Steering & Rules Committee - Regular Meeting

I'm joined on the board virtually with alderwoman Dimitrovich, vice chair. To my right is Alderman Baumann. To my left is Alderman Stamper the second. To his left is Alderson Jokasa Samaripa. Malele Alderman Malele Cox is on the board.

Alderman Scott Spiker is present. And we're also joined by DeAndre Jackson and Linda Elmer, our staff assistant. It is Monday, October 20 at approximately 01:37PM. And we are going to jump right in with item one, file number two 50771, substitute motion revoking the charter off and terminating the city of Milwaukee's charter school contract with Central City Cyber School. Sir, would you like to come to the table? Please identify yourself. Just just mention a little bit about the process and how we got here.

Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Ingram, chair of the Charter School Review Committee for the city of Milwaukee. The reason we got here today is because on August 27, the committee voted to revoke the charter of the Central City's Charter Schools because they have decided to dissolve, which is their right to do. However, in our city contract with the charter schools that they signed initially, they are supposed to complete what is called a dissolution process, meaning that their board votes to dissolve. Once they vote to dissolve, that information is then reported to DPI.

Based upon that information reported to DPI and they dissolve, then they follow the process in the contract, the steps necessary to make sure, a, all student records are transferred to the correct location b, all financial records are documented and presented to DPI so to make sure that if there's anything that DPI may feel that's of certain value that should either come back to the city or, you know, come back to DPI or making sure that all bills are paid and that no outstanding debts are done and that everything is done, then the school is dissolved and we move forward. That didn't take place. So, but in the meantime, they entered into an agreement to move all operations over to Howard Fuller Collegiate Academy. Which is also fine. The only thing needed to be done was the dissolution plan demonstrating that step a through step z was taken care of, all assets transferred over to Howard Fuller Collegiate Academy, all students who are planning to enroll are actually enrolled, that's all documented, and that any financial obligations, that's documented.

So we have in place through the evidence change program, our each school pays a 2% annual fee so that the city is not paying for this. They pay a city a fee. We use that fee for evidence change to assist in the programmatic report, and we also use that fee to pay MLThorps financial accounting firm that does all the financial records. So we have in place the entities to assist to make sure everything is done properly and audits are taking place in place for DPI to make sure everything is the books are closed accordingly. We're here today because Central City Cyber School and their board chair did not take up a vote given the opportunity to see if there was other members on their board that may or may not wanted to have dissolved.

We don't know that they were never given that opportunity because they never brought that to a vote. And DPI only asked for the vote of dissolution to be presented to them by their board. They never took that vote. What they did was dissolve, transfer all assets over to Howard Fuller Collegiate Academy. Students are enrolled there and staff members have been either hired or maybe remaining at Center City for the elementary part of it.

Everything has been done. It just hasn't been done according to the resolution plan and this process took place in April. DPR has been working with them over the course of that time along with the Institute for Transformation of Learning, asking for the documentation and for them to take the proper steps and they did not do that. And so as a result of that, DPI said the only thing we can do at this point is wait for you guys to revoke their charter and then we'll move from that point on because the expectation is now that these students are transferred, Doctor. Howard Fuller Christian I mean, Collegiate Academy is going to be seeking reimbursement for the students that they serve.

Once those ID numbers Mhmm. Are given to DPI, DPI will reimburse them according to these are the students on record with your school. However, Central City Cyber School is still recognized as a City Of Milwaukee charter school, and those students are technically considered part of that school.

Any questions by committee members? Yeah, mister chair. Call mister Stanford. Mister Stanford,

I'm just a little confused. Can you resolve without taking a vote?

We have a process in place that if you're going it's couple ways a charter could lose their charter. Mhmm. A, for academic reasons, for financial reasons, we are not complying with rules and regulations. Or if they're on probation and don't get off probation, we recommend they close. Or they can come to us and say, hey.

We no longer wanna be a charter school. Then we make sure, for example, NPS is a repository of all data in the event that these kids are not at a place. But then if you're gonna dissolve, we'd like for you to close around January or December, telling us what you're gonna do so as the open enrollment process begins, parents and students can participate in the open enrollment process that takes place from January to March trying to find a school versus trying to find a school in June when most of the seats are already taken. But in this particular case, because they wanted to develop this partnership with Howard Fuller Collegiate Academy, they had a plan in place. Everything is great.

