Judiciary & Legislation Committee - Regular Meeting

This is the 05/12/2026 meeting of the Fire and Police Commission's testing and recruiting committee. Present are commissioners Evans, Horowitz, Ramey, and myself, commissioner Spencer. Commissioner Ward Patterson is excused. Also present is FTC executive director Leon Todd. Director, please proceed.

Thank you, madam chair. The first item is item number one, public comment. However, we do not. I don't believe we have anybody here today for public comment.

Alright. There being no comments, this concludes the public comment portion of the meeting on there's no one online. Yep. Director, please proceed.

Second item on the agenda is FPC two one two four nine three, resolution to approve the 03/10/2026 meeting minutes.

Is there a motion on this matter?

So moved. Second.

Second? Okay. Great. Any discussion? Alright. I'll take a voice vote for this item. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye. Alright.

That's all of us. Motion carries. Director, please proceed with the agenda.

The third item on the agenda is FPC two one two four nine three, communication relating to the minimum service requirements for the police sergeant promotional examination. And, madam Sharon, with your permission, let's give a brief overview. Excuse me. So this was referred, I I think, at the second meeting in April to this committee. The recommendation that I'm making in this respect is to shorten the continuous service requirement for the sergeant position from seven years to to six years.

Historically, this was set at five years, And then I believe in 2019, at the request of then chief Morales, this was increased to seven years. Seven years is at the upper end of what is the a reasonable range for the sergeant position. Typically, my understanding at least is nationwide, the average is around five years. So this recommendation would bring us more in line with that. It's consistent with a separate recommendation that was made by a former FPC research and policy analyst Barbara Cooley back in 2023.

And although she recommended the five years, the department police department has indicated that it would be more comfortable with six years going forward. So that's the reason why I selected the number six. You should also note that we've received a letter from the Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, which had an alternative proposal. And I think that the the alternative proposal was to to, excuse me, to reduce it from seven to six years, but only for those members who are currently police detectives and that they would prefer that rather than the the general reduction for all members. We do have a representative of the MPSO with us here today, Chris Martin.

I'm happy to answer any other questions that you have. I would also add that it's our it's still our goal to do police promotional exams on a two year cycle. We did detective and lieutenant last year. It's we're doing sergeant this year. We're a little delayed due to other other test testing that we've had to do, but it's our our our plan to bring the sergeant job announcement bulletin to the full FPC board at the next meeting on May 21. And we're hopeful you can give us some guidance as to whether or not it should be six or seven years, in advance of that meeting.

Okay. Great. I have a quick question, which is where is the push for decreasing the years coming from? FPC, MPD, one of the unions? What's happening?

Originally, it was from f myself as well as FPC staff. We had discussed it. We feel that seven years is is excessively long. Members have to wait, that amount of time when, I think many of them are ready and able and willing, to do it after five years or six years, and this would, just make that time period a little bit shorter for those members. Again, that's the national average, and I think seven years on the upper end of the scale in terms of what's reasonable. So FPC staff and myself believe it should be reduced to, to six years. We did we did we did discuss that again with the department.

Hang on one second. I think, Evans I don't think you're muted.

I'm not talking.

I'm not hearing you sound.

Oh, that's not hearing you. Nope.

Where's the soundcom oh, Miriam. Miriam.

Yeah. I'm on I'm on now.

Oh, okay.

So you

you might be getting some feedback if you've joined

I think she

virtually.

I see what happened. Okay. Sorry, Evans. You're the only one I can see from over here. My bad. Okay.

Department concur. And, again, the MPSO has a a different take on the matter. I I forwarded this memo to the Milwaukee Police Association. I don't believe they ever weighed in on on this recommendation, though.

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

Madam chair. Yep. Just for the record. So FPC, MPD are basically in alignment with this request? Yes. Okay.

MPD leadership.

Yeah. Yes. And the FPC staff.

Yeah.

Okay. Any other anything else, Jamie?

No.

No. Commissioner Evans, do you have anything on this one?

Yeah. Just for clarification. So these are just primarily, for detectives looking to move into the sergeant position. No?

No. No. Just to clarify. So right now, in order to be eligible to take the sergeant promotional exam, you have to have seven years of continuous service with the Milwaukee Police Department as either a police officer or as a detective. So it could be seven years as a police officer, or it could be seven years with some combination of a detective and police officer, or it could be just seven you know, it could have been a detective for over seven years as well, and then you would would certainly be eligible.

Right now, you have to be a police officer for at least three years in order to test for detective. So that's, where the seven years comes in. It can be, any combination of police officer or detective.

I think he's asking about the MPSO.

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

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions, commissioner Evans?

No. That's it.

Comments? Okay. Commissioner Horowitz, do have anything on this item? Miriam? I'm gonna guess no for now, or she can't hear me also seems possible.

