing traffic violence. So I shared with everybody that was present data and information on crash and fatalities because we do, as the commissioner said, have a lot of tools on our tool belt. It's not just vehicle pursuits. We do cite, we do arrest from those citations, we do tow vehicles, and we're towing vehicles at a much higher rate now thanks to the ordinance that was passed in November of 2025. But we also still engage in vehicle pursuits when we encounter individuals, 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 reckless driving the criminal negligent operation of a motor vehicle we are going to enforce the law and we're doing that even with the policy changes to your question uh chair spiker why would we incorporate that in there if um And I'm paraphrasing what you said, if it was that big of a concern. Well, I can share with you in that those changes went into effect actually on February 6th of this year. And I'm preparing to do a presentation of the FPC on July 16th about the first half year's data. So we'll have a much bigger data analysis 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. We have made some, we've made a lot of progress.

One question there. So I thought Director Todd had said 15% of pursuits for reckless driving, and I may have misunderstood this, were initiated only after the traffic stop?

That's based on a 2024 FPC vehicle pursuit audit looking at 2023 data. The numbers are somewhat comparable, but in looking at that data set, which was a sample, It was approximately 15 percent of the entire universe would have been affected by this policy recommendation. So vehicle pursuits for reckless driving first observed after the attempted stop.

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

No, the total number of stops. I'm sorry, total number of vehicle pursuits of which 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. So then, Assistant Chief Sarnow, you said 202 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 stop and none of the other

I didn't examine the 26 data. I did look at the 25 data, though. So if you were to take 15% of our vehicle pursuits from 2025, that would be out of the 742, 742 of the 970 were for reckless driving, which would eliminate 111 of those if this policy had been in effect in 25. I did not examine the 26 data yet.

Okay. Please continue.

Sure. So I spoke at length yesterday about these things. But with respect to the proposed changes the 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 dangerousness and criminality. And the data that I presented previously shows that with the arrests and charges associated with those we take into custody for reckless driving, usually, What we've seen is not just reckless driving it's a whole host of other things that go along with it. 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 the reckless behavior began after the stop attempt instead of before it. So 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 would be that the community trust depends on both restraint and accountability. I believe the department has shown incredible restraint in its authority when engaging in vehicle pursuits. We had 970 pursuits in 2025. 270 of those, I repeat, 270 were canceled by law enforcement officers, either the officers themselves or the supervisors. So that gives you kind of a base of 700 pursuits when it's all said and done. Furthermore, if you looked at the data that I had shared previously, we also had 1,000 104 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 660 sub 20 sub H. So I do believe that the department and the men and women out on the street who are engaging this behavior because they're putting themselves at risk as well when they're trying to tackle this public safety crisis, engaging incredible restraint when they're canceling these pursuits or making the decision not to pursue. A policy that makes fleeing the least risky option erodes confidence in law enforcement ability to protect neighborhoods and enforce order on the roads. I don't know what else, much else to say, Chair Spiker, outside of what's written in the letter and what I haven't already 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. That's correct. Yes.

That was a recommendation from 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, in their opinion, the risk of pursuing outweighs the risk to public safety. Yes, I believe so. And then back to my original question, then I'll be quiet for a while. 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'll 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 at 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 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 urban environment it's more there's a higher probability you're going to reach one of those factors then you're not and the data that I had shared you know 157 under 202

uh... for the first quarter of this year supports that 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 else thank you and just to start out after

be pretty disagree with my colleague from the 10th. In the opening statement, we heard that 10 deaths last year were a result of police chases. I disagree. I think those 10 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. Commissioner, one of the first things you mentioned that 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, this one that they're talking about. That's correct.

When was that adopted.

Last fall.

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. 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? 10 people did die. That's an urgent concern. And so to address it, we need an incremental step that takes it a little bit further. This one is actually trying to address the lowest level reckless driving related things, like 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 I was looking at. Hold on, does the current police pursuit policy allow a pursuit based on someone fleeing from an expired tag?

Yes, if it's more, if they're driving recklessly, if they wish away.

That's not what you said. You said if someone gets pulled over for an expired license plate, we 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 what you're trying to say.

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 meet the what the policy says for reckless driving after we attempt to stop we can pursue. Yes.

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

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

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

No.

Unless there's another reason why.

A secondary reason, that's correct.

All right, thank you for that clarification. Does loosening up the pursuit policy increase the city's liability should we not chase someone? So 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 can't speak to that.

So has the city attorney's office weighed in on the proposed changes?

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 session. 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 Bergelse's question in open session.

And Alderman Spiker, just a point of clarification. I believe I previously stated that the last change that the police department made was last fall. It may have been in February. Oh, that's right. I apologize if I misspoke.

It was February.

That's right, that's right.

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

Deputy City Attorney Naomi Sanders. We were 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. So my question that we were trying to get to may not have an answer yet. 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 answered in closed session.

All right. I will not ask for that answer yet.

And might 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?

Thank You mr. Chair it's both both okay thank you thank you for that you talked about national standards and deaths elsewhere the I think anyone should gasp audibly when you hear that there are ten 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 are their fatal end results different than Milwaukee?

I mean, I can answer to the best of my ability. One is there is really good reports. There's a DOJ PERF report that's really good to review. There's also, I believe, a report from the NYU Law Policing Project. I think you have both in a letter. I think somebody summarized what the discussion event is at the FPC and then sent it to...

So how does Milwaukee's fatal outcomes, how do Milwaukee's fatal outcomes compare to other cities our size?

Milwaukee is used regularly as the example of what not to do when it comes to policing policy. No, but I'm not being vague.

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.

Looking at a very specific policy and you're using justification of 10 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 fatal fatality results are.

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

Hang on.

We can't be testimonying from the audience here. Did you finish your questions, Alder?

I will pause for colleagues to continue.

Okay. Alder Taylor is next in the queue. If you can add me. And then Alder Moore. Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Okay. A couple of things. I guess as I sat here and listened, I was a little disappointed to think that FPC would think that the council will ignore what is brought before them. I think being frontline representatives to the community and being questioned about things that are happening that are risky to their lives, I don't think that the council will ignore what's being brought. I think that we take things very seriously and we put a lot of thought and a lot of hours into those decisions that are made. So I would be disappointed to think that that's the thought behind that. I think that there should always be checks and balances when you're looking at something as controversial as this that will cost the lives of individuals. Even one death is one too many. So I agree on that perspective. 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 all perspectives need to be considered. And this is the way it's set up for us to do that. I would like to know, and this may be 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 their pursuit of the perpetrator?

They are at the results of the suspect or perpetrator. And for the record, it was six incidents and nine deaths in 25.

Okay. So the officer's training is being followed, not resulting in this.

That's correct. In those instances.

So 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. And so we can't 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. You also mentioned that there are some new tools, Star Chase, and you mentioned that it may be a way of alerting the community of what's happening?