It's just that we now want you to complete the charter school review committee process.

But you don't have to take a vote.

They have to take a vote. They were supposed to vote to dissolve so that they have it officially on record that as a board, they resolve so that DPI can then say, okay. Since this board has resolved, we're now acknowledging that you have resolved. Here are the steps you need to take to make sure everything is transferred accordingly. Next step So so

the students are enrolled. They're secured, but the money won't go there until the vote is taken.

Is that what you're saying?

That's that's I don't know. That's a possibility. You know?

Oh, yeah. That's the only that's the only concern. How long will it take for those students to, I guess, receive the funding that the school needs in order to operate?

The students are enrolled, and the students are being educated.

Okay.

It's just a question of will DPI reimburse the school for educating those students.

But is it based on his vote, though?

Not on it's based it's based on, yes, it is. Based on his vote so that DPI can now move forward in making sure that, hey. Okay. Correct.

Do you have any authority within getting together to take this vote?

No. We we we that's what we've been doing all summer long, trying to get them to come together. They refused to come together, and then when we had our meeting on August 27, we invited the board chair, miss Foss, and other board members. Their chair sent a sent out the meeting notice inviting them to come if they would like to. One board member did come.

No one else came. And I asked the one board member, did they have an opportunity to have a vote on whether or not they were going to dissolve? And in that vote, they were supposed to tally up who was in favor of dissolving and who was not, or was this a unanimous vote or any dissenting? We'd have no record of that information because the board dissolved and dismissed all board members.

So there's no end in sight, it sounds like.

The only end in sight is for us to revoke the charter, and that's what we recommend on the twenty seventh.

Got it. Thank you, mister president.

Chair recognizes alderwoman Moore.

Thank you so much, mister chair. Mister Ingram, just for some clarity. So Howard Fuller Collegiate Academy, currently, as of this school year, the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six school year, has complete operations of Central City Cyber School.

Yes. So right now, what they've accumulated in this process is the Central City Cyber School within the foundries of Westlawn project. Westlawn. Okay. Apparently, they have already taken care of that with city housing authority. House, yep. Mhmm. Okay. That's done.

That's my next question. Yeah.

Okay. So now yeah. That's an elementary school. So So elementary students are enrolled there. Middle school students are enrolled on twenty ninth and the capital, and high school students are enrolled at the new Howard Fuller School on Forth And Garfield.

Garfield, yes.

So now they have three schools distinct with elementary, middle, and high school students probably So serving each

when did the chartering committee when were they aware that Central City Charters Cyber Schools excuse me. Central City Cyber Schools. Yes. When did you all were made aware that they were moving into this agreement with Howard Fuller and Canterbury because they reached out to me and shared about some of the things that they were doing and probably because I'm on the board of HACAM. Okay. When were they made were you all made aware of this agreement?

2025 on April 2. That's when they sent a policy letter stating they are planning to continue with Howard Fuller Academy. Okay. They that's that was what they initiated, the this staying with DPI. Okay. And then throughout the course of this summer Okay. Which is fine. Only thing needed was for Central City Cyber School

Yep.

To now follow the appropriate procedures to make sure that they dissolve the school accordingly.

So that was my my next question then. Did they know exactly what needed to happen? It and was it a communication from, I don't know, DPI or what was it a communication from our chartering division to say, okay. We're, oh, you guys are looking to do this diff you know, looking to do this. This is what you need to do.

Both. Both. Once they let DPI know, now they have to let us know. Uh-huh. So we can say, okay. According to appendix d Yep. Here's the dissolution plan that's in appendix c. I mean, appendix c. Yep. Here it is. This is what you need to do, and we need you to have certain things done by a certain date, certain time. DPI needs the only thing DPI needs from you Yep. Is for you your board to vote that you are actually dissolving. Yep. So that they have that and they know that you're working with us to get that information.

Who was the point of communication for Central City Cyber School?

Their board chair.

Their board chair. So that communication with the charter division and Central City Charter School was between was between the board chair and, you know, whoever the point person was.

Yeah. DPI. And then in addition to that, we also followed up with them with emails to make sure, hey. DPI has contacted us. Yes. This is what they need from you guys. Yes. Okay. Here's what you need to do. Follow the plan and get this information to DPI by whatever date deadline DPI sets up for you.