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

So I'm wondering, like, I know there's issues with how long it is. It's out of step with the national thing. So I think I'm, like, for this movement down to six years. But I also and I, you know, there's been a lot of stuff about I think very understandably, a lot of stuff about detectives and, like Mhmm. We have a lot of people who wanna be sergeant and MPD. We are having less people who wanna be detectives partially because of, like, the structure. And I'm I really am not on team. You should go straight to lieutenant if you're a detective. I'm not. I I don't agree. But I do think it is true that detectives like, I get why MPSO is saying the did I say the acronym right? It's hard because m s o e, MPSO, MPA. Like, I get them

all. Mhmm.

Okay. Yeah. So so I'm wondering if the suggestion that MPSO applied or said in this letter could be shifted so that, let's say, it takes six years to be sergeant. But if you've been a detect for two years, you can go at five. You get what I'm saying?

I do. And so I I should have mentioned this too. The last file on the agenda, which is titled communication seeking or relating to substitution of up to one year of required experience for the sergeant position in exchange for higher education degree, field training officer service, and or leadership courses, was in that that that type of vein, so to speak, where what my hope was was that we could, for the upcoming sergeant exam, reduce the time period the global time period from seven years to six years. I do think it is worth having a a discussion if members should also be allowed to substitute one year of sir an additional year of service for other things such as, you know, a bachelor's degree, time as a field trainings excuse me, field training officer service or leadership courses. Another thing that could be considered, although it's not specifically stated in the in the file title for number five, is time as a detective.

My thinking, though, was that we could make this change going from seven to six years for the upcoming sergeant exam and then continue to have further discussions for future exams about an additional service requirement for future exams.

But

No. I didn't I I do I'd well, to be perfectly honest, I wasn't sure that the commission would be in a position to have an opinion on whether or not that's a good idea or bad idea of

this a good opinion.

Amount of time. So okay?

Okay. So I think Miriam's back in. So, Miriam, do you have any questions or comments on this before we get into it a little further?

I think I missed out when you asked the question, why is this, up for discussion at all, and, I I missed who who brought it to our attention.

Really, it sounds like FPC staff.

Oh, and what is the advantage? Why why is there even I mean, why are we even doing it? Who's what's the rationale from staff for doing it?

Sure. It's it it's my opinion and, I believe the opinion, of some other FPC staff that the seven year continuous service requirement is a bit too long, in in terms of fairness to members and giving them opportunities for advancement in a reasonable way. The national average appears to be around five years, within the reasonable range. Seven years is on, the higher end. It's it's not that we're hurting for candidates for the sergeant position, but I do think shortening the time frame would be appreciated by members, would be would would open up the the opportunity to to younger members and and future leaders in a way that would not be harmful.

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

Okay. Okay. I I do get all that, and I I don't disagree. But why not just reduce it to six years across the board? Why are we getting involved with detectives?

Well, that that is the recommendation from FPC staff to reduce it from six to seven across the board. The MPSO had an alternative recommendation, which was to reduce it from six to seven, but only for those members that have detect at least two years of detective experience. I think commissioner or chair Spencer was discussing the possibility of, you know, a general reduction to six years and then perhaps an additional reduction to five years for members that have detective experience. But I'll

Yeah. So that's right. So the MPSO was making the recommendation to sort of they I think because you're you're I'm not gonna make your argument for you. I'm let you do that. But No.

The second. But I was suggesting so I think we have kind of an issue with detectives that's has two different pieces. One is they really do have a different kind of experience than officers because they do run scenes. And so I think I think that sort of scene management, which is inclusive of telling officers what to do, is, like, a helpful I think they have a little more experience, basically, that would lend itself to being a sergeant. Then there's this other issue where, like, people don't really want like, people aren't climbing over themselves to get to the detective rank because

Yeah.

You have to do this kind of extra or different thing to get to sergeant. It's not a straight shot. Not right. So they're like, why not just stay an officer and become a sergeant? So Okay. I I think

Go ahead. I well, I'm I'm wondering why I mean, bifurcating it so that some people have seven years and some people have six years, that doesn't seem like it'll go over very well. You know?

Well, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that it be universally dropped to six years and that detectives get an additional bonus year so that they can go at five if they've been a detective for two years.

Okay. I agree with you.

Okay.

I do I agree with you. I think it should be six years and that the detective's situation would improve perhaps if they have, some incentive to still be a detective.

Right. Okay. Mhmm. Madam chair. Maybe he can't.

So just a question then. So with detective, is there you you mentioned this. We're struggling to get people to take the test to be detective?

It's just not as, like, robust as a list. I think people are doing it Okay. But not as many people as we've had in the past. Right?

So yes. So since I've been here, the first round of detective tests we ran was in 2023, and that had a really good turnout, I think, or relatively good. We had over a 100, candidates on the eligible list. When we did the test again two years later in 2025, we had significantly fewer applicants, significantly more no shows and fails. And I think, the eligible list had around 45 names, give or take a couple, somewhere in that range.