Yes, so right now we use stop sticks. That's the primary tire deflation device we use. We use that quite a bit. We have since purchased and are implementing Star Chase, the GPS tracker that will be used in pursuits as well. We're looking at putting that on two vehicles per district to start with. That's just what the contract allows. And if it's successful, because there were some mixed results when we had it previously, We can look to expand on it. And then there's the Haas Mobile Alert. And that's not just for vehicle pursuits. That can be used any time a squad car 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. 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 it on your phone, you can get it 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, you'll be alerted to that.

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

Yes, 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. We are currently updating the infrastructure in our squads to support this technology, and 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.

OK. And I think that my colleague just asked for this clarity. I just wanted to make sure that we were clear. So this really is focused on the reckless driving piece, but if there is other circumstances, then the pursuit is permissible. Those three, I think you mentioned drugs, violent felony, and long-term investigation.

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

OK. All right. I just wanted to make sure I had clarity on that. I think you have answered the questions. Thank you very much. So I'm gonna pause at this moment. Mr.

Chair, may I make a direct response?

To the question that was asked? Yeah, of course.

I just wanted to 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. 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. 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 that would be affected by the change here. So we are not arguing to entirely stop chasing reckless drivers at this time.

Okay, we have Alder Moore then Alder Chambers in the queue.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I love that we have a democracy. And so colleagues and residents and constituents, they are welcome to disagree with any of us. And so I love that. I want to echo my colleague's 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. Just a few questions. When you went and talked about the policy, our policy, What makes it so out of practice? Is it because of the number of deaths? What makes our policy so out of practice?

Yeah, the permissiveness, the amount of chasing we can do for the amount of circumstances we chase for. And it's a whole variety of cities, small cities, big cities, Chicago, New York. I had someone from Chicago come up to me and say, that's outrageous. Call me. We can talk about 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 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.

When we talked about the and thank you for Correcting me a CSR now in regards to the numbers. So thank you for that Corrections there were six incidents and nine deaths so Mathematically 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 incidents had like do we have the details of that and

Yes, I do. Um, so there were six incidents and, um, hold on, let me just find my slide here. No, you're good at 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, The first one from April 30th of last year had, that was for reckless driving. The two passengers in the suspect vehicle were killed in that incident. The next one was from July 14th. The next incident was in July That was for reckless driving. That was when the vehicle were pursuing loss control and struck a pedestrian at a bus stop. Next one was in July of that year as well, 11th and Brady. The pursuing suspect the driver struck a third party vehicle and the driver of that vehicle was killed in that. So one death. August 6th 19th in Hampton. The driver of the pursuing car the vehicle we're pursuing hit a tree and 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 the one on 35th and from September, third party vehicle and there were three individuals killed when the suspect driver hit that vehicle for a reckless driving pursuit. That was the one on the late. Yes.

Alderman Moore. Can I do a clarifying point. So I just want to be clear why I say 10 and why AC Sarno 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 use that number for this year, but that's why we have a different number.

I appreciate it. Thank you for that clarification. Assistant Chief, thank you so much for that. The other question that I have is, and you all may or may not be able to answer this, how many lawsuits do we have for 2025 or as a result of the incidents of vehicle pursuits in 2025?

We would respectfully ask that we discuss that during closed session. Any matters regarding litigation, potential liability, any of those questions should be discussed during closed session. Could you introduce yourself briefly? This is Assistant City Attorney Matteo Reginato. We do have matters in litigation, that's why.

No, no, no. I think what I'm looking for is more of a... Just 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 a number with several than litigation several at the notice of claim stage got it That is that will suffice my my question my line of questioning for for that I have to say that This is definitely becoming very costly when we're talking about, again, as I'm sitting here listening, we're not saying don't pursue. I wanna 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, this isn't expired plates and there's an abducted child potentially in the car, right? We're saying sort of these low-level offenses. And I'm glad my colleague asked his question in regards to, oh yeah, we pursue right now. If your plates are expired and you get pulled over and you... flee the scene, we get to chase after you. So I'm glad he made 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 really focused on high-level, dangerous offenses. We can pursue for anything. And that's what is unsettling to me, especially as we look at how do we revise, how do we make just common sense practices because 10 deaths is just still 10 too many. We have families in this room that have 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 strategize on focusing on keeping communities safe? That should be the priority. Because a child in the, you know, outside, you know, crosses the street, whatever, and gets struck because of a suspect, like, that's devastating. In neighborhoods. I can imagine even somebody going that fast down, even Sherman is a nice little stretch of street. Can't imagine Fratney, but Sherman is a nice little, but going that high rate of speed, it's just a recipe for disaster. As my colleagues sit here today, I ask them to be just objective. in figuring out how do we move forward with this process and the recommendations that you all have made. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

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. So you just listed, Chief, Assistant Chief Sernau, the six incidents. Did any, all of these were just based on the reckless driving or did any of these involve these other three situations that were listed before.

You mean mobile drug dealing or substantial drug dealing? There were two of those six were initiated for violent felonies or wanted in connection with a violent felony. The other four were tied to reckless driving.

Okay. Do you know which ones in particular were?

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 30th, reckless driving. July 14th, reckless driving. July 29th, reckless driving. August 6th, felony. August 23rd, felony. And September 16th, reckless driving.

Okay. Thank you very much.

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

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 we'll go to Alder Chambers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and forgive me for my not being there in person. So I guess I'll start with a comment and I'll ask for questions. I'll say some questions. There's some things that I do agree with the commissioners on. I agree that. Act 12, it was a travesty that took away the community input on policing matters and put it under the hands of us, which I didn't agree with. That's why I voted against it. But to that point, this is the reality of where we're at right now. where I agree with my colleague from the 11th, hold heartily on the sentiment that the police, and I know you clarified it, Commissioner Funk, so I really appreciate it, that the police was not the reason for these deaths. They were following policies. I guess the question that I will have, the question that I will have is, We are on the front line to my to all the woman Taylor's point. We are on the front line. We do here. We do here. from residents who are calling us consistently about, you know, the lack of police response and the lack of police, you know, engagement as far as the reckless driving. And one in particular happened in my district, and I want to say it was in either 20, it was in 24 or 23, you know, and on 51st and Capitol, 51st and Capitol 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 experienced something similar that wanted, you know, police engagement towards, you know, going after reckless drivers when when situations happen like this and we're trying to. In my opinion, I think it's a drastic change to change policies to take away tools in the tool belt for the police to properly do their job.

Is he asking us?

Yes. Alder Chambers was, so I understood your last statement.

That was a question to the commissioners, Mr. Chair.

To the commissioners? Yep. Okay. So commissioners Spencer and Fung.

