Steering & Rules Committee - Regular Meeting

you Thank you. you

Agenda for the Steering of Rules Committee. I am Alderman Jose Perez Chair. I am joined by Alderman Marina Dimitrievich, Vice Chair, Alderman Bauman, Alderman Russell Stamper, Alderwoman Malele Acogs is excused. Alderman Scott Spiker and Alderman Deandra Jackson is here. He'll be with us in a moment. And we're also joined by Alderwoman Charlene Moore. It is approximately 1.37 p.m. today, Monday, June 2026. And we'll get right into it. And item number one, file 252. 242, communication from the Milwaukee Police Department and the Department of Neighborhood Services relating to the decline in nuisance letters of 8010 chronic nuisance premise letters. Could you please join us? I did want to say that we don't have an overflow room. The other room is being used for another committee. We will be taking, excuse me, I'm sorry. We will be taking testimony just at the beginning. It'll be the only testimony we'll be taking today will be on this file from the public. And then we'll take that information and we'll put it into the record. So I know that I coordinated with Common Ground a couple folks to testify. Can you come to the front and testify, please? Yeah, just, what is it, two people? If we can just make room for our folks to testify. Sorry about the confusion. We wanted to take the testimony and then go into the final.

Oh, you want to take the testimony first? Yeah, my fault.

Sorry about that. And just to set the tone, I mean... Some of these, this request for this communication was really based on, I know that I made some inquiries in 2024 about the amount of nuisance letters that I know District 2 that I was receiving from my district. And in the process, we've had communication from several of our community groups and members about nuisance issues in our community and Earlier this year. I know that I signed the pledge along with many other elected officials with common ground It's a reason we wanted to get your testimony first and about the work you did I know I signed that the mayor did uh all the women's all the persons samaripa and uh kent laverne so we do have some traction and wanting to move things forward and we want to take your testimony put their front center and then all of us can react to that as we communicate how we move forward so thank you sorry

Thank you to the committee and thank you to the council. Good afternoon, I am Gabriela Diaz of Common Grounds Strategy Team and Southside Action Team. My comments pertain to several of the files today. Our message is use and improve the 80-10 nuisance ordinance to make our neighborhoods safer, to hold corporate landlords accountable, and to recoup funds for MPD. Common Grounds submitted a nine-page evaluation of 80-10 to the file with three concerns and nine recommendations. This is part of our Southside Safety Campaign. Last year, we conducted a survey and 1,057 Southsiders said crime is hurting their lives. In April, we launched a five-point safety plan signed by our members and officials like Major Johnson, Council President Perez, Alderwoman Samaripas, City Attorney Goike, District Attorney Lovern, MPD District 2, Captain Mejia, and others. Thank you again to those who signed. The fourth point of our safety plan is policy reform. That is why we are here. 80-10 is one of MPD's most powerful tools to hold property owners accountable and to recoup service costs at problem properties. But in eight years, between August 2017 and August 2025, 80-10's usage has declined and has been inconsistent. In total, 991 nuisance letters were sent to property owners in that time. 150 letters in 2018, but just 46 in 2025. Less than one-third of the amount without a similar drop in crime. Some MPD districts like District 2 have been relatively consistent with 80-10, whereas others like District 7 reported zero nuisance properties in the last two years. In the last two years, according to records we obtained, Let's be clear, 80, 10 works. The city itself says 81% of cases are resolved without any billing for services, 81%. Concerns like evictions or foreclosures are rare and overstated. In our analysis, Common Ground found thousands of properties that theoretically met the 80-10 threshold, but were not declared such, thousands. Probably not all of those should have been nuisance, but we suspect hundreds should have. How much money might MPD have recouped if they were? How much safer might our neighborhoods be? Additionally, we calculated that 48% of 80-10 properties are owned by corporate landlords with 10 or more units, with Verrata and S2 topping the list. This helps explain why S2 Realty, the largest Southside landlord, was able to operate a drug trafficking ring under the city's nose. Just seven S2 properties received a nuisance in the eight years of records, with 13 others qualifying but not designated as such. We need our city to be proactive, not reactive. We are constantly told, call the police. But this is a two-way relationship. We residents of Milwaukee need to see that calling makes a difference. In particular, corporate landlords must be held accountable. We cannot allow them to continue to extract rent, make our neighborhoods unsafe, and rob MPD resources. Our nine recommendations would improve 80-10. In particular, if MPD created a standard operating procedure for 80-10. tracked confirmed calls specifically, tracked Part 2 crimes, and conducted officer trainings on 80-10. We detail our recommendations in the report. Use and improve. That's what we want for 80-10. Use and improve NPD's most powerful tool for holding corporate landlords accountable and making our neighborhoods safer. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Yesterday, Common Grants talked with tenants in three properties that made the non-issue a threshold, but did not receive a designation. The properties are owned by corporate landlords. Here is what we heard. Story number one from Alderman District 12. My name is Sylvia King. I live at 2519 South 13th Street, a property with eight units. I have lived here for over a year with my six-year-old daughter. Since day one, I have problems with crimes. There was the man hiding on the inside steps. There was a trespasser yelling in the hallways at midnight. There was the gun poof on my boyfriend just outside. It's ridiculous. I wish my daughter had a safer place to grow up. We call and call, but nothing changes. Please do something. According to MPD records, Ms. King's building had three crimes, two assaults, one car theft, and five calls for service. For assaults, one weapon in November 2024. Story number two Alderman District 8. Five tenants are needing group loves on 21st and Pierce said we do not feel safe. There is no security. The gate in the back it's broken. A woman was stabbed to death a few years ago. People addicted to drugs roam our hallways. They shoot at each other. We regularly see people outside of our doors in the early morning. People sleep, pee, and go number two on our stairway. It smells terrible here. The trespassers are like zombies from drugs. They steal our packages. We keep baseball bats by our front door just in case. It didn't used to be like this when government management, the property security was present. The gates worked and the doors stayed locked. There are a few problem tenants, but it's mostly a management problem. Management is never here. When they are, they go to the office, close the door, close the blinds, and don't talk to us. We want the city to hold our landlord accountable so we can feel safe again. According to MPD records, the Needy Group Loves had five crimes in April 2025. One homicide, three assaults, and one criminal damage. And 10 calls for services in December 2024. Six assault, two weapon, two threat. The Needing Group Lofts are owned by the Michaels organization in Camden, New Jersey. Michaels has six properties in Milwaukee, 457 total units. Michaels also operates the Wesley Scott Apartments, which was in the General Sentinel for non-interest conditions last December.

And to summarize, we submitted a third story from Alder District 4 of Windsor Court, where tenants, 11 of them, suggested similar concerns with safety.

Thank you. One quick question. We appreciate the testimony and I'll say that there might be an opportunity where we need state law changed and I think we need everyone who's here today to really work to state legislature to provide the tools that we can't do at a local level to ensure a higher accountability for Landlords in our district, so I want to hear from you guys that you're willing to work at with those state legislator to help us Well, we can't change anything locally what we can do at a state level to create some real change We would love to strategize with you all and I could just ask common ground would common ground Encourage state legislators where needed for legislative changes Appreciate your testimony Sorry about that, Chief.

If you'd like to come to the table now, we'd appreciate you.

For those that may not know you for some reason, do you want to do any introductions as you participate in the conversation?

I think as people begin to speak, because we have city attorney, police, just as you speak for the crowd so they know. We were having some sound issues too. Okay.

All right.

Thank you for being here, Chief.

Thank you. And Chief of Police, Milwaukee Police Department here. Just want to first start off by saying thank you to the committee for having us here to address this. I know that this is a concern in regards to city nuisance process and also how it impacts our community. I'd also like to say hello to the Common Ground, very familiar with the group organization. have met with him many times about this very topic, understanding that this is critical in regards to the toolbox that we use to hold not only, again, landlords accountable, but business owners and whatnot. This is something that is a tool, as we said, as Milwaukee Police Department understands in regards to the way to address nuisance or problem issues within our community. We use a number of different toolbox, I mean tools in a toolbox, nuisance being one of them. But we also understand that it's a bouncing act. We don't use nuisance to weaponize. It's not based off quotas. It's based off what we can use actionable for the particular problem at that particular location. One of the things I like to say is that overall, when we expand of about five and a half years, we have nuisance of about 515 properties and pre-nuisance of about 1,259 properties. So these are the numbers and the data points that we use within our own particular

I think if you pull the mic a little closer, it might help. Chief, thank you.

Is this better? Yes. Okay. So I would like to thank Common Ground for being here. So as I was saying, we understand the importance of using nuisance as a tool, part of our toolbox of holding those within the community accountable. As we had talked about in regards to the overall numbers, five and a half years that we have got these data points, we have used the nuisance process 515 times, the pre-nuisance 1,259 times. and this from 2020 to the present. The reason why we say these particular numbers, because it's not as easy in regards to the particular process to nuisance a particular property. The use of nuisance process is to make those who are responsible for that particular location, one, aware of the issues. Number of times, those who are in that particular location are not the actual responsible individuals for the particular property. And so it's important for us, which is why we have a pre-nuisance letter, of making them aware of the issues at their particular location. It's important that we are leaning into having a conversation with those who are responsible. What we call this is like a, in my former district commander days, a target team, a particular type of engagement, where we utilize a number of different resources, meaning city attorney's office, DNS, myself or the district commander, utilize DA's office, a number of different partners to talk about the issues at the particular location and to work collaboratively to, again, abate the problem. What we have found in many of these instances, and I can speak to this even personally, People do listen. They lean in, get that together in regards to where there is a problem to residents, problem behaviors, where there is, again, what we want them to do is to abate. We all know that sometimes it needs a little bit of a stern talking to and understanding, again, leaning into the particular response, bringing out what we call is abatement letter, so that basically they are able to, again, handle their particular issues. Uh, it's also important for them to understand that there's consequences that they do not change their attitude or behaviors. And so the pre nuisance, which is why you see more pre nuisance letters than there are nuisance letters because people really do understand that this is going to be a costly and could be a, um, I guess, terminate your business venture. Again, this is something that I do have experience in in regards to this particular process. As I look over here and see Alderman Bauman as his former just commander, this has been, again, a tool that has been utilized and, you know, you can say successful or not successful because a couple of businesses that we closed down, they're not functioning to this day. And so that's something to take into consideration. But we also understand that, you know, it's, important to get to the nuisance process where we work collaboratively with the city attorney's office we do have a great relationship and that we are going to lean into a process which we have to remind our community is not an overnight process as in a citation where you can get a citation and maybe have a court hearing within a couple weeks a nuisance process is a long and very detailed process rightfully so because of the level of consequences for that but we also understand that this is part of our toolbox some of that again this department braces i have my just commanders here with me in regards to talk about anything in the specifics but this is something that we do embrace i have no love for any particular resident business owner uh... company who brings harm impacts our communities in a negative way they have no friend in me accountability is real it is important for me to say that we do lean into this But, and I appreciate your conversation with Common Council President Perez in regards to we always can do better. One of the things I found that we have, again, the cost of service list where we have what we consider the higher numbers that we need to make sure that we are regularly reviewing and ensuring that we are digging down into those particular properties that have a number of costs for service. With that in mind, though, just because you have a number of costs of service at your particular location does not qualify as a nuisance. Certain calls for service might be domestic violence related. That is not eligible for a nuisance. And so these are the rules of engagement and Chief of Staff Heather Huff will talk more about that and a little bit more specifically that we have to be mindful that as we are counting up these particular what will qualify that they are recent and also they do qualify under the 80-10 status. We also understand that we do have to improve our communication with our political leaders and also our community. We always can listen more. We need to make sure that we're responding. That is something that the district commanders and my executive team understand. And we're always listening to hear what we can do better in regards to that particular relationship. But we are a partner with you all. We all understand that we do need to make sure that we are leaning into the suggestions and that we'll be responsive to your concerns. And so as I continue to talk about this in regards to that our commitment is here with our community, with our political leaders, we understand that we can't lean into the particular work. We do understand the rules of engagement is what we're bound by as a law enforcement, that we're part of the partnerships, and I will have Chief of Staff Huff just talk a little bit more about the nuisance process.