Early forties is what I was remembering as

well. So and I think over a two year period, we may use around about 40 promotional candidates for the detective position. It's also a position that we are required to increase up from about I think we have, like, one forty now ish up to one seventy five in the next eight years on per act 12. So there is some concern that it is a position that's difficult to fill and that an incentive would be helpful.

Yeah. Mhmm. Okay. So I I would like to ask Sorry. Just MPSF. Okay.

Can I make one

Sure?

Point? Sorry. So I do think that this would provide an incentive for people to sign up to be detectives because you get that year benefit. But the flip side of that coin is they can promote to sergeant one year early. So on the back end, you may lose a few more. My guess is that the benefits would outweigh the negatives, but I'm kinda speculating

on that. So you need it to be a continuum. And so if they're as they apply for detective on the backside of that, we need as they're applying for sergeants, we still need people to still be applying for detectives at a high clip or a

Yeah. Okay.

You wanna make, get more people, relatively speaking, increase that higher than you'd be losing people more frequently on the back end because you shortened the time period for them to promote to sergeant. I would think, again, you'd probably get more than you'd lose overall. Mhmm. But I'm I I I don't know for

sure.

I think testing every two years is also gonna be helpful for this. But okay. I don't know the right way to call your name when you're representing MPSO. Are you, like, the president or something?

I just called you and talked to.

Chris Martin. Alright. Come on through, Chris. Alright. Alright.

We're gonna make up a title increase.

Yes. I'm the police liaison.

That's it. Okay. Police. Yeah. So what do you think?

Lot of good discussion. Mhmm. I I you know?

That's Wisconsin probably disagree, I think.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, right now, currently right now, there's, you have about sixty five percent of MPD members, officers, and detectives that could take the test. By reducing it from seven years to six years, you increase your numbers, as in the memo by 64 members, which increases it to seventy percent. So theoretically, already at seven years, you have about two thirds of your members that could take a test, to to sergeant.

So that's why we like it at the seven years and then six years for detective to bring up, director's time point about, maybe reduce it to five years for detectives is that that flip of people get taken a little earlier, and then you're constantly battling yourself for more detectives when we're trying to increase those numbers because of act 12. Right? Act 12. Yes. Yes. We had nothing to do with that. But act 12. Act 12 numbers. So Yeah. That's so I figure you it might hurt it might

hurt moves to six. Everybody moves to six. Correct. Then you still incentivize people to be detectives because there's a little faster pathway.

Yep. And then I believe in previous discussions, maybe director Todd remembers, is when the the jump from when they brought the jump from detective to lieutenant, there's talk about preference points for detectives. Do you remember that, in that meeting? It was a Yes. Discussion in this meeting. That could be something that you guys could look at too.

Yeah. Yes. And that's something that I don't know that it's off the table, but it there's not haven't been more formal serious discussions. There was you know, truth be told, I was thinking that, you know, originally, there could be some preference points for detectives, but then perhaps the the service substitution could be an even bigger incentive. But I my my anticipation or my my my expectation was that it was going that portion was gonna be talked about at a later point. But Yeah. So I haven't really formulated my thoughts on that.

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

I don't think that I think that's enough incentive to change someone's know, to really consider career trajectory a a shift. I also think we have to be a little bit thoughtful about application of the of preference points. Like, I think we've been pretty laser focused on stuff that's outside of the position itself. Like, if you served in the military, if you went to college, like, if you did volunteer work outside of workout. You know what I mean? Like so I feel like using preference points for something internal like that, maybe it doesn't it feels like a mismatch to me. But

And then briefly, just because I was brought up earlier about, possibly one year of service credit if you're a field training officer or attended some type leadership training. Just because you attend leadership training doesn't mean you're gonna implement that in your daily life. Yeah. Agreed. You you go for forty hours, you get a certificate, and now you're a leader. You have to implement that into your daily life. How are you implementing that? That's kinda like how I like that, the previous, FPC testing for sergeant because you had go in there and you had to w you had to provide your oral resume. How did you do a leadership? How did you do this? And you had to provide that. Now can somebody stretch the truth a little bit? Sure. But, you know, but at least you have to demonstrate, you know, those core competencies of how you do leadership. And the FTL, same thing.

You have really good FTLs and you have really bad FTLs. How did how how do we judge which FTL is, you know, capable of getting this one of your service credit loan? Would it have to be all of them? So that's the that's kind of the things. And, you know, those are some things that are really near and dear to my heart because I was an FTO for a really long time, so I took very pride in that. And, obviously, I'm in a leadership role, so I have to I take pride in those those aspects too. So that's

Yeah. Go ahead.

Madam chair. So, like, here are my thoughts. So as I'm spinning, a few things come to mind. Like, one, act 12 is called the circular issue for us. Right?