Thank you Alderman Chambers for that question. I think I don't envy sort of as you say being on the front lines. I know that's a really difficult position. I do also want to share that because I am so public about my opinions and my engagement with the community. It is also true that members of the community come up to me when I'm at community events and agree or often disagree with the positions that I've probably taken. So I have also had to 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 you all feel, although I cannot imagine doing that as a full-time job. I acknowledge this is my very part-time job. But I do think it's important to note a couple of things. One, I think vehicle pursuits are an important tool that we have right now in the landscape that we have right now, but they are a bandaid 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. 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, and I do not. But I will also honestly say that Being at Vision Zero yesterday and watching engagement between the city attorney's office with AC Sarnow, with Judge Trigiano, gave me a lot of hope about creative ways that we can address reckless driving. I wish those would happen faster. Unfortunately, this is a really big problem that is going to take a really long time to solve. I think it's important to note in those conversations, 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. 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. But I do think it's important to not sort of. to not expect that our constituents are so incapable of holding nuance. The community is out there. They're 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 commend MPD. Those include increases in technology to commend the drone team. Those include creative use of drones, which we've seen be very successful in other jurisdictions. Those also I would hope in the future include restorative justice elements and elements that are education based and more preventative. 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 Alder Taylor's question as well, 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. Certainly, I don't believe that the police are at fault for not preventing every crime. 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, talking about prevention, talking about education. But I really believe that when we're talking to folks, we owe them an honest and complete answer. 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, and thank you for that, Commissioner. I have just a couple more questions and maybe a comment. To your point, Commissioner Fong, what type of outreach have the FPC did besides the meetings, besides your commission meetings, to engage with residents? Because I know I see a decent amount of individuals who may be in support of this change, 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 said as 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, well, you know, I looked at that question and I got a comment after that.

Sure, sure. I guess I do want to clarify, as a board member, because this is part-time, it's probably not realistic that there are as many formal opportunities for public engagement 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, and I'm always happy to talk about those things. I had several conversations at community brainstorming recently. I think folks kind of generally know where to find me and how to engage in those conversations. But if there's particular places that you're inviting me as an individual commissioner to come and have those hard conversations, I'm really happy to do it. I've also done that at... block earlier this no at the end of last year um 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 voluntold myself to head out wherever you'd like me to be, but I don't necessarily know that in this super part-time board where most folks have one, if not two, if not three day jobs or boards that I can volunteer others. I will say that the cumulative amount of time though that we have spent at the FPC listening to public comment on vehicle pursuits is many, many, many hours. 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 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 the evening 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 and we also have sort of guaranteed built-in public comment for much longer stretches of time which is not not the fault of this committee y'all have a lot of work to do but we certainly have a really expansive amount of time and opportunity for folks to engage with us. And so we do hear from the community that that is extremely meaningful to them. Um, Alderman Chambers.

Oh, sorry.

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 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. 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, Commissioner Fung, We see that because right now we have maximal police pursuits or we did prior to February 6th, we still have pretty maximal police pursuits 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 I also wanted to just flag, because you said Alderman Chambers, you feel like this is a really big change, and so I just wanted to resurface some of the numbers that AC Sarnow provided about 2025, which said that about 111 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 just introduced it. The commission had even discussed it yet and there were retired police officers talking about how no one's going to be able to chase anybody and it's a disaster. And to me what I hear that in that is sort of traumatized 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.

Thank you for that. Yeah, and then I'm pretty sure I have more questions about passing along. I have one. I just have one comment. As a person who have recently sat in the Judiciary and Legislation Committee for nearly four years hearing legal matters and I can tell you the leading

No, no, no, no, no.

I'm not. I'm not. I'm not.

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

I'm aware. I'm aware. I was just going to say I dispute the fact that the police stations are the number one cause because they're not. That's what I was going to say. But okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderberg also had a quick clarification.

Well, thank you. So we've gotten a correction on the date since the last change. So previously we had talked about having a change in the pursuit policy in the last fall. Now after I lost my turn with questions, it was clarified that it was February. So we had changes in February. Chief, what have pursuits looked like 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, as I said, I'm just preparing to do a six-month analysis to the FPC on July 16th.

So we don't have data on our incremental change yet. I appreciate that. Recognizing that this last incremental change happened in February, why are you, Commissioner, 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 for the FPC did it did not track that the most dangerous chases like when there was deaths and injuries. It didn't. Sorry I lost my train of thought. I looked away that it wasn't actually going to reduce deaths essentially. from police pursuits. And so then that's why we're trying to push it a little further to get a better outcome.

When we talked earlier, I had asked for information about how the fatalities in Milwaukee, and I'll use the number 10 because I think that's a fair assessment from impacts in the last year in our community. I asked for the data. You said it was in my inbox. It was in the file. Not the file. The file has data from 2022. My inbox has no additional data. So I would happily receive that. If the city attorney hasn't reviewed this and hasn't issued an opinion on the proposed ordinance change or the proposed change, 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. But at the very same time, we've made a substantive change in our pursuit policy that took effect in February. And if our goal is to be moderate, to be cautious and intentional and look for the best balance in policy, we don't have the data to make the next decision. That's my statement. Thank you very much. Mr.

Chair. Thank you. Alder Moore. Thank you so much, and I again appreciate my colleagues sentiments But when we talk about incremental changes and I hear you I Hear you alderman for gallus But when we're talking about lives, oh Do we wait till five more people die Do we wait till 10 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. Here are the fire trucks out there, right? When we talk about buildings getting caught on fire, sprinklers and I think you sponsored that file with the sprinklers.

I authored it.

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 my money on that any day. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, you're on that point?

Let me ask a quick question here.

Well, no, go ahead, Alder Chambers, because my question might... And to that point, I guess my counter to that point is what would you tell the residents who were impacted by reckless driving and was not in pursuit, that was not in pursuit of police, that police were not pursuing and was impacted. Because I have a resident that lives on 64th and Villard where we had to do a roundabout and her property was impacted five times to property damage. And then the lady on 51st and Capitol running the red light trying to teach her son how to drive that was killed, or even, you know, like, what's the counter to that? It's easy to say one life is enough, and I agree wholeheartedly, but to the other side and the counter that we have to be cognizant of that. This is the matter that we're facing, but we also have to face the reality that there's an other side to the coin of this, and I think that's what's not being addressed. So while I agree with the sentiment 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 say things of that nature. So I'm done with that, but thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you.

Thank you. A quick 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 it is very difficult and to say to our residents who In all districts I've talked to colleagues about say reckless driving is a big deal. It's having impact on folks lives it's Completely making their feeling of safety driving on their streets evaporate and then For us to take an action which could be seen whether fairly or unfairly is limiting the police's ability to to address reckless driving, whether it's after the fact that it occurs or not, I have a feeling we'll get lost in the discussion. 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 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 flee recklessly knowing that the police will then be unable to pursue them and is it any part of this 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 record? So Chief Serna, if you wanted to say your thing before but then if you could address that question.