Sure, good afternoon to the committee. Chief of Staff Heather Huff for the Milwaukee Police Department and former Assistant City Attorney who worked on nuisance properties. I just wanna make sure my microphone's working all right because I sound really fuzzy. All right, I'm gonna just take the Chief's microphone. Is that better?

Yeah.

Okay. First, I do want to say the Milwaukee Police Department is bound, is it the television? Oh, okay, all right. All right, does it work? All right. The Milwaukee Police Department is indeed bound by the rules of the ordinance and our policy. We do have a policy related to nuisance property and nuisance premise. Anyone can look it up online. It is SOP 530, nuisance premise. And basically it outlines the steps of the nuisance process for our officers when they are out and about in the community dealing with these problematic properties and dealing with the complaints that come in. How do we get information about nuisance properties? Through the alders, through community meetings like crime and safety, through regular weekly meetings with neighborhood safety teams that include safe and sound that's out in the community at each of the districts, getting information from constituents, residents, finding out what are the quality of life issues. Generally, how these operate, and I'm sharing this with you and to the public, is that every week at every district, teams of individuals that include Safe and Sound, DNS, other city partners, the Milwaukee Police Department, talk about problem properties and creative solutions for addressing those problems for the residents. So this happens regularly, and this is how we get our information. One way, however, we saw that one thing we weren't doing, and this has been addressed with meetings with President Perez, is that we weren't systematically taking a review of our data to say what are properties that have three or more calls for service in a month, and looking at those calls for service, do they qualify for a nuisance designation or do they not? So with those conversations and with the conversations with Common Ground, thank you, we're supplementing our efforts and we're also doing a deeper dive into that data analysis requiring all of our district captains to review those properties and if they choose not to nuisance a property that is eligible to be nuisance, why not? So that is one new step we're taking. With that, I'm gonna just talk very briefly through what the nuisance ordinance does and how it operates. First, when a property comes on our radar, even before it qualifies under the nuisance ordinance, our district commanders are conducting call-ins with property owners. So let's say there are a couple of incidents that affect quality of life in a neighborhood tied to one particular property. Our districts are calling those landlords in hey let's have a conversation. We see some stuff popping off here. that's affecting the entire community, you may be on the road to nuisance, let's address it now. And many times, as the district commanders are here, that is all it takes. Somebody, a landlord might not be aware that their tenants are causing harm to the community, and once you put somebody on notice, problem abated, and we don't have to take it any further. When the nuisance designation and the 8010 ordinance is used, this is how it works. A property has to have three or more calls for service but there are qualifiers here. They have to be certain types of calls for service that are enumerated in the ordinance. Those calls for service have to be substantiated meaning it can't be somebody just calling in to complain to say something happened. The police have to actually verify that happened with some sort of evidence. Because we don't want people using it to target one another right. We don't want somebody continuously calling saying there's noise here when there's not just because they hit their neighbor. So we have to have those calls substantiated. Three in a month. And finally there can't be any domestic violence element to that call. So if there's let's say. allowed fight and somebody calls it in if we get there and it's related to domestic violence to protect victims of domestic violence that's not allowed to be used for nuisance. And also there can't be some mental health issues. I remember a couple of times. We had reviewed properties with a significant amount of calls but the caller had some mental health issues so we couldn't actually substantiate what that call was for and also there was definitely that element there. Another way, so three substantiated calls for service in a month or two very significant types of crimes that occurred within a year. So the three substantiated could be three noise complaints in a month. It can't be three noise complaints over six months. It has to all happen within a month. So if somebody has just one party, That's not going to trigger nuisance. If somebody has three parties in a month, that will. Or two substantiated big events like a shooting or drug dealing occurs at a property, that can also trigger the nuisance ordinance. The nuisance designation is made by putting a property owner on notice through a letter. Hey, you are now designated a nuisance property. You have 10 days to come up with a written plan of action that you deliver to the police department to abate that nuisance. and it doesn't necessarily require evicting people because we don't want to be, hey, get rid of the bad people in your property because we also know eviction is a problem in the city. So it is always a balance. Some abatement ideas, for instance, are we went and we substantiated loitering in the lobby. You need to lock your lobby. You need to get lighting in your lobby. If it's a big type of apartment complex, you need to get security in your lobby. There are things that property owners can do to prevent the crime from occurring or make it harder for crime to occur. If there's something happening outside in the yard lighting helps. There are different septet principles that can be put in place different types of you know cameras security cameras things like that depending on the location. And we're always willing to work with those owners once they get that letter. If somebody gets a letter that says you're designated a nuisance and they call our district and say hey, I need to talk through what's going on here. I want to figure out how to do the right thing. We're always happy to help work with somebody to make suggestions but we're not gonna write the plan for them. It's upon them to do it and they have 10 days to deliver it. Once they deliver it, the captain of that district reviews it, and if it looks like it's gonna address the issues, they say, you know what, this plan is approved, you now have some time to put that plan into place. So if it's getting a fence, you've got 30 to 45 days, there's a window within the ordinance, to do the things you say you're going to do. Or alternatively, the district commander will say, this isn't gonna work. This isn't gonna address the problem at your property. Then that owner is allowed some time to get it right and go back and re-present a plan. So let's say they give a plan, it's good. We allow them time to put those things into place and What happens then? Then we can't bill somebody because they're doing all the right things. So we have to allow them some time to see what's going on here. And if something pops off after they do all those things, we still can't bill them. We have to say, hey, your plan isn't working. Let's go back to the table and try to resolve this and put some more things in place. When does it get to billing? When somebody doesn't submit a plan and they say forget it we're not going to cooperate. When somebody submits a plan but then never implements it so they don't install the fence or the lighting. When somebody just completely ignores all of the steps that need to be taken or they appeal because there is appeal process due process rights to the ordinance and they lose. Then they go into billing status. And billing isn't for every time police respond there. It's only for nuisance type calls. And it's only substantiated nuisance type calls. And so this, now you can see it takes a very long time to get to this punitive stage. And then we can bill for police service at that time. So that's a very long story for a very long ordinance. And it is very complex because there are a number of social factors that go into this. If you're doing the right thing and trying to abate the nuisance we're going to work with you. If you're not and you're ignoring it and not doing anything well then it becomes punitive but we do have to allow a significant amount of time to go by to get into that billing stage and a number of steps to pass to get to that stage. And so when you see we might not do a lot of billing It isn't because it is a punitive ordinance, it is because there's due process involved and we have to get to that point. And oftentimes when police come knocking and say there's a problem, there is the desire even for bad people to say we're gonna fix the problem. And then we don't look further in certain cases because if somebody is working with us that's then resolving the quality of life issues for a neighborhood. So I just put that on the record to say nuisance isn't as easy as We want it to be for the bad situations. It is a process. We do use that process. We know there are ways to grow. We've added some additional steps to do that work and we're happy to work, our district captains work with Common Ground on any problematic locations. We get that information from a number of places and happy to get that from Common Ground as well and work through those issues where they've identified some concerns.

I'm going to ask, there's a lot of information, so I want to ask a couple questions. What what is what our strategies to improve what's going on because if you have a landlord who? Let's say depends on DNS to tell them there's something wrong with my property because you've been written up They follow through on abating the problem through DNS or they get a nuisance letter They're really up to no good, but they're they're gonna put in a fence. They're gonna put in a light How do I mean, what does it take? To sift through that so it doesn't feel like they're doing things under our nose because that's exactly what happened. And I'm on my third kind of big landlord where they've had drug empires, right? Churchill, the Gomez family, and now you heard the paper report of Sam Steyer. Part of this is what can we do to improve this to really... get down to to this not happening in our communities because they're getting away with it to a certain extent and we we need improvements to this process it seems to get the billing i know it's possible right i had two apartment buildings they were I think billed $9,000. They're out of business now from being property managers. I mean, for it to get to $9,000, there's a lot of damage that happened on Madison Street. So how, along with telling us what the process is, what can we do better to kind of get to the root of some of these issues? Because some of these guys are getting away with a lot in our neighborhoods. And they're damaged until we get to accountability so much after this. And then when people leave, it's even worse.

Well, I still say that the best thing is communication. I know that our district commanders are very out there in the community, crime safety meetings, being there for particular neighborhood walks, making themselves aware of, again, multiple issues they're talking about in regards to these particular properties. As I say, nuisance is one tool. We have other tools or investigations for these criminal acts that's going on in the property. We do have a robust working with our partners in regards to finding out there's other things that we can address in different ways, whether it's through DNS, DCD, through the city attorney's office. There is no, I guess, a pill that will take care of it all, but we can continue to work with each other, brainstorm. I know, again, I forgot about the work that Safe and Sound does, but there are so many other different ways. I always say, I don't want to say skin a cat, but there's multiple ways to be able to, again, address those who are chronic and actually making the neighborhood an unliving nightmare for not only the residents, but for those who come and try to enjoy it.