Like, the mandates for us to do certain things, beyond our control. I do think creativity, is gonna be important. I think the the the blessing around coming down from seven to six and being more aligned nationally and and even potentially thinking about the five year or something gives us a good opportunity to to be seen as desirable maybe from a upper mobility when I think about the latter movement. When when someone becomes a, you know, rookie, a cop, and they get to think, oh, if I do detective in three, okay. Now I may have a pathway to sergeant a little quicker.

So, you know, as I'm thinking, I do think again, because we have to be intentionally creative, this this may be a way I love the idea of the five year, as a detective. Because as I was processing, then I was thinking people do detective to go to that next stage a lot of times. And, you know, and, like well, some people I've talked to. So I think that may work. So I'm just thinking that an alignment nationally helps us set us up for more success even when we think about some of the other recruitment strategies we have, whether it's, you know, some, you know, recruiting.

I forgot the term we used, but someone who's a police officer somewhere else, and they come here. And Yep. This may all, I think, help us, again, grow as a desirable place, I think, in the in the bigger picture. So, yeah. So that's where my thought is. So I kinda I like to go in seven to six because I think from a mobility ladder standpoint, it's more enticing. But I think it's even more enticing to think about what you said, Marie, with the five year for d t. So yeah.

I guess I wanna be really clear. Go ahead, commissioner Horowitz.

So the detectives for the five year requirement only have to show that they have accumulated five years including two years as a detective. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Or do they still or they so they don't have to make six years between the two?

I see. That's right.

Okay. I was looking at it. Maybe I was wrong. Looking at it that for continuous service, everybody needs the six years. But for detectives, they can use one year of detective rank to make up to the six years. Is is that any different than anything else that we're looking at?

That

Because they

Oh, sorry. For a new officer, that would effectively amount to the same thing because you would have to have been a police officer for at least three years, then get promoted to detective. If you were only a detective for one year, you know, that would only be I mean, it it would it would change things for newer detectives. Like, if you just became a detective a year ago and then you could substitute one year of detective service, you could be a police officer for four years and a detective for one verse but otherwise, it it just depends on what you wanna do. No. No. Nope.

That that's not right, though. Because I wanna keep the same thing that MPSO said, which is two years as DTEC. Yeah. Gives you an extra, like

No. I understand. But I think Miriam was asking

I know.

But what I'm the suggest the scenario you just mentioned, I think they would not be eligible. That's why I'm

Under what?

Or four years as an officer, one year as a detect. They they couldn't go because they didn't they don't have two years as a detective.

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

I'm getting

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

Okay.

Molly Molly. Molly. We're gonna hear from Molly now.

Okay. Good. Go ahead.

Yes. That is correct. So the fire department, you can substitute one year of service required if you are an HEO, if you are a paramedic, or if you have 60 college credits. So, for example, for fire lieutenant, you need six years of service. But if you have if you're a paramedic, if you're an HEO, or if you have 60 college credits, then you can use that as for one year service. So if you are a paramedic, you can test for lieutenant at five years instead of six years.

Yeah. But, alternatively, you could have a rule on the police side that says, if you have at least five years total experience of which at least two years is detective experience, you're eligible. Couldn't you just write it like that?

Sounds cleaner.

If that is the desire of the commission. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Okay. And that's what I'm just trying to clarify just to give them their options. So they could do it either way. Either require one year of detective service as a substitute or two years just as part of the minimum service requirements as an alternative.

Yes. If you're yeah. Yep.

My my and my suggestion, I wanna be really clear, is two years as a detective. And I also wanna be really clear that the motivation for this like, there is this motivation connected to incentivizing people to go in detective, but I do also think this would sort of honor the experience that detectives do in fact have that's different than police officers in their scene management. We haven't thought that that was enough to fast track somebody to lieutenant, and I stand by that. But I think that there is this management aspect of being that does better prepare them perhaps more quickly for being a sergeant.

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

No. Heather, looks like maybe he I see two h's.

Am I

what? Executive director. I'm on.

Yes. I see you.

Hello? Can hear me?

Sorry. Yeah. We can hear you now. Okay.

Yes. So we were aligned with the FTC recommendation on this for us. We like the incentive for, you know, people to be able to move more swiftly to a supervisory role. And it also helps with, keeping people in the department. We felt it was a a good retention tool. As for the debate about two years versus one year detective, you know, I don't think we're strongly committed to either one of those positions. Just, like, wanting to see the the, timeline reduced.

So just to Mhmm. Mhmm. Okay. So it sounds like you're saying you you all don't really have an opinion on whether or not detectives can go faster than everyone else to the sergeant? Correct.

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

Okay. Yeah. That's very helpful.

Okay. So if I understand if I understand the scenario now, if you are a police officer for three years and a detective for two years, you're qualified to take the sergeant's exam. Right? Yes. But if if you're if you're a police officer, you have to be a police officer for six years.