Yes, to the question about reckless driving fatalities outside of police pursuits. So for 24, that number was 41. And in 25, the number was 19. And then through May 12th of this year, because that's when I was pulling data, it's seven for this year, through May 12th. Could you repeat your question, sir?

Oh, my gosh. My colleagues are going to be furious at you. So the question is basically your main argument says, 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 factors aren't present. If it was a traffic stop for an expired plate or a missing or expired tag or missing plate 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, 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 principle concern?

Yes, and this is something, so we've seen what restrictive policies did in the city of Milwaukee. I've spoken about that before with one of the other changes, I believe it was when we changed it from mobile drug dealing to substantial drug dealing, which we still stand by, but I know, I recall two years ago being met with, we were met with scrutiny in this room 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 5,500 pound Ford PIU and initiating a vehicle pursuit for it? Particularly when we looked at the data and saw what the results of the arrests and the 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 And not go down that road again because we know what that landscape looked like back then that that ultimately caused a 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 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 talked through the CAD. 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. 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.

On the one right before, I just want to be clear that what the AC Sarno 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 that worries me a great deal. So I just want to flag that 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. 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.

Then I guess. Yes, please.

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 a recent policy change and so obviously not enough time has passed to have a whole bunch of data 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 I think there's a little bit of two parallel tracks here is what happened.

Okay, that's fair. I have a question for the sponsor and then Alder Brower would like to speak. So Alder Moore, I know we wanted to have public testimony and all that. We are in serious danger of not being able to discuss item 10. We've had a very robust discussion here. There's been very robust public discussion at FPC. So would you be comfortable with the idea of moving forward with a vote one way or another? so that we can discuss item 10, which I have a feeling is gonna be a lengthy discussion as well.

Yes, and before the Alderman goes, I just had one quick question, Chair. Just really quick, what are the other ways that we hold reckless drivers accountable? So in reference to pull somebody over, they have an expired plate, they flee, we don't chase, how do we hold that person accountable?

We'll follow up and citation potentially could be issued later. But again, we have a number of things we do. The towing of vehicles for the citation that was put into place in November of last year has really driven up vehicle tows for us as it relates to reckless driving at the municipal level for the citations that are issued. Thank you. Yes.

What was that? I just wanted to clarify. For towing, the vehicle has to be stopped. So it wouldn't be they're recklessly driving and then we stop them. It's after the fact and that vehicle is done reckless driving and we tow it.

So just really quick follow-up. With the citation, we issue a citation based on, I'm assuming we capture a license plate, and that's how we do that sort of follow-up.

Yes, owner responsibility, yes.

Correct, and also if that information is in a system and 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 outliers.

I'm trying to think of accountability. What are 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, you know, a vehicle with expired plates, we wouldn't use those license plate readers to do a further investigation to track down that individual.

No, no, no.

Yeah.

Yeah. 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 number was from 2025? 2025, yes. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you for allowing me. 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. I just wanted to, I thought I did this prior. I would like to be listed as a co-sponsor, please, of item number nine, this motion. I think this is a really huge issue. I appreciate all the effort that's been put in by the FPC and the Milwaukee Police Department here. 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 common 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. 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. 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, In this last budget, we had no choice to be able to make the services that our residents expect happen. That's an economic barrier to having a fully registered vehicle. There is also people who don't register their vehicles out of malice, who don't want to have a registered vehicle they're driving around because they want to do something that's not in line with good public behavior. And then potentially those vehicles are driving recklessly or the ones that are even registered driving recklessly, those people do need to be held 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 to is the question of how do we actually reduce that? I'm really appreciating the FPC taking the time to connect with organizations that are researching, using data to determine how we can actually reduce these kinds of behaviors that are unwanted in our community. 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 govern just solely by our feelings. I am annoyed by people that do not register their vehicles or people that are, and it's even worse, and more annoying and more irritating and potentially life-threatening when people are driving recklessly. So obviously we want to stop that, but let's look where we actually have data from these policing projects that say how we can actually truly reduce this stuff because we also just cannot expect our police department to be completely omnipresent to stop every single violation of the law that's 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 do wanna co-sponsor this. I think that the FPC has done a good job of researching this and let's follow their lead as far as finding ways that we can actually reduce these things using smart policing and data-driven rather than, I do hear the concerns that this could be a signal to people out there who don't have the community at heart that, hey, here's a way to avoid that. There's plenty of ways for somebody who doesn't have the community at heart or who has malice in their mind to mess with our community besides just pulling away when they're stopped. There's infinite opportunities 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 that's really gonna be our key. And I loathe that we may not have fully the resource to accomplish getting fully to the root. 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 have higher wages across the board, Medicare for all, all kinds of things that will actually create the society where people aren't driven or motivated. And obviously that's not gonna reduce all crime, but where people aren't driven or motivated to do these kinds of things. So I just wanted to offer those thoughts. I would like to be, as a co-sponsor, I would urge this committee to adopt this so we can adopt this at the full council. follow the FPC's lead here in engaging in smart and research-based policing. Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Alder Moore.

Can I make a recommendation to hold until next cycle? That will give us an opportunity to get more information from the city attorney's office, get some data that you all had shared that you can pull together, and I think we can come back to the table with a little bit more information just so everyone feels a little bit better I mean, this is, you know, for me, I would love to take a vote on this now, but I think, you know, many of you may still have questions.

Yeah, I would have, if we were going to hold it, I would like to do that two hours ago. So, but if for the city attorneys. With the city attorney, I spoke to city attorney Goyke 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 want to commit us to that. We have a lot of other things going on in the office currently that the litigators are handling, but I, we will do our best.

And if you can't, can you say we haven't had enough time? So for sure, 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 at 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 that's an option, I would like to take that option first because again, I think that between now and council, there's some work that can be done.

Okay, yeah, and 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. Alder Moore, you're the sponsor of this file then. Would you wanna make the motion for approval? Yes. OK. Unless you've got a change of heart.

Chair I'll move to hold.

OK. 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. OK. On the motion to hold.

All those in chambers.

No.

Other one more.

No.

Alderman Taylor. Aye. Alderman Bergalis. Aye. Mr. Chair, Alderman Spiker.

No.

Excuse me.

Motion fails 2-3. Alder Moore makes the motion for approval of the file. Can we, and again, this is a recommendation to the full council whose action will actually affect policy. The motion for approval has been made by Alder Moore. Can you, Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Alderman Chambers?

No.

Alderman Moore? Aye. Alderman Taylor? No. Alderman Bregalis?

No.

Mr. Chair, Alderman Spiker?

No. Motion fails 1-4. Is there a motion?

I'll make a 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 floor, 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 roll?

Alderman Chambers? Aye. Alderman Moore?