And listen, I want to thank you for taking a hard look, right, and saying, look, we're going to get better at this monthly review of these calls for service. That's you now. What happens if you're not there or six months go by? How do we ensure that that is always happening? We can count on that a year from now, two years from now. We know that this is always going to happen.

So we can look at the, again, our rules of engagement, because I'll be very honest, I had it back when I was a district commander. You know, we have a, you know, 2020, 2021, and 2023 are some hard years for us. I just keep, I mean, we, I've, I used to work in a homicide unit and we were beyond in regards to homicides in our city. So I will be admit that sometimes you take the eye off your ball. I mean, there's so many things that, you know, unfortunately is luckily in our rear view mirror that gives us more of a breath to look at other things that's been, again, quality of life issues. But 2020, 2021, 2023, 2022, we were dealing with some non-fatals that was, you know, again, in the stratosphere. Doesn't make it an excuse just try to level set this conversation, though, that sometimes, again, those particular type of tools that we have used have been, again, either, forgotten or we need to make sure that we're keeping an eye on the ball from a standpoint of the executive command staff and the commanders.

I agree with you. I think better communication and I think sharing of data, right? I mean, some of the reasons I would either question my nuisance letters is because the nuisance letters that I had on file didn't match the complaints, right? For me, that was a perfect way to say, hey, there's something missing. Are we not addressing calls? Well, what we're hearing in the community, but I don't know what you guys have to look at versus the complaints I get, right? And so the data sharing, how we share data, you talked about the pre-nuisance letters? Correct. Do you keep... Do you look at those and say, look, I did 50 pre-nuisance letters and we haven't had any calls for service after that? Is that data like you collect, you share then to say, look, this is how well the pre-nuisance letters are working, or if a pre-nuisance letter didn't work and there's a problem property, how do we go back and make sure that maybe they should have got a nuisance letter to begin with instead of a pre-nuisance one?

Yeah. So I will tell you the pre-nuisance stuff, that happens at the district level. And it sometimes may be a conversation and not a formal letter, and oftentimes it is a letter. And so the districts are tracking that data and that information and those properties within the district and keeping their eye on them. So I don't know exactly what their processes would be at the district, but I do know they do keep tally of all of their pre-nuisance properties and their nuisance properties and we're now asking them to take an ongoing, continual look at the data that's coming out from our calls for service system to ensure they're staying on top of that follow through on those designations. Okay, Mr.

Chair. All the way more?

Thank you so much and thank the community for being here. The question that I have is that is around the word substantiated, right? That it has to be verified. And I think this is the part that I particularly struggle with because my residents, I'm just like, number one, call the police because I can't roll up. I will sometimes, but I can't roll up. specifically in reference to, because many of these, like a drug deal in progress, these are not one or two or three priority levels. They're five or six or, I think it's only six, but they're at the bottom of the totem pole. So by time an officer gets on the scene, It's done. Folks have gone their merry way, but residents, whether they've taken, some of them will take photos and videos. How do we address that or combat that? Because again, you all have to substantiate it and verify that it's happening. So if it's a low priority and we just, and I know simply we just don't have the people power to get out immediately to you know, verify, substantiate these sorts of incidents. How do we overcome that? Because a lot of residents get frustrated because they're like, I've called, I've called, I've called, I've called. And they don't get there till, you know, very late and it's already said and done with. So what are some strategies or how do we best address something like that.

So continue to call because that's very important to show a record that there are complaints coming in on a regular basis about a particular property. Another way is get involved and get connected with your district. So above and beyond calling you tell the district listen I got these problems. at this house in my neighborhood and it's happening at 10 o'clock at night every Saturday and here are the trends and here are the patterns, here's what I'm seeing and once you get that information and that intelligence to the district, they will be following up so that even though they might get there not because something else is going on and they don't get there in time to substantiate at that moment, the more details you can provide as follow up that's going to get them there at a point in time to substantiate that what's going on. An example I'll give is when Chief was a captain in District 3 there was a drug house and a house of prostitution across the street from the school. And I was really troublesome for the neighborhood and there were calls for service and oftentimes with drug dealing, you can't get there in time to substantiate it. But those calls and follow up from the officers at the district in substantiating some of the drug activity and even what they saw when they went to the property, their observations, built a case for the nuisance litigation to bring something by state statute. So the calls matter, but the follow-up matters significantly because it can still be substantiated. It may not be immediate. all of this unfortunately it takes some time but any and all information a resident can provide to us day date time descriptive details is super helpful for us to then be able to substantiate something.

And so just to add on to Assistant Chief Steve Johnson of the Patrol Bureau. So with that substantiation, when the citizens are calling in, those are those data points that now my commanders can utilize to start assigning officers to locate and do some observation type things. When it comes down to that substantiation aspect, That's now when we may do an operation, and now we are that complainant, not alleviating that citizen from, you know, you gave us the when, where, so now we will do an operation and figure out, all right, we will do and put an officer at that location and make that observation, make some arrests. So now that's substantiated not only from... the citizens standpoint from putting us there, but now we have our offices on scene conducting the investigation, now make that arrest, and now that's most definitely verified. So I just wanted to, you know, when it comes down to those certain calls, that verification aspect is the critical piece and that number of calls that we have to have in order to put that place in nuisance.

And can residents provide information such as videos or photos? And if so, can they do that anonymously?

Well, they can provide that information, and then that's when we, each district has what we call our VCRT, Violent Crime Reduction Team, CARS, and most likely most of my commanders are tasking those officers to conduct those follow-ups when we get that information.

I do want to add, in some cases, we don't, if a citation is issued, right, to somebody, let's say there's a call, I'm gonna give you an example, a noise complaint. There's a party next door and it's 11 o'clock at night, it's super loud, and we don't get there in time. We may follow up and say, do you want to serve as a complainant so we can issue a municipal citation? If it's anonymous and that person says no, we can't issue a citation and then subsequently substantiate it, But if they say, yes, absolutely, I've got video and all this stuff, that can be used in municipal court and it counts. So yes, you can be anonymous, but also there are circumstances where you may not want to be because that then helps us substantiate, if that makes sense.

And I definitely understand that. I just know that some of the residents that want to provide some of this information, some of them just fear retaliation, right? Yeah. and not just retaliation from the individual. Some of them also fear retaliation from the landlord, right? Because again, those calls for services going against the property. So I think we just have to figure out how to be able to address some of these situations as well as how do we, again, make sure that we're protecting our residents. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Chair recognizes Alderman Dimitrievich.

Thank you so much. Can can residents use the police to citizen online reporting portal for these types of crimes.

No that is only for crimes where there is no suspect information and that is would not be substantiated. So those are for let's say your garage got burglarized and you have no identifying features or clues or any type of evidence about who did it. That's what you would use the online reporting portal for. Those cannot substantiate nuisance designations.

Okay. I'm having a little trouble with the data because the data anecdotally from many people here and what we hear in the neighborhoods is that there is an increase in this type of activity. And then we see a decrease in the letters by Aldermanic district. So like the stories and. The experiences are increasing but the letters are decreasing. What's in the middle there of the input and output is our community's experience. They're telling you and they're telling us and many of them call us because they're waiting for non-emergency phone calls. And so this has been a problem, and with all due respect, we're at a time where the state of Wisconsin has mandated the increase in police officers. And they're not understanding how, I know we're not there yet, we're still trying to get the classes, but please understand the experience. They're seeing that we're hiring and we're using more of our precious budget dollars, but we can't keep up with these non-emergency phone calls. And so in the end, who in the world could sit on the phone for hours to report this? It doesn't make sense to me, and I think that's where the frustration is. Would you be willing to dedicate some sort of dedicated phone number for this? If we can't do a portal, we've gotta be creative systematically and find a way to get these types of phone calls. What ends up happening is I know that there's higher crime, higher level that we have to dedicate resources to, but what I hear a lot is these non-emergency It's kind of like a disincentive that then leads to disenchantment and disenfranchising. I guess I'm feeling poetic here, but the point is people aren't going to call anymore, as they said, because they feel that their call is not going to be answered. It slants your data because you're thinking people aren't calling. So we've gotta fix this. This is what people are asking for, and I'm looking for some sort of response there.

So more than willing to work with the Department of Emergency. more than willing to work with the Department of Emergency Communications to find a way to figure out what might be a platform for dealing with these particular type of concerns. I know that this is an ongoing issue for as long as I've been an officer in regards to how do we continue to balance the resources with the needs and making sure that we're leaning into it, but absolutely hear what you're saying, ma'am.

Thank you, thank you for listening. I know there's a lot of Alders that wanna speak as well. Can we just specifically focus on if it's available to talk about legally, but on this S2 properties, I'm trying to understand how hundreds of complaints were filed and phone calls, I hope they were all answered. I mean, there was a highly sophisticated stash and trap campaign. where people were drugs were trafficked and humans were trafficked. And I don't understand how it got to this point. Like how do we get to this point. Were there was there nuisance letters offered before that. Like how many nuisance letters that asked to get. OK. So someone remember seven but like the public's trying to understand how we got to this point and how can we make sure that it doesn't happen again. Oh, we can't talk about it because we're in a lawsuit. Okay. Well, I'm asking a question, but I guess you don't have to answer it in public.

Good afternoon. Evan Goike, city attorney. I just flagged for members of the council, members of the public that are here and watching that this meeting and this item have been noticed for one of the exceptions to Wisconsin's public meetings law that allows the Common Council, City of Milwaukee, to convene in closed session to discuss potential litigation as well as the deployment or detection and prevention of crime. So some of your question older woman touches on items that I would be far more comfortable to answer in closed session because of the last point that you just made and and you know the several members in of that organization have been federally indicted and are facing criminal prosecution in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by the United States Attorney's Office what was publicly available in the indictment and the complaint was that there was a joint task force that this was a long investigation with federal agents as well as local law enforcement it it's fairly substantial and we can go into more details in closed session okay thank you other questions

I think you mentioned since 2020 you've issued 500 and some news inflators. Did I hear that correctly?

That's correct, sir.

Okay. Out of those 500, how many resulted in citations being issued? I don't have the information. Pardon?

I don't have the information at this time. Okay. Does anybody have that?

Is that?

I believe their DNS tracks the billing status because they're the ones that actually bill on our behalf. I don't know if you have the data with you.

Mike Bazmanian, Deputy Commissioner for Neighborhood Services. I don't have that, but I'd be happy to pull that annual amount.