Mhmm. And so you have to put in six years of employment, and the and the detectives only have to put in five years of employment. And I'm I I understand the the motivation and the justification because detectives are, you know, increasing their skill set being a detective. But do you think the rank and file is gonna feel like that's kind of nasty? You know? I mean, they they have they've been an employee a year less than I am, and they're being given the same chance.

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

Yeah. Probably.

I would also say that this my guess is that this would apply to a very limited relatively small number of people because you'd have to get promoted to detective right after three years

Yep.

And then apply and for sergeant after two years and that the timing works out, and then you'd have to be at the top of the list. So it's possible you could sneak in under six years, but most people are still probably gonna be over six years anyway.

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

I am not here. No. I don't I don't know.

That's not that's not your detective still MPA. Right?

That is correct. Oh, yeah. Okay.

But it could allow a handful of people to test early, and then they may wherever they fall on the eligible list, they wouldn't have to wait another two years. So it could help some people as I'm as I'm thinking this through.

I I really I I wasn't trying to be glib in responding to you, commissioner Horowitz. Like, I really try not I think I personally try not to be in the prediction game about what's gonna upset people. Like, I think we as long as our reasoning is fair and makes sense and we can explain it, then that's the most important thing. And the fact of the matter is, like, we do have this obligation to get detectives in there because of act 12, our favorite thing ever. Right? And so Yeah. We gotta help figure out ways to get that done. And also and also, like most jobs, if you work different positions, your experience as you work up should be taken into consideration.

That's true. Okay. Well, I'm on board with it.

Jordan Hendrie, do you see any problems with this plan? You're the one that has to draft the job announcement bulletin.

That's a good question.

I support this plan.

Okay. Thank you. Very

cool. Okay.

Oh, okay. Okay. Let's go one more time around here just to make sure we haven't missed anything. Commissioner Evans, do you have any additional pieces on this?

Questions? No.

I do not have additional questions. I do support the plan.

Okay. And, commissioner Horowitz just said herpes? Commissioner Raimi?

Yeah. I I support. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. So then I I know this is a communication file, but you wanted if there was a consensus on a path forward that should be stated for the record. So I'm a do that now, which is it's, this group, at least, of commissioners, aspiring testing as part of testing and recruitment, it's pro shortening the window to become a sergeant to six years and incentivizing a little bit in recognizing the sort of experience and knowledge of detectives and saying that with two years of service as a detective, detectives could go as, the earliest at five years. Could write for Molly?

Can we just clarify that you are replacing one year of service requirement for two years Mhmm. As a detective? Just let Jordan Yeah.

You repeat that?

Yeah. This is a language thing that's coming up. Yeah. The Yeah.

The minimum service required for sergeant will be six years. However, detectives with two years of service can substitute one year of the six years required.

Legal you know, HR HR language, we'll let them work it out.

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

I think it's

they don't do they need a total of six years somewhere down the road?

I think the goal is to make it comport with the way they talk about it in fire so that the the language in the job postings is uniform. Right, Molly?

Yes. Yes. The effect will be the same, and we can give some FAQs maybe to just about how to communicate that to members.

Okay. Okay. Well, I think, generally speaking, firefighters are more adaptive to saying, oh, is that what that means? I I agree with you than officers are. Because the if it's but we have to see the language before we would know that. I I I'm kind of putting the cart before the horse.

Well, I think we'll be voting on that. We'll be voting on. Right. The job posting. Yes.

Job announcement. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

Alright.

Okay.

You're on this.

Great. Thanks, everybody. Please proceed.

Are

you good? Do you have anything else? Sorry. I should have checked with you.

Leave this the next topic too. Reducing it from

You're mess it up.

If I Hang on. I if

you can

The next item on the agenda is item four, FPC two one two five one zero. Communication from FPC staff relating to the minimum requirements regarding discipline for the sergeant position. So this item did not originate from FPC staff. I met a few weeks ago with members or representatives from the Milwaukee Police Association. They raised a concern about the disciplinary requirements for the sergeant promotional exam.

Currently, a member you know, it's it has been a seven year continuous service requirement, and the requirements regarding discipline in the past have stated that you if you have five or more days cumulative days of suspensions during that seven year time period, you are ineligible for the exam. The to take the sergeant exam. Now that could certainly be appropriate within or for in certain circumstances. Their argument, though, they've been the the MPA, was that if you get five days in your sixth or seventh year, you know, you won't be eligible then until thirteen or fourteen years into your career to test for sergeant. That could be half your career or more.

And, you know, there may be categories of misconduct for which that would be sort of, so to speak, an unfair second punishment. For example, if you totaled a squad car got a five day suspension in your sixth year, it's kind of the the primary example of that. How often that happens is somewhat unknown. I did think even though this didn't originate with me, I I did see the merit or that there were some merits to their argument. I do believe in some cases, could be a little unfair to have your promotional clock start over entirely if it's running for a seven or even a six year period.