No.

Alderman Taylor? Aye. Alderman Gallas?

Aye.

Mr. Chair, Alderman Spiker?

Aye. Motion to place on file. Recommend to place on file has been approved on a 4-1 vote.

Mr.

Chair? Alder Moore?

Just a question. Is this something that I can still poll at council?

Mm-hmm.

Perfect.

Just like what happened to my file last cycle.

Gotcha. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. All right, well thank you for the testimony. I don't imagine this is the last we're gonna hear of this item. We'll probably have a discussion on the council floor regarding it. So thank you all for time and energy devoted to this. 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 a multitude of sponsors. Chief sponsor is Alderman Brower, so we'll start with Alder Brower.

Yeah, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I wanted to just, you're giving me a moment to introduce this item here before the committee. I was in a side conversation there. Just want to clarify that. Yes. Okay, thank you so much, yeah. Yeah, so this substitute motion, 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, 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 objection so ordered please continue Yeah, thank you so much. I want to just appreciate 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 everybody and the police as well for offering their opinion in the city attorney's office on this. What this is attempting to do and what I am strongly in favor of here, and I know there's members of the public and community organizations here as well. We do have members of the public that will be commenting later today. I got that list over there. But what this attempts to do is to have our police do more than absolutely nothing when ICE is here and uses excessive force or behaves unreasonably and inappropriately in the city of Milwaukee. Now, they've done this in other cities and I mean, probably doing it behind our backs here in Milwaukee as well. But they've done this in other cities in ways that are just completely inhumane and completely unacceptable, including murdering people on the streets. And there was two murdered in Minneapolis. And so it's just absolutely unacceptable. So what this motion is gonna do is gonna modify our police department's SOP to say that when it is safe and reasonable to do so, that a police officer will take action to stop the unreasonable use of force by a member of any federal law enforcement officer or any law enforcement officer for that matter, that our residents will know that in this community, the police will do everything they can to protect them. So that's what this attempts to do. 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 because that may need to be handled in a separate SOP, and there's one that more deals with investigations, and also it was clarifying that we were not expecting the officer who witnessed it. who witnessed the unreasonable use of force to investigate it themselves, that that would be for the individuals who would be better designated to do so. So we've had several conversations about this. I'm really glad we're having more. I'm really glad we're considering this. And with that, I will turn it over back to you, Alderman.

Thank you. Alder Bergelis.

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. I would be honored to add my name as a co-sponsor to this and I ask unanimous consent for that. I am, oh. Yeah, that's fine. That's entitled as a matter of right. And when I hear that Some members of our police department and leadership says, well, this is irrelevant. There's no point in doing this. There's no way that 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 procedures are in place to ensure that our members are following the law and following this ordinance? Outside of the proposed change? With this change to intervene when other law enforcement is overreaching, what is available or what are the consequences if a member of our police department does not follow this and does not protect the public?

Well, it would be if it's in our policy and there's found to be an allegation that's substantiated, they would be subject to 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 Violates department policy or does not violate an ordinance. Yes. Thank you chief

All right, with that, this again has come recommended to us from the Fire and Police Commission. If they want to say anything, welcome to do that as well. I know the Alder Brower put this forward, but... 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. So 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 does he need this file to pass for that change to take place?

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 we did as we would with 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 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? Only from MPA so far correct Okay and for the city attorney's office And again if we have to go into closed session to discuss this is there 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. We have been involved in this process. We were present for the FPC meeting where these amended changes were ultimately recommended. The City Attorney's Office is satisfied that this version is both legal and enforceable.

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

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

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

I don't really know, but I believe that it is a term of the CBA. I'm not the employment attorney, nor is that my section, but I do believe that there is a requirement for the chief to meet and confer with the members of the union prior to making a SOP effective.

Okay, so the question, though, is whether we would be violative of that agreement, of that.

Well, we are the city.

Yeah, so the chief is obliged, but is this body obliged?

Yes.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, can you please repeat the question?

Yeah, 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 probably the furthest that I would be willing to represent at this time.

Okay, all right. And I guess to the sponsor, does any of that you still want to move forward or do you have 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. I mean, that's, you know, it's my opinion that, you know, the state statutes allow our council to modify by a two thirds majority to modify police standard operating procedure. I, 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. Co-sponsor Dimitrievich is on the board. Alder Dimitrievich, would you like to say anything?

Yes, can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Hey, thank you so much, Chairman Spiker. I was on for the latter half of the previous item, too. But you all were concluding what I know was a lengthy debate. And I want to re-express my support for the item prior as well, the chase and pursuit. And Chairman Spiker, I'm a little disappointed, I think, in some of this process, 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 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 months ago. So I just want to express disappointment. We're trying to move forward. That's what the... residents and constituents are demanding. So I fully support going forward and I thank Alderman Brower 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 uh alder bergels so i will just to be just for uh edification of the public this is a 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 this is this uh is a legal process that begins and ends in council. And with that, I would move approval of the motion.

Okay, so yeah, and the motion has to be passed by the council for two thirds vote if it's to be effective. Do we have any, 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 staff the list of the three members of the public who will be speaking here today.

Okay.

And yeah, it was Christina Menartez, Emilio Dettori, and who was our last one? Pastor. Pastor Walt. Yeah, Pastor Lanier as well. So it's those three individuals that we submitted here for public testimony.

Okay. And if we could limit our comments to three minutes just so we can have this item before us. Who would like to go first?

Just because I have to push back a meeting.

If you could introduce yourself. Thank you.

My name is Christine Newman Ortiz, Executive Director of Voces de la Frontera. I just want to say formally that Voces de 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 we've witnessed disturbing surge of militarized ice and CBP operations in many cities and certainly we've had the impact of those also in 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 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 Preti. 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, it's a very proud moment to see the leadership coming from City of Milwaukee in the ICE OUT package and this one. 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 has been added to the $170 billion for immigration enforcement. There's a lack of training and background checks for ICE agents, a 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 who are incarcerated in inhumane conditions in an ever-expanding private prison system that's dominated by GeoGroup and CoreCivic, whose profits have been skyrocketing. Elvira Benitez and Salazar Sur are two Wisconsinites who have recently made their own cases public. And Salazar Sur, as we know, is still not free, and 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 Totore and I'm the executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, the oldest civic society in Milwaukee. 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 reasonable uses of force. I'd like to begin by echoing everything Christine said and anchoring that I'm grateful to Alders Brower, Dimitrievic, Zamarripa, Perez, Moore, Bauman, and now Bruegelis 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. The MPD's new recruitment video, More Than an Officer, centers the personal stories of different officers who grew up here and want to make a difference here, who continue to live and thrive here as they do different things in the force. It's not hard to imagine that none of them want to see an outside military force come to Milwaukee and wreak terror upon the residents. We've all seen the violence that was unleashed in the Twin Cities and elsewhere. We know that over 70,000 non-citizens have been ripped from their communities and put in poorly run private prisons while their citizen neighbors have been beaten, gassed, and shot. I'm not being a sensationalist. We have all seen what is happening on the news. And while there have been no violent surges here in the past month, we would be foolish not to prepare. 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 Turners 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 gets back to the reasons 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.