Because I have a funny suspicion it's not a lot. And that dovetails to my next point, and that is the actual billing amounts tend to be relatively nominal. I mean, when I've seen buildings, it's $100 here, $150 there. And to a large, deep-pocketed landlord, that's cost of doing business. Which gets to my third point, and that is I see, at least with the nuisance letters that have come my way involving the 4th Aldermanic District, an increasing number of landlords just ignore it. They do nothing. They don't even respond. And then what happens? They're back in the billing status. And I'm just curious if you have any comment on that. It's great you're sending out 500 letters over five and a half years, but the real punch here, the real kicker is the citation.

So you're correct in regards to the rules of engagement. Remember, we're the police department. We follow the rules. I like the opening comment about if you want something different, then you've got to change the law. And so there's opportunities, whether it's from the city level, state level to do something in regards to what we find as shortcomings. What do we do with some of these chronic nuisances? We take them to court. And again, I talked to you with familiarity to you and also Alderman Stamper in regards to that we were able to use some of the information for going after these particular locations in court where there's injunctions and we're able to shut people down, which again, that one gas station that we worked together many years ago on the corner of Juneau and 35th Street is still closed. So there is other ways, but it's a process. It's not a quick fix. It's not a, again, wave the wand, only through our stubbornness to say that we're not accepting these behaviors going on, whether it's drug houses or there is bad businesses, but it's not something that overnight becomes an easy win for our community because there's still problems going on at the particular location, which is why I say that nuisance is a tool. just as it was mentioned from AC Johnson and also Chief of Staff Huff. We also still are working with task forces. We're still doing arrests and citations because we understand that just that particular item is not enough. i've been there i've seen it you can check the roles and see me go out in front of the house where prostitution on going on across the street from a school and i'm doing a press conference a this will happens when you are again a chronic problem but it didn't happen overnight sir and so you're absolutely right if there are things that we find a shortcoming The police department is empowered through you all to enforce the law. And so if there is not enough in regards to the actual cost, if there's not enough in regards to the teeth, let's work together. either at the local level or at the state level to make those changes. We're willing to work with you, sir.

I understand it to a certain extent, but it seems like a lot of these issues are largely paperwork problems. I mean, the issuance of a citation would basically involve, according to the summary of how the ordinance works, a determination that there's been a certain number of calls for service after a nuisance letter has been issued. Yes, sir. And then they be declared a chronic nuisance. That seems to be a paper activity, paper essentially reviewing records.

Yeah.

And then it's issuing a citation, which is a paper function.

Correct.

So, I mean, it kind of gets down. We've had a discussion about the PA-33. It's not to change the subject, but it's the same. I mean, to a certain extent, our ability to hold documents businesses and business individuals accountable to largely depend on what evidence we have in front of us and if there's, we've had this with tavern situations. where an older person will say, well, I've been hearing for years and from dozens of people that there's problems with this tavern and yet we go look at the record and there's one PA 33 for a number of, so some of this seems to be a paperwork problem and I don't know how you address that because it's individual officers being pressed for time having other things to respond to, and maybe the paperwork isn't always getting processed to create the records necessary to get to the more severe punishments that could actually get landlord's attention.

I understand that.

And we've been very open, police department, city attorney, DNS. We've asked everyone, please help us improve. We can't locally, and if there's some state change, that too. But yeah, I mean, even from what I understand in our meetings, sometimes there's lots of chances, lots of chances, lots of chances. Police fix, gets to court, then you think court is where It's gonna get tough and then it gets to municipal court and there's more chances after that there. So we're trying to narrow this down to be as efficient as possible. So we're asking for help. Absolutely. All the person Samaripa?

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your testimony today, MPD. I wanted to ask around the nuisance properties, what about, because sometimes we have constituents, right, that don't call non-emergency for a variety of reasons, but they let us know as the alders. Can we inform MPD, and would that affect those three, would that be considered one of those three touches?

So yes, Alders, please give us that information. But you just passing along information is not a substantiated call for service. However, it prompts us to take a look at that property in hopes that we can substantiate it. So if a resident comes to you and says there's this issue at this particular property and you forward it on to us for your district, district two, The CPU team gets that information and then officers are assigned to follow up on that information. And so it could result in a substantiated call or it could not depending on the outcome of that follow up.

And I'm sorry to interrupt just for additional context it was mentioned briefly earlier property owners when they received the nuisance designation may elect to appeal that designation to Arba and they can in essence challenge the designation to say I should not I was wrongly labeled a nuisance. So if you have three incidents that make you a nuisance and they challenge the first of the three, the city attorney's office provides counsel and will argue and defend the status, but we have to prove those allegations. And so kind of to, Take Chief of Staff Huff's point further, we can't simply call Alderwoman Zamarripa to testify about what constituents said she or he heard happened. We get these layers of hearsay built in that aren't going to be able to satisfy the burden of proof that we have to prove that they are nuisance. That is kind of the core of why we need we're calling it substantiation. Think of it as we got to prove what happened because the property owner can challenge the designation or can appeal the designation.

Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. Mr. President, I just wanted to make a point, especially because we have so many constituents in the room, that Justice City Attorney Gweiki pointed out. We certainly want to hear from our constituents about problem properties, but unfortunately it isn't sufficient. Justice City Attorney Gweiki pointed out we really need constituents to call these events in, in particular when they're happening. because whether or not they show up immediately, I know sometimes there's frustration because it's low on the priority level, so police might not come out immediately, that data was still recorded and could count towards getting to that threshold where it can be declared a nuisance. And so I take this opportunity with so many Milwaukeeans in the room to challenge our constituents to join us in this effort. I appreciate the dialogue and President Betta's leadership and MPD being here at the table to discuss the 80-10, but we really need constituents because I can't tell you how many times we hear a complaint from a constituent. We connect to see what the calls for service were around this suspected problem house, suspected nuisance property, suspected drug house, what have you, and there are no calls from anyone. And it's so hard for us then to do our work to get this property declared a nuisance if we don't have constituents helping out and making that call. Keeping a little pad of paper next to you so you can jot down any notes, so you can discreetly write down the specific address. These things are so crucial. And then calling it into that non-emergency number, right? 414-933-4444. I really want to stress the importance with so many Milwaukeeans in the room. We have got to do our part so that we can make sure that we are tackling these issues in particular with these huge out-of-state landlords that I know you've been targeting, which I appreciate that work and that advocacy. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Cox.

Thank you, Mr. President. And forgive me if this has been covered, but you... You classified the nuisance as three calls, 80-10 is three within 30 days, right? Whose job is it to recognize when that threshold has been met?

The districts the district ultimately the district commander but each district has a CPU a community partnership unit or CLO community liaison officers dedicated to keeping track of those nuisance designations.

And how do they keep track.

Well, so are you saying who's looking at the calls for service? Like particularly that is the thing that we're supplementing the work that we're already doing there based upon our conversations on how we can improve. So we've now required all district commanders to pull a report every month that's available to them. what properties in their district have three or more calls for service across the board and instructed those CPU CLO units, they have to review them and see are any of those nuisance eligible? Are they nuisance designation calls? Are they DV calls so they don't count? Going through manually, taking a look at those properties, And then every month, the district commander is going to be reviewing that now and saying, okay, these are now eligible for nuisance designation. We're going to make this nuisance designation. Or alternatively, if they say no, we're not, even though it's eligible, they have to give the executive command staff a reason why they're not eligible. going that route. And so that's actually new. That was a report available as the chief talked we had some challenges for a few years a lot of staff turnover at the leadership level. We're bringing that it is now a directive for our district commanders to do that review every month.

Mr. President, I would ask that maybe there be an open communication file of reporting of that annually or twice a year maybe. Sure. Yeah, by district. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Chair organized, Alderman Spiker. So in my district, we don't have as many perhaps as others. We have an all-star team of CPU and CLOs at our district. But I'm thinking in certain districts, if you're requiring manually reviewing every parcel that has three or more calls, that's going to be extremely labor intensive and will take them away from other things they have to do. So has there been any thought given to employing technology to do a first pass, a curation, there's this thing called AI I understand out there, that might be not the final determinant but something that would flag it so the CPUs just aren't waiting in paperwork?

We are interested in looking at anything that we can use from technology-wise, but we always want to make sure it's a balance. Now, we're aware of any type of technologies out there that can do that, but we will look into that and be very happy to have it be embraced by our leadership to help us out to make sure that we can use this for that particular reason.

Yeah, I would definitely take a look at that because otherwise we have this great promise, Common Ground, we've made an agreement that hey, we're gonna now flag everything that has three or more calls, so that will create hope. But hope without a plan for how to realize it translates into disappointment very quickly. So I want to make sure we have a commitment that goes beyond when we have the lights and cameras here and make sure this makes a meaningful change. There has been, according to the data, that was provided a fairly precipitous drop in nuisance letters, nuisance designations. It would be good to know what the explanation for that would be, but merely having a bigger pool from which to draw those isn't going to do the job by itself. I think Alder Coggs' idea is a great one. Happy to entertain that file in my committee just to see what progress we make with these nuisance designations. And then a last question here is, one explanation might be, I think you referenced, Chief, kind of pre-nuisance. So it could be that those are just scaring the hell out of everybody and they're responding right away. And so there's no need to go to the next stage. But do we have any data or anything we're collecting to show whether these pre-nuisance letters are having any sort of effect on those that get it? or to Alder Bauman's point, if some people say it's cost to do in business, maybe they don't react at all when they get the pre-nuisance letter. I'd be interested to see if there's any way to track that.

We can, and actually this is only anecdotally, but normally those particular type of sit-downs because of the show of the collaboration between our government partners usually is enough, and they put forth truly impactful abatement plans. Again, I'm very proud of the commanders behind us in regards to ensuring that there is that type of engagement, and so on, and seeing that there is pre-nuisance letters and then just regular matters, you can come to that conclusion, but we can look more into to get that actual one-to-one so that you can have a better understanding how it's working, how it's impacting in regards to our community. Okay, thank you, Mr. President.

And may I just add, Alderman Spiker, that all of our district commanders are available to you to have these conversations in real time. If you ever want to check in on what nuisance properties are in your district, what pre-nuisance properties, we offer to you that our district commanders are always available to have those discussions with you and keep you apprised. And if there's ever any issue, please let us know. Thank you. Any other questions?

Okay. Mr. President. Yes, sir. Yeah, hey, can you clarify the anonymous process?