So I what I came up with is my recommend And I am recommending this, although I don't I I would not say I'm strongly recommending it, but I'm just recommending it, would be to to modify this so that if you had five or more days, cumulative days of suspension within the last two years, you would be ineligible. You would also be ineligible ineligible if you had fifteen or more days within the, seven or now six year time frame. So what that would do is, you know, if you had five or more days but less than fifteen, say, you know, for example, this squad car, totaling, example, and you caught a five or six day suspension, you would miss a promotional exam. You'd be ineligible for two years, but then that would allow you to be eligible in the next promotional cycle two years later. So it wouldn't be a six or seven year ban, but only a two year ban.

Now that said, if you got other discipline or a a larger suspension of fifteen or more days, then your clock would restart. So it would be correlated, so to speak, with the length and presumably the severity of the discipline. This would not take away the FPC's ability to, on a discretionary basis, interview members with less serious discipline or or less time of suspension days and still decide that you don't think that they're ready to be sergeants based on their, their discipline history, but it would allow them to take the exam and potentially be eligible. Again, I'm not strongly recommending this, but I I do think this would make it a little bit more fair. That said, whatever the commission ultimately decides, I I, of course, will respect and and agree with.

I I would add that I did run this by the police department. They they did not have an objection to it, but they indicated that they would prefer that it if you are gonna do this, you not do this for this round of promotional exams, but do it in the in the in for future exams similar to the Cocroft points so that, you know, because we didn't do this for detective and lieutenants, last year that it start, you know, perhaps next year, or or for the the next round of promotional exams after this one. I'm Okay. Sort of agnostic on that point as well.

Okay. Thank you. We're gonna hear from both the, police department and MPSO on this matter, but I want to, before we do that, check and see if anyone has any questions before we hear from MPD and MPSO. Evan, I just let mister Evan shake his head. No, Rainey.

No. Yeah. No. I no questions.

Done right now. Yes.

And commissioner Horowitz also has no questions. Alright. So we can go with let's hear from the department then MPSO. If you have anything to add, Heather, chief is that

Just that sure. So, I mean, chief Norman is, more, supportive of accountability of his members. And so we recognize that his discipline metrics and his discipline decisions are indeed more days for offenses that in the past were less days. We are supportive for certain types of offenses that this consideration be made, And we're open to discussion if you wanna parcel out, you know, like, integrity offenses versus accident offenses or some type of metric to determine which discipline qualifies for this. But we are we do not object if a change was made like this to reduce the amount of time for, promotional consideration.

Okay. Thank you. MPSO?

We like status quo the way it is currently, the way discipline is. The way we look at it is this could be very about the fifteen day rule. Like, if days fall off, then you can be eligible. It could be Mhmm. You know, something where it could be best and then we say somebody's ineligible, then, you know, then his grievance is filed and all other stuff.

I think that becomes very convoluted. Talking with director Todd before, if you don't mind, I was just talking about it, is that the two years, the two years is designed to so somebody might be able to skip a promotional process. But the way it's gonna be written is it's if that list is extended and that person takes a two year, hiatus from being able to promote, if a list is extended, that person will be able to still take that next promotional test. Where if you include and possibly include some type of language where it's two years and must miss the next promotional exam, could be possibly if that's what you guys are looking at. Two years and must miss a promotional exam.

So because that's the design of the two years is because they theoretically, they would miss one promotional exam. But if a list gets extended, then Oh, I see. If a list gets extended, then they could possibly not miss a promotional exam and take the next one. So just some so just put the top of you guys when before you guys do that.

Thank you.

That's a great point.

Commissioner Rainey?

I just wanna say, so I will you know, Heather alluded to kinda what I wrote down. I would like to look at you know, like, brought up the accident, but maybe looking at the matrix to determine, like, what the offense is too. Right? Like, I think that's a more fair, like, analysis of someone's because if it is integrity, that's a lot different than I hate to say this. Hit a lamp. Right? Like you know? So I just think that would be the one component. I do think too, though, when you talked about, like, currently, it's the five five days, and then you said 15 or more. I I you know, I think still 15 is a whole lot.

Mhmm. And I think it's more I, you know, I think it should be, like, 10. Like, you know, if we wanted to do something like that, I think, again, accountability and looking at the factors of what the offense was. Because, again, if someone has been on the force, in the case, let's say, six years, and they've been suspended, like, 15 times or fifteen days, I don't care what it was they did. My mind is saying that's too much.