Our last speaker. Good morning. We're almost there. My name is Walter Lanier. I serve as a senior pastor of the Progressive Baptist Church, also chairman of an organization called Black Men 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 Emilio did, Alderman Brower, Dmitrievich Zamarripa, Perez Moorebaum, and also Bergelis. And I was reflecting on the moment that brings us here, not only the policy, but the question that underlies it. 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 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 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 Health Services, Inc., who decide when the moment comes how we will use our authority and our leadership influence that we actually possess. And that brings us to the matter before us. I'm excited and pleased to see what we've done with the ice out package. Local control, local autonomy, local power, local communication, local community 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. SOP 460 already requires officers to intervene when they observe unreasonable force. This 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 University of Wisconsin Law School saying the same thing about the supremacy clause. 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 when 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 the only story, but it's not a new story. The forms change, the uniforms change, but the challenge is still real. The question remains the same. Does power exist to protect our community or to intimidate our community? And I'm pleased to see the movement to move on the side of the ladder, which is greater protection of our Milwaukee community. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony today. I've also been contacted by Mr. Aiea from the Milwaukee Police Association who would like to provide testimony. In the interest of fairness, we'll hear from multiple sides on this issue. So Mr. Aiea, if you'd like to introduce yourself and then give your testimony of three minutes.

Thank you. My name is Alexander Allen. I'm the president of the market Police Association Thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk about this. We are not in favor of this change And let me make something clear. I don't represent ice. I don't represent members of the federal government. I don't represent Law enforcement agencies on the federal level. I represent the Milwaukee police officers rank-and-file police officers and detectives for Milwaukee. So the reason why we are against this is 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. 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 chokeholds back a few years ago, we don't have them anymore. I don't know if West Dallas has chokeholds or if any federal police agency has chocos available in their policies. So if that's something that I'm perceiving 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 a police officer from the city of Milwaukee is going to arrest any other officer from a different jurisdiction or any other federal officer And intervening is a very vague and loose term here. And I'm sure that's why it's okay by the city attorney's office because it's just the word intervene. It could be as far as maybe just telling a supervisor, which is not gonna do anything. My officers are not going to get arrested by federal agents because that is obstructing an investigation. If I see a FBI conducting a search warrant where police officers are not going to go and stop them and say, where is your probable cause 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 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. 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 NPD deals with NPD 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, those jurisdictions also have the same 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 push away or intervene a federal agent, that just calling for recklessness and having our police officers get arrested federally. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you. MPD, could you come to the table just briefly in light of the testimony? I guess the question is how robust would the enforcement regime be for this SOP? What activities would you be looking for from the officers for 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 language would be not knowing all of the what-ifs that could occur or do not occur in our city. So 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. And if something is substantiated by those investigators, be it FPC or ours, then a discipline determination would be made by the chief. As Assistant Chief Sarnoff said before, what that looks like, I don't know. We don't have comparables for a new provision. And also, it depends on the nature of the offense and the violation of our policy.

Okay, thank you. And I think this underscores a 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, 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. 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.

Thank you so much. Just to address a few points here, what we're seeing, what I have heard from activists who are on the ground in Minneapolis when the ICE invasion occurred is that in many instances, Minneapolis police did absolutely nothing. just absolutely nothing while witnessing situations that were occurring with ICE. And when I say absolutely nothing, I mean absolutely nothing, not even turning on their body camera, not even uttering something at all. So those, in my opinion, I guess to the president of the NPA's point, that word intervene is, I guess, vague, but that Could mean even those, in my opinion, could mean even those small steps. So is that is this and but I would rather other interventions. I mean, if a federal officer is not immune from our criminal statutes here in Wisconsin, if they murder someone, they should be arrested and investigated. Right. I mean, just frankly, that's my opinion. And so that should be dealt with, and that could be aided. An investigation against a federal agent, whether it occurs in a federal court or a state court, could be aided with evidence that's been gathered by Milwaukee Police Department. Here, I just want to pull this up here. Yeah. Yeah, they should, you know, they're saying here they should report their observations. If excessive forces of the observing officer is in 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 language is in the SOP, actually I believe that's in the original SOP that we're modifying here. I believe that gives an officer plenty of opportunity to exercise their good judgment and not force someone into a situation where they themselves as well would be harmed by a federal agent, but no, It is my opinion strongly that a federal agent is subject to our criminal statutes here in Wisconsin. And I would argue that an intervention could be as simple as doing something rather than absolutely nothing when one of our officers has been called to the scene. Let's say there's an ICE abduction. We mobilize our protesters to be there. And then there's a confrontation between ICE and the protesters. And the police have also showed up, obviously, because they've been called. the potential for them to do something, say something, turn on their body cameras, collect evidence. I just want to argue that these are tools that this modification puts into the toolbox. We were talking about tools in our toolbox earlier, so I'll use that metaphor, that this puts 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 to do something rather than absolutely nothing like we've seen in other communities. And I do believe that should include up to including arresting a federal agent who commits murder in the city.

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. So our officers anytime they respond have to and are required to activate their body worn cam and when the incidents were occurring 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 present. So I'm certainly not objecting to anything you said. I just want to clarify for the public that there is that expectation already.

Okay, very good. If members don't have any questions, do we have a motion?

I did.

Alderberg Alice has moved approval of the sub C which is before us Are there any objections? Looks like we're missing a couple members if not done it passes on a 3-0 vote.

Thank you Okay

Okay, yep, so this, as was said, goes to the full council then for the action. Do you want to be added?

Yes, could you please add me?

Okay, recorded as a yes vote, Alder, Taylor.

4-0.

Okay, item 11, file number 260219, an ordinance relating to penalties for the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabinoid products to minors. This is sponsored by Alders Bergelis and Dimitrievich. Alder Bergelis. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair. This... Yeah, maybe we'll take a minute because no one can hear me.

OK.

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 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 enhanced penalties or enhanced accountability We do have mechanisms in place at for licensing to Have a I'm sorry We do have mechanisms in place in the city from licensing businesses that sell to underage people, but sometimes that can only take place 11 and a half months after the incident. I'm concerned that we're not able to take immediate action that would hold clerks or people who sell to underage children 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. 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 Alderwoman Dimitrievich's collaboration on this, and I will ask for a hold because we are not quite ready for prime time.

Okay, very good. Alder Bergelis has moved that we hold this item.

Mr. Chair.

Alder Moore.

Can I be added as a co-sponsor to this file, please?