Sure. Well, it all depends on what you're calling about, right? So, uh, if you're calling about a noise complaint and you say you want to remain anonymous, you can, but we don't know who to follow up with, uh, afterwards to substantiate that, say through a citation or get more information so that we can come back and make observations. Um, So you can request when you call in to the non-emergency line to be anonymous. Alternatively, you can provide information at the crime and safety meetings or going to the district and say, I've made these observations on this date and time. I don't want anyone to know who I am, but I'm letting you know, police. We'll follow up on that information. And that's another way you can stay anonymous. If you call in anonymous, we don't have much to go on to follow up. But you can also do it by reporting information directly to your district. So if you call in something to our non-emergency line and you don't get a response right away, that happens. We still encourage you to follow up with the district. Hey, I made this call. I know somebody didn't come timely but I want to give you this information and that gives us the ability to substantiate that activity as well.

Okay, so in the past, the residents have called, but the issue is officers knocking on their door. So can we please remind officers, after a resident calls anonymously, do not go to their house in fear of retaliation, knocking on their doors, asking for help. about the complaint. So that's kind of the issue I'm kind of getting sometimes. All right, thanks.

Okay, thank you. Mr.

Chair? Just really quick on that point that the alderman is asking. As the public, can the public call in, so if someone, let's say they're not anonymous, say they called in about a particular issue, can the public call in to say, who can they ask who that, get information about who that individual was. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Usually through open records. So only through an open records request. But yes, through open records or if there's a public complaint, you know, paperwork out there, but not just by calling us. It's not, again, part of our process to allow revealing any of that information, personal information. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair.

Obama Cox. And several of us, I know the President and Alderman Chamber and I have talked about this, but I'll just say as we're talking about nuisance properties, I would hope as you look towards the future and changes and improvements that you can make, that one of them could be that if the property that you declare is a nuisance happens to be an Airbnb, that you also notify the platforms on which they sit. Because while the state may limit what we can do punitively to them, the platforms can choose whether or not to continue to allow them to be on there. So if there was an automatic, that if we declare a property a nuisance and it happens to also be an Airbnb, that we also notify the platforms, maybe there would be more of them that would get kicked off of those platforms.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. We're gonna move on to Alderman Baumann, moves that we hold this to the call of the chair. Hearing no objections to order, item number two, file 252. 243, communication from the Milwaukee Police Department relating to collection, assessment, and reporting of part two crime data. You guys got a big splash today? You got a computer?

Okay, could you please?

Move quietly out.

They're going to close the door now if you want to.

Bye now.

Anytime you're ready, please. Okay.

So to this committee, thank you for the opportunity to present something. I want to give you a little bit of a history. So Alderman Perez came to the department and was talking about issues related to nuisance properties, but also the fact that we need to show the public information about calls for service, outcomes, and arrests that we make. And so his original request was, if a call comes in, how do constituents know the outcome? And we still don't have a way to track from call to the outcome of a case or anything like that because it relies on other system partners like the DA's office and the court system but what we can provide is calls for service and the call for service just a cursory overview of the outcome of that call And also arrest data. So anyone can look up any state statute or municipal ordinance and see in the last six months how many arrests MPD has made. And so I am pleased to have Lieutenant Krauski and Kendra Christiansen from our OMAP team who have developed these public dashboards able to speak to what the public is able to see and we thank Alderman Perez for the request because this is actually really good data to be providing our public.

Well, and before we move on, let me add a little historical context to that because it was kind of technically at the last budget hearing that I asked the chief at budget time to please help us look at part two crime more publicly because we get these OMAP reports and they were like for the month and we see a couple dots on the... on a map here, and to me it wouldn't reflect what people either telling me, the complaints we're getting, the stuff even at the crime, the monthly crime trend meeting like, and it was a lot of the tracking of what the FBI does for the part one crime, and I thought the community and all of us need to be better informed about part two crime. because people were seeing those stats, but it wasn't being reflected in the neighborhood, and we're hoping that now. So I want to thank you guys for meeting us where we're at now. Hopefully we can make this better. I've got to thank Dave Gettling from LRB, who was really instrumental on our end on the LRB side, really pushing us to think about this in a big way. So I think this is awesome, the little bit I saw. I'm hoping you guys can put this out there and figure out how we get better at the Part 2 crime and how the community Can see those quality of life calls for service connected?

To what they see every day in our neighborhoods and mr. President yes super briefly on that public safety We've heard a couple of different reports from the policy forum which shows that part two crime Tickets and such have dropped off a cliff and arrests and all that so that happened during covid but it continued after so i'm happy to hear the reporting but um that was something that we documented a couple different times as the precipitous fall and in part two crime so i don't want anybody to get the impression that the quality of life crimes aren't important because we don't look at them and we don't ticket for them anymore so thanks

Good afternoon, everyone. Lieutenant Mark Rowski from the Office of Management and Analysis and Planning. And first off, I just want to give credit. Actually, it should all go to Kendra and all the crime analysts. They're the ones who created this. This is way beyond anything I can do, so I definitely want to give them their credit.

That's why she's here, right?

Exactly. hopefully you also know that we also have three other public dashboards that are also available already the part one crime dashboard we also have one for our traffic safety unit that shows all the citations they've issued and all the crash data for this city and also for reckless tow data as well those are already out there so and these will hopefully be coming very shortly in the coming days So our CAD dashboard, actually, you can look up the past 60 days worth of calls for service citywide. As you can tell, you can look it up by the different event type. So you can start to type in, or you can scroll all the way down and just see that specific event type. We also, to make it easier too for your geography, if you're curious about just your police district, your aldermatic district, the neighborhood you live in, it'll automatically filter to whichever thing you select. And as you can tell, this actually shows the distinct count of all the different calls for service. Our new hexagon system has what's called event subtypes within an actual call for service. So it actually even shows those as well. So you can see the trouble with subject. There could be with subject, with family, with juvenile, so it shows that. And then the map shows kind of a hexagon. We don't want to give the actual addresses for places for privacy reasons for people. But as you can tell, the darker the color, that just means that there's more of those calls for service within that area. This will actually also show by priority level. So we have seven priority levels. You can select that, and I'll show in a few seconds, it'll filter just to that. And then with whatever you pick as well, it'll actually show what the ultimate disposition of, so in this case, a good time to try. With Trouble with Subject, as you can see, when you select it, everything now automatically updates. So it'll just show Trouble with Subjects on the map. which of those the priority level, and then it shows kind of the overall dispositions. And when you hover over it, it'll show you advise, if we were unable to locate the complainants, if it was filed, the police officers filed some type of reports, if a citation was issued, if an arrest was made, so and so forth. So, and again, to show once we click off that, if you are just interested in your neighborhood or automatic districts, Mr. President, we'll go with you at 12. And... Now, as you can tell, it automatically updates, and the map will actually just show as well the area as well right away for you.

It's too dark for my taste.

But the nice thing, like I said, you can select anything on here, and it'll instantaneously, if you're just curious about priority one calls for service, it'll update everything on this to just that. And this is something with the OMAP analyst, we should be able to update this basically every time, but weekends and city holidays, they just have to do one minor thing every day that takes about...

what 10 or 30 seconds they just have to refresh all the data but this will show the last 60 days all the way up through the previous day right away so it's going to always be current and up to date lieutenant could you talk a little bit about how detailed you can get with some of the part two grants so for instance i live on 13th and greenfield high traffic area for sex trafficking or mobile drug dealing if i want to look at this map what would it tell me or not tell me

That would actually go into the next one. That's going to be the arrest for that.

But someone looking to figure out, and my neighbor's calling, would just be able to tell them that?

Yes. So, yep, you'd be able to start to zoom in. You could see and you can look at your neighborhood. You can look at the last 60 days, like we said, and you'll be able to get a feel for overall how many different types of calls for service. And like I said, we included all the event types so people can scroll all the way through. Oops, sorry. And the nice thing is if the Department of Emergency Communications adds a new call type, this will automatically update as well. They don't even have to notify us. This dashboard will automatically include those new call types. Like when we included the street takeover call type, that now is automatically in there.

So if we see an uptick in any specific behavior, we can work with the call center to be able, emergency communication, to be able to create another call type to get very specific about that specific issue.

Yep, absolutely. And once they add it, it'll automatically be in the dashboard the next day once it's activated.

Mr. President. Alderman Stamper. Yeah, are you able to see the status of 8020 on this data?

No, they will not have the nuisance ordinance with that, unfortunately.

Okay. But to find out that status, you just got to call?

Yes, that would be to call the district commanders.

And that's not eligible because of privacy? It would argue.

No, so the distinction with like the 8010 ordinance is that it's not in and of itself like a citation or an arrest type of thing. There's, you know, this whole process and so it's not somebody can call in to say this is an 8010 call. These calls, these types of calls make an 8010 qualifier.

Yeah, gotcha, gotcha, okay.

Thank you, Mr. President.

What if looking at this, constituents have questions to get a little deeper, right? If they say, what does it mean to see that 50% or 60% were advised? Does that necessarily mean? Nothing really happened. A police officer showed up, had a conversation with someone, didn't feel it rise to the occasion of a citation or an arrest. What do people interpret from some of the data on here?

Well, for advised, each... situation is distinct. So advised could mean an officer shows up and the parties are having a dispute and maybe somebody's like, I don't really want anything to happen here, but I was angry. They have that conversation or they show up and it might be some type of landlord tenant trouble where There's ways that we can enforce certain things, but for the strictly civil stuff, we can't. So we might advise and refer them to seek resources. So it all depends on the type of call for service, and it could mean a whole variety of different things. It doesn't necessarily mean they did nothing, it just could mean they couldn't do anything.

We look at the part one crime, we've talked about this, and maybe this will dovetail us into the next. We look at it and we measure, oh, it's down, right? We feel much better about what we're doing. How do we look at the part two crime and measure what goes up and down in any category so that we feel the responses, the contacts with community, the coordination between community, we're making a difference in the part two crime.

Do you want to talk about just part two crime and tracking that data?

Yeah, so part two crimes, this is where it gets a little bit confusing. Part one crimes are offense or victim-based crimes. So that's where we have an actual victim. Part two crimes, you can have that, but now it's only measured through arrests. So there's a lot of Part 2 crimes where society is the victim. So it's a little bit different for the tracking mechanisms, but it is something that OMAP can track with our number of arrests where we can put out reports and things like that. It's usually looked at more internally because the list of Part 2 crimes goes – oh, man, Kendra, what – it's – It's extensive. It's way more than the eight part one crimes. There's dozens of them. So literally if we do a spreadsheet, you just hear continually scrolling with it. So it goes from really high to really low with that. But it is something that MPD can track internally to see if things are going up or down.