Right? Yeah. But I think if we say 10, but one was for, again, to your point, an accident, then maybe that's worthy of talking about. But I still think that is a lot of days if we're going to have any because I do believe as well the matrix were designed to to have accountability, but fair accountability for whatever the accident was. So so I would have to definitely, I think, look more into that's like, that number, in particular. So

And I think that would be totally reasonable as well. I was kinda thinking 15, maybe 10. And, you know, ultimately, 15 is where I came down, but I do think 10 would be reasonable as well. Just, to the point of, separating out different types of offenses, that's something we could look into. But I just in real just to be realistic, I don't know that we could get that done for this sergeant round, if that makes sense. But it's something continue to discuss.

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

No. No. I'm just, really picking back off, commissioner, Ramy as far as the matrix. And, you know, we do want detectives, officers, you know, to be high level morale people, integrity, people of integrity. And accidents happens. Right? We can learn from that. But in a lot of times with the integrity piece, that's just who we are, I think, in a lot of cases, and we want the best people. So I'm in favor of trying to look into doing a matrix and looking at that.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Horowitz Horowitz?

Yeah. I would say that's, reasonable, but I think I'm more I'm more concerned about disciplines for integrity and, you know Yeah. Things that are more to the heart of a person's character as opposed to, oh, they just messed up and made a couple mistakes. So I I'm not sure how you get there from here. But if if we can't get there for this round, is there some reason why we need to do it right now?

What couldn't we put this into more consideration from the chief to identify the Yeah. Identify the the discipline?

So I have some thoughts about this. I I'm totally against the fifteen day thing. I think that's outrageous. You have got to be kidding me.

Mhmm.

I think it's important. There's a lot of stuff kinda built in in the law enforcement structure that is completely unique to law enforcement that I have not seen in any other field ever. And the idea that that that's an acceptable limit is wild to me. So I wanna be really clear. I I I think that the path forward based on what everyone is, the commissioners have shared, where there's an interest in looking at the matrix and maybe how the matrix treats things that are like a squad accident versus other types of violations.

And I'm pretty like, I wanna be really clear from my perspective. That's probably the only differential. That's really like it's been a very interesting thing, and, like, I've really appreciated actually chief Norman's attention to the discipline at Matrix and, like, trying to kind of rightsize and and and do discipline better. I have been surprised as a commissioner, like, how many days someone will sit for a squad accident over sometimes something else, like disregard or something. You know what I mean?

And so I think the position based on what everyone has shared that would make sense for going forward would be to keep the status quo with the time as MPSO suggested. And then it's a separate issue to look into related to how discipline's being applied specifically around this issue of, like, a squad accident. And I'm not and I think we gotta be careful there too a little bit because there's pursuit accidents, and then there's, like, I backed into a lamppost, which we also see to be fair. And I think what everyone's talking about are the backing into lamppost ones, not the, like, someone's high speed chasing all the time, and they're getting reckless, and it's. And then there's an accident.

You know what I

mean? K.

How do commissioners feel about that?

Yeah. I think we it it has to be more discussion because to your point, I was just doing average in my head when you used set that number out loud. And if someone was spending ten days, which means they were spending every year of their career almost, which is scary if they're gonna be applying to be a leader. So I think, yeah, let's have more dialogue about it. Let's look at the status quo, I think, works for now, and it makes the most sense. So but I think we can dig into it because I do think there are some things that are anomalies to allow someone to say, hey. This that shouldn't be counted against that person, but let's take those as we look at the matrix. So So

you do do you still you still wanna keep the question of the discipline limits related to sergeant on the table or take those off and just talk about and say, we're gonna no. We're gonna do status quo, but let's talk about the way we'll tweak it is in the matrix. That's what I wanted. That's what I'm trying to get clear clarity on.

Let me what's the word you have you heard? Ponder that because, again yeah. Let me ponder. Because I hear what you're saying. Because my concern again is someone who wants to be a leader. If they've been suspended, that worries me. But what can be discussed? So let me let me think about it. I don't wanna talk it all out. Yeah.

I I guess I want the, to further bolster my point, I guess I wanna say, I think this is trying to solve for a problem we don't have. K. We got a ton of people on the sergeant's list so much that we're extending the list. People are are clearly able to get through this bar of eligibility, which is honestly not that hard or shouldn't be that hard to not get suspended for five days or more. So I think it's more a matter of a matrix issue than a

And then and that goes back to you know, then are we gonna create a problem that we don't to your point, that we're not seeing. Right? So I think you might be spot on. So okay. It may have convinced me.

Commissioner Evans, you got anything more based on No.

No. I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm hearing what you're saying, commissioner, Brie. As far as the status quo yeah. Yeah. But 15 is is ridiculous. I 100% agree with that. When you do the math

You said

Wait. I can't hear. Commissioner Evans. Sorry.

No. No. I said I I I understand what you're saying regarding the, the fifteen years. That's that's a lot. And maybe we do need time to, you know, kinda get this together, make sure we're making the right moves here.

Okay. Commissioner Horowitz, anything additional?