Yep, that's yours as a matter of right. So you're a co-sponsor now. So Alderberg-Else 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. This communication is really to set the tone and to let people know that we are, I'm working with LRB, Department of Neighborhood Services and the Police Department on changes to noise variances. Currently the rule now is someone can apply for a noise variant and then once granted in very small print, they will 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, there's no limit to the decibels. It's created problems, concerns, complaints in the neighborhood. And based on that, we are looking at modifying the ordinance to include a level that's reasonable. We've asked that 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 the noise variance and they'll be present on site where the noise is being approved. The applicant shall post a copy of the approved permit in a visible place 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 Any applicant that violates the rules of permit could lose their right for another variance within 18 months There's annual reporting requirements the removal of late application fees. I think it's really unfair that 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 an appropriate way and 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 a, our test model is the 75 decibels at 75 feet away. There's also an exception to the applicant, to request a higher, decibel limit but that requires them to provide some written statement explaining why the limit should be higher and we're finding a way to exclude 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 nature these annual events that happen regularly a pride fest is one of them too that that exceed the decibel level at times and we want to be appropriate to those larger This is really 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 wanted just to talk a lot. We have DNS at the table who's been very helpful. LRB's here somewhere and we want to continue to expand because they will have to do enforcement.

Very good. DNS, would you like to add anything?

Sure, Gessamila Royovega, Commissioner for the Department of Neighborhood Services. Apologize, I was late, I was just running. So let's take a breath. No, I just wanted just to cover a little bit more of the process in Milwaukee and those for variance permit. It's issued by us, by the DNS Department. 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. Noise control definitions, the criteria to determine excessive noise, the methods of measuring that noise, the variance permit process and application process are all on the MCO chapter 80 under the subchapter of noise control. I think like for us, it has been very important that the temporary noise variance permit process is completed in a sequence that is determined by the code of ordinance. In the last few months, as Alderman Perez was mentioning, in the lieu of continue addressing divisions processes refinement and standardization, we have been collaborating with President Perez, city attorney, and our team to just like create some updates that are really kind of address our latest events or issues through the community. A little bit of data sharing if you're curious. Since 2020, we have issue around 1647 permits for noise variance, denied 53. repetitive events those are like we were mentioning summer fest and 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 if you're curious about all the many districts that have over 50 permits issues since 2020 I didn't want to walk away two way back. District 3 has 208, District 4, 627, District 6, 117, District 12, 147, District 14, 135, and District 15, 104. These are alderman-managed districts. I'm happy to answer any questions. I just wanted to provide just an overall of how we do things and all that.

Super quick question. When was the last time 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 tackling this. I know this is something that probably is needed to be taken a second look at. So Alderberg Ellis.

Thank you. So are you waiving the requirement for annual events.

No I just wanted to have like a measurement of how many of those are going to be the regulars.

Because people move to neighborhoods and don't know. Right. So I think a neighborhood or a neighbor notification should still happen regardless if it's an annual event or not. But I think it is important that this is, we can also use, we don't have to wait for the mail. We can still, we have the ability to send out e-notifies so that a timeline or something, or we don't have to wait for the post office. But a quicker response, quicker notification, I think would be very valuable, especially if there's a last minute issue I don't know, Brewers event running down Wisconsin Avenue to celebrate their championship in the World Series. There might not be an opportunity for a delay for that notification. And we still need to have room for exceptions. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I appreciate it. I mean, there is an exception that allows the applicant to To be an exception for certain applicants, you know, we kind of mentioned that before. And as 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. So our goal was to have this done now, considering we're getting noise permits or requests for them now 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 we're going in this direction. We want to hear feedback from the community and other alders if there's any concerns moving this forward.

Yep, and I would ask, 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 going to be pretty complex, so I need some time to process it.

The packet's getting thicker and thicker as we speak.

Okay, sounds good.

We will do that immediately. We'll send you the draft now.

Okay. Any other questions from committee members? If not, then Alder... Taylor would move that this item be placed on file. Is that okay? And hearing no objections, so order. Thank you.

Thank you.

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 as a result of a shocking vacancy report that we saw on finance and personnel, where although it looked like we had a lot of firefighters 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.

Right. Well, there is a PowerPoint in, in the file, uh, that I was able to prepare yesterday and, and forward this morning. Um, I don't know if you can pull that up on your end.

I don't have it uploaded because I received it while I was in here.

Okay. Well, it is in the file. The first substantive slide shows our firefighter applicant recruitment numbers over the years starting in 2023. And you can see that we have been conducting yearly recruitments for the firefighter position. I think we're getting good numbers here. In 23 and 24, it was in the 700s, and then the last recruitment that we conducted for the firefighter position was last summer in 2025, and we had even better results, over 1,000 applications. We haven't even touched that batch of candidates yet in terms of new hires, so we have plenty of firefighter candidates to draw from going forward.

It's like a 40% jump in applications.

Yes. I think that is largely due to the good work of the personnel at the Milwaukee Fire Department. They really hit the ground and did a lot of outreach.

And the Fire Police Commission.

Yes.

But weren't y'all doing good work back in 23 and 24?

I think they went above and beyond last year.

Yeah, it's probably some of the post-COVID lag, to be perfectly honest with you. There's a lot of residual things that we're still seeing in staffing that traced back to being under quarantine for a couple of years. So a lot of this is actually a direct result of that when we see it in both of our recruiting pools. Okay. All right.

And this year we did conduct a lateral firefighter or fire paramedic recruitment. We have 39 candidates, current firefighters and fire paramedics that have experience with other departments that we can also draw from. and those candidates will likely comprise our March class in 2027, or at least a portion of it, although we'll ultimately have to see how many hires we get from that. That's our first firefighter lateral recruitment, so it's something pretty new. On the third slide, this graph shows the number of firefighters. This includes firefighters and fire paramedics that are within Milwaukee Fire Department. And the reason why it starts in Q2 of 2023, that is when Act 12, or I guess it was, at the start of Q3 of 2023 when Act 12 took effect. That requires MPD, I'm sorry, MFD to make staffing increases over a 10-year period and also to maintain or increase their sworn strength on an annual basis. And you can see there's generally been since then an upward trend starting from in the 350s. and we're currently at 420 now. There's been a slight dip since Q4 of 2025 when we were at about 450 firefighters. That's largely due to the fact that we have not had a class since then since August of 2025. There was no March class this year. The next class will be in August of 2026. Next slide does show the heavy equipment operator or HEO staffing levels. And you can see there has been a modest decrease over the years going from 125 or approximately 130. Currently, well, at least as of Q2 of this year, we were at 113. That is a position that we have struggled to fill. We've been conducting promotional recruitments for that position at least once, if not twice every year, going back to 2021. The good news for this is that Milwaukee Fire Department or the city actually recently executed an MOU with the fire union so that the department can appoint long-term acting HEOs and hopefully that'll get the department some relief in this position. And then the last slide, slide five is just showing the overall progression in staffing increases since act 12. when the department was at 192 daily staffing. Daily staffing is different than the total sworn strength. That's the number of firefighters and other sworn members that are on call ready on any given day. And so while the two are correlated, they are not the same. And you can see that since 2023, MFD has increased its daily staffing level from 192 sworn members to 209 as of 2026. I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Let's hear from the chief.