Is there a way to use this data that maybe there's a different approach to resolving some of these issues when you, whether you're writing tickets and nothing's happened or you've made arrests that then they become different strategies to coordinate with community resources, maybe health department, things of that nature that then the data tells us, hey, what we're doing isn't working. How can we try different strategies or approaches to solving these issues in the neighborhood?

So we don't have the ability to track anything beyond our arrests. So for instance the DA data, what they process, what they don't process, what they recommend to the court and all that stuff, that's DA specific data. And we can't tap into that and so track, to say, hey, we need to do something different because we can't track that outcome. We can only track the arrest itself, which will be the next dashboard that we showcase.

I'm just trying to be creative with the information we're getting.

And this will be the new arrest dashboard that we're working on. So again, we try to make the very similar all of our dashboards. So the public is they go to different dashboards. It's works the same functionality. It's very simple. It's like an iPhone. You can't break it. So you can pick whatever you want. Again, for this one, you can actually pick by statute. If you really know the ordinance number statute, A plus two, you can look it up that way. Or I think the thing people use more is you can actually start to type in and you can look at every single different citation or Wisconsin statute that you want to look for an arrest. And if you want to, you can break it down by if it was a felony, a misdemeanor, or if a citation for the arrest. And this one we were able to put in more data. Obviously we have about 250,000 calls for service a year, so that data gets really extensive. Arrest is much smaller, so we were able to provide six months of data for that. You can actually select whatever arrest date that you want. Unfortunately, due to limitations with our jail management system where this comes in, we can only break this down by zip code. But it does show it by zip code, and again, you can select, as you can tell, everything starts to update instantaneously once you select a particular zip code or area. It'll update the chart here at the bottom to show, so you can see over that six-month period of time, how many different types of arrests were made for that. And again, as well, too, if you're curious about a specific, we'll just select disorderly conduct. It'll again automatically update this bottom chart to show you what those look like. So we try to make this as quick and snappy and as easy for the public to understand as possible. But this will give you six months full of all arrest data with the city with that.

Mr. President.

Mr. Stamper.

Yeah, okay. Once you arrest someone, the result is what, a clearance or non-clearance?

for part one crime, arrests in and of itself, you can talk about this.

Yeah, so for this, this will show all arrests. So this could be for a part one or what would be considered a part two. So this will show all the different types of arrests for both part one and part two. So an arrest does clear a part one crime, correct, sir?

Okay, I'm trying to find out. the result of the arrest? For example, us alders need assistance to the judges by police making arrests and then letting them right back out. Do we have the data to show that we're making arrests but nothing's happening?

We have the data to show we're making arrests, but the rest of the data on what the DA's office does with those arrests, what the court does with those arrests, that doesn't belong to us. So the DA has their data, the courts have their data, and we don't have access to their data. We only have access, and we can only report out on our arrests.

So you guys can't match up data? You can't match up data? But you arrest somebody, what happened to this guy? How's he back out again?

I think for each arrest that whoever is wanting that information would have to then follow up and track with the DA's office and then subsequently the court.

Mr. Chair.

Alderman Cox.

Is there a reason that it's not more connected?

just different entities, agencies, and we don't, we're not the custodian of their records, vice versa, and so there's no way we can report out on what they're the custodian of.

An arrest and charge are different, correct? Correct, yes, yes. Wait, Alderman Coggs hasn't done yet.

I hear you, but I fail to believe that there's not a way for, especially going back to the fact I was saying earlier about the others, technologically, for those who have permission or access or ways in which access to information can be granted, I fail to see that there's not a way that stuff would be traceable that way. I know we obviously haven't done it, but I don't think that's impossible to do.

I know we don't have their data. So like we can't tap into what the DA is charging what they're not charging. So if we could come up with a solution it would require some type of connector to all of those things and the agreement of those agencies to do that connection.

Maybe it's not you all maybe it's the DA. who should produce that information. You see what I'm saying? But either way, I think it should be a way that can, you get what I'm saying? All right, thank you. I agree.

Any other questions? You have the data for multiple arrests on someone?

Correct, yes.

Are juveniles off this radar screen? Or does this track juvenile detention? Because juveniles can't be arrested technically, correct?

Correct. Yeah, they can be detained. This does include juvenile data within that.

So the stolen car situation that often involves juveniles, that would be reflected in this data?

Yes, sir. Okay.

Any other questions? None? Okay.

We appreciate the communication. Mr. Chair. Alderman Spiker. Mr. President. So can you send out the URL for this so that we can?

We don't have an actual assigned URL for it. We wanted to show it to you first. We do want to roll this out publicly and would like to work with the council in figuring out the best way to get it out there on the public's radar so that they can begin accessing and looking at this data.

You mentioned this in the meeting, but for the listening public, you said we're one of few cities doing this. Do you want to talk a little bit about that?

Yeah, we're not aware of, and I don't want to speak too far off the cuff, because we did try to just use Google and look, but it doesn't seem like a lot of cities, some will have their part one crime, some have arrests, some have CAD data, but I have not been able to find a lot that have the level of transparency that we have with our data with it. So I think you're going to start seeing a lot more cities doing this in the future, but I'd like to think that we're at the forefront with as much as we're going to be transparent about with our different dashboards.

Okay. All right, thank you. With that said, Alderwoman Dimitrievich will, I think we'll hold that to the call of chair if we ever need to come back to this. Item number two, file 252-243, hearing no objection, so ordered. Moving on to item number three, file 252-111, communication from the Office of the City Attorney and the Department of Neighborhood Services relating to the corporate ownership of rental properties.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I'm the Wake City Attorney. I'm joined by Assistant City Attorney Nate Adamson. I'll start just very broadly. The title of the file uses a corporate designation of property ownership. We do not It's not uncommon at all that properties are held in some kind of corporate name, an LLC, limited liability corporation, but we don't work backwards by corporate type. We're going street level, what are the complaints and conditions on the ground. We don't know, frankly, we don't care what the corporate structure of the property is. We care about what the conditions on the ground are and work on an intervention that's appropriate. And then, again, broadly, earlier this afternoon, the conversation about 8010 was really great in this committee. These tools that we did discuss and are discussing in this file are really remedial in their nature. They're about abatement or cessation or stopping or fixing. They are not punitive tools, not criminal, it's not meant to be punitive it's meant to be corrective and so when we bring actions against property owners it is often in circuit court it's for injunctive relief stop doing the thing stop abate the nuisance and and even in municipal court when orders are written to fix the thing your porch is falling apart and property owners have the ability it's it's not the case in a speeding ticket or in a criminal case that you can kind of earn your way out of trouble by abating the nuisance. These prosecutions, these cases really end. The end result is compliance with building code, compliance with abating the nuisance. The chief and the chief of staff for MPD spoke at length earlier about developing plans you know abatement strategies and and then executing them so so really the whole goal here is follow the building code keep your properties in order and We don't have any problems Now when I before I was a city attorney I live in the fourth aldermanic district and I fell in love with the city attorney's office when some of the assistant city attorneys about 10 years ago we had a problem property on the corner of 27th and Kilbourne. I think in one year it was 400 police calls for service in one year and some of the dialog that happened earlier where that was bringing back memories because the problems didn't stop. And ultimately, a circuit court action was taken and through my role at the time as a resident and a member of the state legislature, I got to know some of the lawyers and I thought, that's a really cool job. I wanna do that one day, not thinking I'd be city attorney, maybe an assistant city attorney anyway. The role that we play in this process is to kind of come in and work with our clients and troubleshoot. Is the intervention happening successful? If not, can we think of a different intervention? If municipal citations have gone unpaid, is there a long history of this behavior? Are the grounds met to bring a circuit court action? Working with NPD is 80-10 appropriate. Is it time to issue a citation? Working with them in assembling the defense of an appeal if that happens. And so we're kind of involved in all of the different conversations that have happened today, 80-10. applying the building code in Chapter 200 as well as circuit court action. And it's been great. We've rebuilt what we call the neighborhood revitalization team, Deputy Julie Wilson, ACA Adamson, ACA Helzel, ACA Anger at municipal court who does the actual prosecutions of building and zoning code violations. that are usually heard on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. And we work as a team. We meet with DNS regularly. We meet with MPD as well to essentially do internally what you heard police districts doing. What are... problem properties what interventions have been successful what interventions have not been successful how do we do we need to ratchet up do we need to back off and through that process you know we are using complaints from neighbors from residents from you all from from our clients DNS and MPD and it has I will say we started this process unfortunately In the city attorney's office, that was a team that was really disbanded previously. So we've rebuilt it. I think we've built great relationships with DNS and MPD in our actively litigating cases against property owners that we have alleged to be nuisances. And we are committed, I am committed as the city attorney to continuing to bring these types of cases where the facts lead us. The last thing I'll say and then I'll let DNS speak because nobody asked Mike a question earlier. One more definition of nuisance for you all. So in 80-10 of our ordinances, our nuisance ordinance that we spoke about earlier, it's a very long ordinance and paragraph by paragraph by paragraph it itemizes in detail the types of behavior that constitute a nuisance. In state statute, chapter 823 is broadly nuisances, and it lists some nuisances, but its definition is far less defined far broader and there are pros and cons of each system but I just want you to understand that in a state case if we're going to circuit court we do not have the same criteria of three calls within 30 days or two more serious calls within a year that is unique to 8010 in our ordinance and bringing a case in circuit court can involve all of that or maybe there's no police calls for service and the nuisance is something else. you know noxious odors or environmental contamination or just the condition of the building itself. So it's very broad that has its pros and cons but it is a tool that we can build should the facts present itself and really it's meant in our opinion as a tool where compliance is not being seen through municipal court prosecution through 8010 and you know we are using this tool and we'll continue to do so as needed.