Yeah. Yeah. I think we need more more consideration than just the need right now. I would like to understand more how somebody with a with a poor disciplinary record, might still be qualified and what that means. Okay. Could you could you hear me?

Yeah. I can hear you. I was just thinking. So, I think what we'll do is hold us to the call of the chair, and I just wanna flag for everyone that Mhmm. There's only one more meeting of this committee where I'm the chair and gonna be here. So I think that it means the conversation will probably happen past when I'm not on the body anymore. So I just wanna be really clear about my position and why it is the way that it is. Yes. But I think I've gotten it across.

And

the next round of promotional testing wouldn't be until spring of twenty seven? Yeah.

If you if you waited to do it until after this round.

Which sounds like we are.

I was We didn't talk about that.

And I would say yes. I would say right.

Because we're we're bringing the the job announcement at the next

meeting. So You're right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Gotcha. Gotcha. I didn't understand. Okay. Alright. You good?

Okay. That's good.

Okay. Thanks, everybody, for the good discussion.

K.

Please proceed, director Todd.

The next item, item five, is FPC two one two five two five communication relating to substitution of up to one year of required experience for the sergeant position in exchange for for a higher education degree, field training officer service, and or leadership courses. I think the the title of the file makes it kinda clear given what given the prior discussion. Although that said, this might be moot now. But I guess the this would facilitate a discussion if there's anything else you wanted to give credit for, so to speak, or substitute allow members to substitute for years of experience. I was not intending that you would make any kind of decisions today that would go in the the job announcement bulletin that's gonna be at the next meeting.

But just putting this in there, for discussion either now or at a later time if, there was any other things you wanted to incentivize, like FTO service or, you know, bachelor's degree or or higher education's degree. But, I'll leave it at that for now.

Okay. Wow. Commissioner Ramey is really looking at me. Commissioner Ramey.

I'm not chair. But I'm not think no. Was looking at executive director because because this is kinda muted. Because if we're going to six already, this we would have to outline this Oh, yeah. To almost give them another year potentially on this.

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

Well, no. It but I I said that because I I assume that since you had, kinda hacked or come to a consensus on the detective thing that that was the only thing you wanted to do. But just to be clear, you know, for this proposal, you could only substitute this any combination of these things for up to one year total. Like, you don't get one year and another year such that you're eligible at three or four years, and that's how, fire does it that, you know, paramedic, HEO, or, 60 credits, you can substitute one of those, or more, but only for up to a maximum of one year. Okay.

So this is just to facilitate a discussion if there's anything else that you would want members to, you know, in addition to detective, be able to sub substitute for, like, again, a bachelor's degree or FTO service. But, my my my my suspicion was that you did not given, the prior discussion, but maybe I was maybe I misread that.

Yeah. Okay. I I mean, I, of course, have an opinion, but I will, I will take comments from other commissioners first.

Okay. Yeah.

Commissioner Evans?

No. No. I'm understanding, what, commissioner Remy and director Todd is saying, so that was my understanding as well.

Okay. Thank you. Chair Horowitz?

Yeah. I think that well, I'm hearing that this is gonna be subject to more discussion, so I'm in favor of that action on this. I haven't I you know, I I think that another issue is whether or not they need some they on this rank and file, need some advanced notice if we're gonna make this change. Because if you change things too close to a a deadline, it it gets a little difficult for people to understand what you're doing. So that's that's what I think.

Okay. Thank you.

Mhmm.

So I do not like having field training officer or leadership courses included in this. You already get a higher ed bump preference point when you come into the department. You get preference points with that if you have higher ed. If you got a degree of either bachelor's or an advanced degree while you're an officer, I'm not quite sure how that shows up, but I think it probably shows up in how you're rated as a as your promotion you know, how your promotion exam and responses go. Field training officer who gets to be FTOs is controlled entirely by the police department.

Who is allowed to go to leadership courses during work also controlled entirely by the police department. And so I worry that there's kind of a backdoor way of baking in preference for the department that I'm not comfortable with. I also wanna flag the same concern I have stated, like I'm sure m p PSO sick of me. But about variability with sergeants is also there's massive variability with FTOs as well. And so just to exactly, Chris, you made this exact point.

Like, just because someone's an FTO doesn't guarantee that they're a good FTO. And so I I don't think that that's in the same way as some other things. So heard that we're I think we're gonna also do this through the call of the chair. I don't think we need to vote on it.

Why is that

okay. So I don't know. Oh, sorry. I didn't give the police department. Heather, do you have something you wanna say about this item? Chief of staff up. Sorry.

No. I do not.

Okay. Okay. And you're good MPSR. Okay. Alright. Well, it's held to the call of the chair, so we can proceed.

And that concludes the agenda.

Hey. Oh. Alright. Okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Move.

So move. So move.

Second. Okay. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

That's everybody. Motion carries. Thanks, everybody. We stand adjourned.

Thank you. Bye

bye.