Okay. Alder Bergelis would like to hear Assistant Chief Parrish.

Yeah, absolutely. Assistant Chief Parrish, Milwaukee Fire Department. The items that Director Todd, you know, you know, are accurate numerically. One nuance about our staffing is that we only hire at a certain point in the year. So we do experience and predict relative dips throughout the course of the year until we do another recruit class or then another promotional exam. And those numbers reliably jump Q3 or Q4 of every year. So we currently run our promotional processes for lieutenant and captain every other fall. And then HEOs are normally in the summer because that's a weather dependent test. It has to be done outdoors. And then the hiring for firefighters is also done in the fall on a schedule to correspond also with our fire credit hiring. So there are certain pay periods throughout the year when those numbers just drop or jump rather. And then the decreases are either due to promotions or retirements. So if somebody is in the ATO position, then when they promote to lieutenant, then you'll see a drop in ATO 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. And then we have a lieutenant exam, lieutenant and captain's exam plan for this fall. and then we have a HO exam tentatively planned for next summer. Okay.

All right. Thank you. So this is a predictable shortage of leadership or a predictable increase in vacancy for supervisory staff.

Correct. So we have currently I want to say 13 openings for lieutenant, one for captain, which we're, I think it's going to be in the XFMP, we're going to fill that one. And then the HEO vacancies are currently 28, but I said that exam is going to be next summer. So then that number will then compress. So there's no way to really 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. Because we're already at Q2 is 113 from a high of 132. I guess there are 135 positions you're already 20 percent vacant.

The HEOs I have 139 allotted. I have 28 current vacancies as of last week.

So yeah. So 20 percent. That. It seems like we would have wanted to alleviate that sooner than next summer.

Great question. So we used to do that examination every year. We saw actually a few people were taking it. So we've been looking at different ways to address that deficit. One of the items actually a few items different a few different items came up. One was the realization that you know if you do lieutenant and HEO that exact same time 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. Another one was preparation for the candidates. So that's one of the things that we're really focusing on this year is we actually created a mechanism to identify people who are interested and then make sure that they're getting the appropriate mentoring to prepare for that next level of testing. Then there's also state level testing that is that is also required to take. state level certification that's required to take that examination. So it's also 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 firefighter positions that 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 for the budget office on how they do those calculations.

Well did you add more positions to cover parental leave because the bargaining agreement required parental leave, right? But all that does is put a stress on firefighters or increase overtime to cover those vacancies, right? Or those absences.

Yeah, so the Having other leaves that negotiate in the contract do create vacancies. 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 some change in advance. So for a contract that's negotiated in the fall, there's really no way to add people immediately to that anyway because we only have some. We have about a class capacity of 50 at any given time that we run one. Or 56. Sometimes.

That was a very unique situation.

And then also what we'll do is we'll if we have vacancies in 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.

So why did we skip the March 26 class?

We didn't skip the March 26 class. We started doing double classes 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.

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 going to retire between now and March of 27?

I'm sorry, so could you ask your question again?

So we have a number of vacancies in the department now. Correct. Right. We'll fill these with a class that comes out in August, I guess, well, this is August 25, 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?

So there will probably be some retirements. We try to project that out. 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. So that's part of our projections as well. And we're looking at the next class. 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 in 27 are for our normal anticipated retirements and vacancies, of which we normally keep a cadence of about 50-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 plan. normal cadence nor has it ever been in my recent history of the Milwaukee Fire Department.

Our firefighters. So I did I recently did a 24 hour shift very eye opening 20 calls for service in that shift from Engine 24. 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. 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 inside and get back to you. And yeah, I'd be happy to look at that and see what the actual differentiation was year to year to year for overtime.

OK. I'm not hearing that we're adding positions based on additional benefits allotted through collective bargaining agreements. I'm hearing that overtime is continuing and we have dozens of vacancies that we're not preparing for to fill until the next year, which perpetuates the overtime the perpetuates more and more overtime moving forward. I realize the department is very young. There are hundreds of firefighters that are 26 or younger. I got that quote this morning. But 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 mandatory overtime and that does no one a service and does not help protect the public as if there was someone fresh coming off of rest protecting us.

Yeah, absolutely. We would agree. One of the 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 cadets so like they're all aligned and overlapped 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 recoup 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. So yeah, we will. And the FPC was actually great in this where we said, OK, we know we have a valid list now. 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 back projects and all of the things so we're kind of unique in that 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. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow us to pivot as fast as we may like, but that is a part of, unfortunately, what it becomes to take Milwaukee Firefighter this time. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. One question from the last slide. 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. It looks like, given our trend, we're looking pretty good, way better than police. Do we expect we're going to hit that mark in time?

Yes. We have been steadily increasing and I expect that to continue. We have a batch of laterals that we can also draw on and then beyond that we have the recruitment from 2025 and if necessary we'll be able to conduct additional recruitments.

Okay. So the landscape is markedly different here with fire than with police.

Absolutely. You know, we don't have a, 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 is 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. But we've actually seen a lot of success with that, you know, from, And probably the mid-20 teens, we probably saw, you know, 50%, 60% drop rates in a given list where we were only using half of the or less than half of the candidates. 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. Alder Taylor.

So are you saying that that list does not just extend? Sorry.

And this doesn't extend into the following year but you start over again or.

So what we do we actually have to overlap them. So old practice was we would have bought them against another. But then to your point I'll remember 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. It's 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. A big challenge for us is that we have a multi-year process with a year budgeting cycle.

OK. Okay. Thank you.

Absolutely. With that, Alder Briegelis, would you like this placed on file? Alder Briegelis would move that this item be placed on file and hearing no objections so ordered. Thank you all. Thank you.

Alder Chambers? Please record me in the affirmative for the items missed. For item? For items that I missed. Okay.

Alder Chambers asked to be recorded in the affirmative without objection, so ordered on the items that were missed. Item 14, file number 251903, Alder Taylor would move that this be placed on file, and I guess with item 15, file number 250976, Alder Bergelz would move that we hold this to the call of the chair, and hearing no objections, so ordered. She said she was fine. I just came through, okay. Alderman Gales would move reconsideration. Hearing no objections, so ordered. And for item 15, the motion he's making is to place on file. So hearing no objections, so ordered. That concludes our meeting for today. Thank you to members for their patience and we are adjourned.