Before you move on, you say that you use it too because you don't see it in municipal court. What isn't happening there that we have to go to this level?

uh... it's the progression of non-compliance and order is written to fix a few problems that uh... you know property is not code compliant that that site that ultimately that order is not corrected the department of neighborhood services is reinspecting the property on a monthly basis and we're continuing to not see progress we get a conviction on a citation written for the failure to comply citation forfeiture is not paid we they're putting that on the tax rolls and it's just not the nuisance is not being abated throughout that time there is a monthly re-inspection fee there are it is costing someone money at that point yes and as was discussed earlier many property owners do get into compliance uh without a lawsuit being filed and under state law there is no definition of if you're three months overdue or nine months overdue or three months if it's a falling apart porch or nine months if it was drug related activity it's it's far broader of a definition so it doesn't have those same kind of regimented timelines and quotas or minimum standards that we have in in 8010. it's a little bit broader thank you mr chair uh all the person somebody

I did just wanna also throw out there, and I see Assistant City Attorney Adamson here at the table. I know we've worked together on, we have some nuisance properties where the landlord pays all of the citations, which is what we try to implement to get accountability to get them in line. But some of these guys, have the disposable income to pay repeated citations when we're trying to do the good work of addressing these nuisance properties and getting them into compliance and increase people's quality of life. We got folks that are up to date on their property taxes, pay all the fines, and they just, meanwhile, their property continues to fall further and further into disarray, of course decreasing the quality of life for our constituents. I don't know if that was going to be part of your presentation, but I believe I worked with Attorney Adamson on something like that in the past in trying to get compliance out of these folks.

There are tools available in circuit court should the court determine that the property is a nuisance that the court can appoint what is called a receiver and the receiver can in essence step into the shoes of the property owner to abate the nuisance. They don't own the property they can't sell the property but the property owner that has not abated the nuisance through those other enforcement actions really no longer has control of the flow of rents. And those rents paid by tenants or debt borrowed against the value of the property go to fixing the abating the nuisance. And so it is a very heavy hammer that exists for those chronic noncompliant property owners that you've said and I think Alderman Bauman in the earlier file spoke about it as a cost of doing business. And so part of supplementing our enforcement action is if there are property owners that simply just do not care what the debt is or what the pile of citations are, the last thing they'll do is fix the roof that needs to be fixed, then that's where the circuit court intervention is really designed, and we would seek the appointment of a receiver to interrupt the flow of rents to fix and abate the nuisance.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. I'll do one more. Thank you. Thank you so much, Attorney Goyke. Just along those lines of the receivership, right? Give me an example of if we move to that process, are we talking about this is something that's, you know, to get into a receivership, we're talking about three years down the line, five years down the line. What is the length of time that we're looking, roughly, I don't even know if we can use that as a general sort of statement, but I'm just thinking about some of our, without going into any details, but some folks that may fall into that category. Again, I know this is the heavy hammer at the end of the tunnel, but what timeframe, because that word has been tossed around a lot, receivership, what kind of answer can you give our constituents?

so when you go to law school and you get a law degree they teach you to answer questions like this with the following words it depends okay that's a very lawyerly answer because it depends on what the facts on the ground are if there are life safety concerns and neighbors or residents are there quite literally their life is in jeopardy there are faster interventions than if it is the chronic non mowing of weeds or shingles falling off the house but the house is intact I mean if there's a hole in the roof and rain is pouring in that is a different problem than you know overgrown weeds now oftentimes it's many different things taken into a totality of the circumstances so i i can't give you a at year five got it it's it's triggered because it's going to depend on uh on the facts now the the other determinant of that is the property owner and and there are times where the property owner says okay I'm gonna be compliant and we never get to that point. Maybe municipal court wasn't successful that those citations and those orders weren't successful but a circuit court action is and it doesn't even get to five years. So what their cooperation and collaboration and their efforts to abate also can determine you know, the posture of things. Are they engaged? Are they trying? Are they making some progress? What are the individual circumstances that we're dealing with? Got it.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Alderman Dimitrievich.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just kind of for the record, to increase the fines for the nuisance violations or the amount of violations it takes to have kind of an intervention, are those all stipulated in the state statutes or can we do something locally?

The question.

I mean, look, if the rules aren't serving our people then we need to change the rules.

So the state has set broadly what the building code is. We have codified it. We have a penalty structure that we have created by ordinance. It is not decided by state statute. We certainly would advise and we'll take a look at any efforts. You are the policy makers and you have set most of the fees and fines that the city levies and seeks collection on and could in your discretion. I mean there is a point in which it might become unreasonable but for example the citation under chronic nuisance 80-10 as Alderman Baumann referenced earlier it is a minimum of $1,000 and a maximum of $5,000. It's a fairly substantial fine or forfeiture and that is in the code as it exists today.

Okay. I don't know, I'll have to take a deep look at it and talk to my colleagues, but I think it could use some updating. We're similarly looking, we've seen an increase of sales to minors for tobacco and alcohol, and there's legislation right now out there to triple the fines. Sometimes we just need to come with a different strategy and see if that'll be a deterrent uh... to some of this activity because you know what we're doing here uh... i can tell is is not necessarily serving the people so that's something to look at i actually thought most of it was caught up in state statutes uh... but perhaps it's not and we could take another look at it so i mean you know rules are on the books but like again things change there's just the whole economy is different than what it was and uh... we may need to update something so thank you mister president

Any other questions?

Yeah, Mr. Chair. I think the comments should be made. Receivership actions are very fact intensive and very expensive litigation and discovery intensive. And our ordinances are much more Bright line tests, if A then B follows quite naturally and simply. The state statute lays out a very broad remedy which largely lies in the discretion of the court to decide whether it applies or not. Is that a fair statement?

Yes, it's a fair statement, and you are accurate. It is a tool. Our ordinances are designed to fix those issues that we see on a routine basis. The porch railing is falling apart. If that is the one violation on that property, a receiver is a very heavy intervention for that one non-compliant feature of a property. It may be multiple porches and multiple problems or maybe the problem on that property is far deeper than just one.

In the past we've had receiverships that have fallen apart in the sense that the rents collected are insufficient to actually make the repairs required. So receivers are reluctant to take on these cases unless the city essentially guarantees that they'll get paid. and we've had those situations, correct? I mean, you may not have been here for those, but I know I was.

No, I was not here, and I think Alderman Baumann, you're referring to a couple of large receiver actions that were taken about 10 years ago, and your comments are accurate, that the design of a receiver is to use rents to abate nuisance, so if there are no rents, there is no funds. It is very tricky to make the economics of a receiver action work, but it is an important tool that we certainly are willing to use in these instances. Because the alternative, of course, is that you do nothing and that those interventions that have not worked continue to not gain compliance. And then that is not acceptable either.

Thank you. Anything else? DNS, did you want to add anything to?

No, I just want to echo Evan's comments about the partnership between our teams. And I think he illustrated it well that the partnership the work that we do, the work that they're doing with us, and that all the ones that Maripa pointed out, these problems that, you know, we've exhausted the tools that we have to re-inspect, charge re-inspection fees that are chronically non-compliant, and we just run out of traction, and we've taken it as far as we can, and that's really where we need their help, and we appreciate their partnership.

Okay. Any departing words before we go? Okay. All right. Thank you. With that said, all the persons, we place this on file. Item three, file 252111. Hearing no objections, so order. Item number four. File 260062, communication from the Office of the City Attorney relating to the likely effects of Louisiana versus Colissus. This is sponsored by Alderwoman Coggs, Alderman Chambers, Alderman Stamper, and Alderwoman Pratt. Alderman Coggs, would you like to take the lead?

Thank you, Mr. President. I think we all were taken aback when we heard that... about this case and a decision that was made by the courts. And I think we all have witnessed over the last several weeks, particularly in some southern states, the impact that this change and the findings in this case have had on the desire in those states to change maps and to impact elections. So it was my goal along with the co-sponsors to discuss in more detail what impact, if any, this decision could have or does have on Wisconsin and our elections and our maps here.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Alderwoman Coggs. I'm joined by ACA Andrea Fowler to discuss the matter very broadly, just to back up so that all members have a foundation of knowledge here. April 29th of this year, the United States Supreme Court on a 6-3 decision released, well, they released their decision in the Louisiana v. Calais. I'm going to say Calais just because they're French. Calais. and bringing a substantial change to the interpretation and application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, I'm not going to read all of it, but just in the really kind of key and pertinent point was used by congressional mapmakers, state mapmakers, and local government mapmakers in identifying and protecting districts of opportunity. Often sometimes the word opportunity was used. And really the thrust and the goal of the Voting Rights Act there was to prevent redistricting to be weaponized as a way to disenfranchise voters of color. that districts could not be manipulated in a way to prevent voters of color from selecting a candidate of their choice and so that has been the law although always moving this is a heavily litigated area of law and every year we get a new decision And so what Calais does is basically throws that by the wayside and I'm going to let ACA Fowler get into the details. What I will the last thing I'll say before we redistrict again in a few years we'll follow the census track of the 2030 census and new data on our population and where they live. I expect there to be a number of refining cases to take Calais and apply it in the context of local government state uh... government and uh... in congressional maps and and then you're right we've seen uh... southern states louisiana uh... i think texas tennessee tennessee uh... using this decision as uh... a reason to redraw their maps in advance of the november election uh... and they're doing that to try to often overtly for partisan political gain, which may be allowed.

It is allowed. Yeah, it is allowed. It is allowed now specifically. I would be happy to walk through the changes to the test that the court uses to determine whether there's been a violation of Section 2. I think the upshot, if I were to really cut to the chase, is that we don't know how this test will work. A lot of legal scholars out there have said the same. A lot of people have opined on this decision, and I think If you were to boil it down to a couple things, it's that the Supreme Court has doubled down on the concept that political districting is not judiciable, you can't sue on that basis anymore as long as there's a political reason. So if, for example, a district is created to protect an incumbent or even to protect a political party, that's not something that the court is going to take up That's not new, but that was really crystallized in this decision, and that is one of the reasons that now many people believe that a section two is unlikely to succeed, the test is now much more difficult to meet because not only do you have to show that a district, that you could create a district that meets the political requirements of the legislature that's redistricting, you have to show that any discriminatory purpose was overt, and that it is not intended to correct past discrimination. And that test is, most people believe, virtually impossible to meet, which is why many people are saying that while the court said that they preserved Section 2, it really undercuts the usefulness of that portion of the Voting Rights Act.

So this is the law of the land for us as we, when the time comes after the next census to redistrict, we will have to follow the Calais ruling and its progeny when they are released and whatever our courts, the Seventh Circuit, the Supreme Court decide. And it is a big and fundamental shift when, for those of you that were here, as you redistricted, that conversation, and I was not here for it, but I understand and looking back on the record, had, I mean, Section 2 was a thing, so you were looking to court decisions to decide how you could lawfully redistrict in compliance with Section 2, and now we've really, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has really upended Section 2 law, and we will have to follow it, as will the state, as will our congressional districts.

If I could add a little bit to that, I think if if there is an upside to this and I guess that's. Difficult for, it can be difficult to find, but the application of this new test is a little bit different in Wisconsin than it would be in a state where there were a large number of minority majority districts. We have one in Wisconsin. So the immediate effect of this change will probably not be significant. It will really depend more on the whim of the legislature and the governor's office. So we will see how that will shake out. But I think political redistricting is probably going to happen more and more throughout the country. And that is something that is unlikely to change.

Well, I think what the sponsors are worried about is what has happened in cities like Memphis and Nashville where you had a black majority district representing basically the entire city of Memphis, and then they proceeded to cut up Memphis into three districts, all of which were majority white. I mean, that is theoretically possible in Milwaukee County.

That is theoretically possible. I think, you know, we would... we would see how the cases would shake out. We have some time until the next census and then some time after that, before that trickles down into actual redistricting, at least required redistricting. So I wish that I had a more, a better crystal ball to tell you how this would shake out. I don't think anybody knows exactly how this new test is gonna be applied and whether people will creatively figure out how to

make it work for them or not in advance of today's meeting I did ask some national organizations if they would be able to send a representative this was great reading but I frankly asked the ACLU they argued it they had the staff attorney argue it in the in the Supreme Court and they did a great job and then afterwards I think had some really great public statements and I have not been made aware by anyone that I spoke to that we think that that type of challenge is coming to Milwaukee or to to our maps right now if and when that changes I certainly will make you aware and I would just ask you do the same if you know before me and there may not be a formal role for the city to play but we would certainly act as a conduit to provide all of you updates on what's happening any litigation etc

There are states like Maryland that passed their own, in the wake of this decision, passed their own Voting Rights Act of 2026. What is your thoughts on efforts like that and whether or not those would likely be upheld legally?

That's a really good question. I don't have an answer right now. I think I would want to see what the immediate reaction to those

to those state laws were It's hard for me to envision on the spot how you can navigate around this decision in a way that is of substantial benefit in preserving some of the Fundamental goals of the Voting Rights Act. However, I think it's worth trying I certainly mean just it's easy for me to opine that but it's Why wouldn't you try?

I think as time goes on before the next redistricting, that it would not hurt for us to look at some of the states that have tried to do some creative stuff, like Maryland, to see what we think may be possible, if need be, here in Wisconsin. What I don't want is for, at some point, there to be all this movement towards doing stuff similar to what's been done to our South, and we have no strategy, no thought, no whatever. to deal with it because I just saw Treasurer Cox walk in and I remember as a younger person being told about the fights he, Polly Williams, Gwen Moore, and so many others had in the lawsuits they helped bring at the state level. to help to ensure representation in districts for African Americans. We all know that this decision by the courts slaps in the face of their work and so many others throughout the years. It's my thinking that, one, we all need to be aware of this and keep it on our radar, but two, just continuously looking at the landscape, for tools and maneuvers and things that may be able to help us navigate if and when it becomes an issue here in Wisconsin.

Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comment? Mr.

Chair, one question. So from looking at these cases, it looks like, you know, in 1980, there was the mobile case, I think, that said VRA, you're only legal if it's an intent test, not a results test. And so they changed the VRA in 82, so it would be a results test. This basically throws out, they said they weren't, but in effect it means you have to have discriminatory intent and you can't pass it off as political gerrymandering. So if you have discriminatory intent towards a racial minority group, as long as you say it's partisan intent, you can basically cover those tracks as well.

I mean, I think you boiled it down to, yeah. I mean, I could go through the test specifically step by step with you if you would like, but you sort of hit the nail on the head. You have to show that any district that you create would not run afoul of the political intent of the legislature creating the district, and that it's almost impossible to achieve. So in section two, So yes, the previous, they have preserved section two, it's not gone, they haven't overruled it, but it has been so substantially changed that utilizing it is incredibly challenging.

And as far as, so we as a council determine our aldermanic districts, the county, determines their districts, all that must comport, you can't cross assembly boundaries. So if there were mischief, it could happen at the state level if there were a power that be that wanted to do it. But at least given that the county and city control their own redistricting, that's not, I'm asking is that then less of a threat because we could hide behind partisanship but as long as but we don't as long as we try to district fairly. The one thing we do have to watch out though for is we can't run afoul of the equal protection clause. That's the whole thing that's pushing us away from any sort of creative redistricting. So could you speak briefly to what the equal protect, now it used to be VRA and equal protection clause kind of had, a sort of tension that was litigated in court. Now with the VRA basically nullified or neutered, what does it mean that the Equal Protection Clause is there for our actions?

Well, the Equal Protection Clause is the basis that the Supreme Court used to render this decision. So essentially what the court is saying is that you cannot district on the basis of race.

Full stop.

Full stop.

Okay. Yeah, I'd like to recognize Treasurer Coggs. Treasurer Coggs, did you want to make any comment? Ask a question?

Please.

Forgive my informality. I just heard about this today. And I have several questions. In the past, well, let me go ahead and state from the beginning, I am a product of redistricting in my tenure in the legislature. So it became something very interesting to me as to how I got into the legislature. And I followed that in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s. Is my understanding correct that under Section 2, the states that were affected were southern states?

I mean that's certainly the area of the country we are seeing coordinated immediate coordinated reaction and intervention. I don't I don't I can't go so far as to say the only places but where we are seeing redistricting under Calais for congressional redistricting and then even a little deeper I think is coming our southern states yes.

Yeah, my understanding was section two primarily dealt with states that had demonstrated discrimination in elections.

Sure. Yeah. Yes, sir. So historically speaking, section two along with section five that have worked together. Section 5 was the section that required a state that was going to redistrict to receive pre-approval before they did that. That is a section that the Supreme Court seriously undermined a number of years ago. So when we combine Calais with that prior decision, many would argue that the Voting Rights Act has become

significantly less effective so are you saying that because of the galilee decision um northern states are similarly affected

I think that the primary difference is the composition of the voters and the political affiliations of those voters. So what many of the commenters are saying is that in the southern states, political affiliation often falls along racial lines, generally speaking. So when one would try to create a district that would be protective of African American voters, they would have to show that those voters would be likely to vote Republican. And so that makes that process extremely difficult.

So Calais reverses previous rulings of the Supreme Court. How does that work? Aren't they reversing their own movements?

This court has been doing that quite a bit. They're taking a different approach.

Yeah, the concept of stare decisis, this fidelity to precedent, has not always been honored. honored less lately. And then just to, I think, continue on your earlier question, I think a tragic result of the segregation in many northern states and cities with a lower African-American population than some of the southern states that you're seeing the redistrict where you have 20, 30, 40% statewide African-American population spread out throughout the state in a much different way than the state of Wisconsin, for example. And so you have very different shaped congressional districts. And I think that where ACA Fowler is talking about commentators just looking to the map and with the segregation that we have in metro Milwaukee, like maybe not being, not that there couldn't be a challenge, but couldn't be a successful challenge is maybe the better way of saying it. You would agree with that?

I would agree with that, yeah.

So in layman's terms, partisan gerrymandering is okay.

Yes.

But racial gerrymandering is not at the same level

It faces a level of scrutiny in courts that is almost unsurvivable.

So if someone came and had statistical information that could prove in some other state that they were the nine people of color, their right to vote, and they had the statistics, then they would have a case.

They would still face an incredible challenge. They would have to show that they could create a new map that would meet the political requirements of the legislature. So in your case, in addition to the statistical information, you would have to show pretty clear proof of an intent to discriminate against someone because of their race. So they would have to show that these districts were created not for political reasons, not to show up the incumbents in their legislature or their seats in Congress. You would have to show that they were only done to disenfranchise voters of color. And that is difficult. You would also have to show that you could create a new map that did not disenfranchise voters of color that would meet the political requirements of the legislature, essentially meaning that those voters of color in the South would have to be voting for Republican candidates.

So Mr. Chair, lastly, is our Supreme Court basically saying that irrespective of the history of denial of voting rights for people of color in the South specifically, that currently there doesn't have to be a remedy that helps people of color, especially in the South whose ancestors have been discriminated, denied, suppressed their representation to vote. Our Supreme Court is saying there is no current remedy to that.

I think, sir, that one of the components of this decision that is very difficult to hear, is that the court has said that they are interested in addressing current discrimination, but they are not interested in addressing the results of prior discrimination. So this decision, while there is still a remedy, there could technically still be a remedy, getting to that remedy is, as City Attorney Goyke said, virtually impossible. through this test. However, it's a new test and challenges I'm sure will arise under it and I'm sure there will be many creative attorneys out there trying to find a path through this.

But currently, we have a problem of time. Okay, and this will be my last statement, Mr. Chair. Normally, redistricting only happens the beginning of the decade. It is not completely unusual for it to happen for various kinds of corrections in the middle of a decade, but it is gone haywire. And it's gone haywire for partisan leanings. And they say they're not interested in looking But if you ignore your history, Mr. Chair, you're bound to repeat the same things that happened. Jim Crow can be revived again in the South and also in the North. Our Supreme Court is on dangerous historical grounds. I just wanted to leave that with you.

Thank you. Yeah, I think the immigrant community feels the revival of the Jim Crow laws. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing on your questions.

We're tied next time.

No, no, you're good the way you are, man. Any further questions or comments, anything at all?

Mr. Chair.

Alderperson Samaripa.

I just wanted to, yes, thank you. You raise a good point. In particular, I wanted to bring up our Latino community and the many times over the years that we have seen them try to crack our supermajority areas of the state. And and the fight that we've had in this as well So I want to thank Alderman Cox for introducing this communication file and treasurer Cox for being here not to provide his comments I would like to be added as a co-sponsor if that's okay with the author.

Yeah, let the record reflect All the person, somebody being at as a co-sponsor, I'll do the same. I think it's an important topic that we must get ourselves prepared for in the next redistricting.

Mr. President, if you can please add me as well as a co-sponsor.

I'll add all the women more also. Thank you. Any further comments before we go? Okay, with that said, Alderman Coggs moves that we hold this to the call of the chair. That is item four, file 260062, hearing no objection, so ordered. The following files are no longer needed and will be placed on file, which is item five, file 241554, an ordinance relating to the creation of an Immigration Advisory Board. Alderman Baumann moves to place it on file, hearing no objections so ordered. And item six, file 230338, substitute resolution relating to the possible legal action to overturn certain provisions of 2023 Wisconsin Act 12 and allocating American Rescue Plan Act funds for the Office of Equity and Inclusion and the Office of African American Affairs. Alderperson Samaripa moves that we place that on file. Item six, hearing no objections so ordered and we have no further business before this committee, we are adjourned.