Because once you once you decide to dissolve Yep. DPI will give you certain deadline dates. Based on those deadline dates, if you're not following the deadline date, they let us know Yeah. So that we can, you know, say, hey, DPI needs this by this date, this time, or where are you in the plan? You know, for example, has 100% of the students that were enrolled at Central City Cyber School at the elementary and the middle, did they all accept the invitation to go to Howard?

That was my next question

for reunite? That I

don't know. Okay.

Did all the staff that wanted to be employed, did you hire all the staff? Did any staff decide, nope. I'm moving out of town. Nope. I'm going to another school. Did any students leave? Because we because according to our report, we document if students left your school and what's the reason why they left your school. How many returned, how many didn't return. So we don't know how many kids actually accepted and actually enrolled at Doctor. Howard Fuller Collegiate Academy.

That's interesting.

We just know that from Rodney that they have the students.

Yeah. It's unfortunate that it happened in this way, but I'm glad to hear that we did our due diligence to make sure that communication was made to our chartering entity to, you know, cross their Ts and not their Is and it was a grave mismanagement on their part to not follow through, but also glad that, you know, those children, those that decided to stay had the opportunity to be educated and also a really great school. So thank you so much, mister Ingram. Thank you, mister chair.

Mister Stanford.

Yeah. Just one follow-up for the tracking of the youth. If they weren't confirmed with doctor Fuller's school, where are they?

That we all know.

He doesn't know.

So whose responsibility is

to Central City Cyber Schools. That's their responsibility. Mhmm.

But they dissolve, and they won't even take a vote.

Exactly. Yeah. That's why we're

That's why we're here.

Who's ahead who's above them now?

They have a executive director by the name of miss Christine Foss, and then you have your board chair. And and but the it's the board it's it's the entire board. But in this case, it's like, for example, you did if you decide to vote on something, but you decide, oh, we're gonna do this anyway, but none of y'all voted. Yeah. None of y'all were given the opportunity to say, I think I wanna do this. No. I I don't think I wanna do this. Or

Hold on, sir.

We can you know, for example, the board chair can resign. We elect a new board chair and we carry on. That opportunity we don't know if that that opportunity never happened.

So is anybody besides cyber school responsible for the placement of the youth?

No. Central City Cyber School is responsible for taking care of everything.

And and thank you. They didn't rely on the parents then. Right? They didn't must rely on the parents.

I would've yes. And my my thing, I guess they must have had again, if they had all their internal meetings, because again, we received no complaints from any parents saying, hey, what's going on?

Do they know who to complain to?

Yes, they do. Oh, they they know who to complain to. Gotcha. Parents always know who to complain to. Gotcha. Either publicly or anonymously. Gotcha. You know?

But, Jay, I I think the conversation takes us to where why we need to vote on this because they're not in compliance. Absolutely. And the sooner we vote on it, the better because they're not in

compliance with the city. So I can get

you. Mister chair?

Alderman Cox? Yeah.

Question. Though it is the responsibility of the cyber school to track where the kids end up going, it's possible to get their data, though, outside of them. Right?

If they submit if they follow through and submit their information to us like we like we normally do, we're going to go through the process as we always have before we come to you with the annual report asking to get data from the school so we can put that information in the report. So I don't know if we've received that data yet to this point, But, technically, there's they're gonna be included in the report because they're still considered to be a city charter school at this point.

But wouldn't the Howard Flippler be able to tell you how many students they got pulled out of school?

Yeah. They would, but see, they are now operating under UW Milwaukee. They are no longer responsibility of the city charter school.

They'd have to do it voluntarily. Right.

Thank you. They would have to it voluntarily. Okay.

One last

question. Yes, sir. On the

funding for the youth, will this revoction today redirect the money?

That I don't know.

If it if whether we do or we don't, is DPI aware of holding the check?

That, don't know.

Thank you.

Okay. Mister chair.

Mister chair, I'm sorry. I do have two quick questions. Okay. Can you forgive me if if

Can can you hold on one second? All the person, somebody puts in the queue, and then I'll get right back to you.

Yeah.

You just mentioned that Central City Cyber School is now with UWM?

No. No. No. Howard Fuller. Fuller. Fuller. Collegiate Academy is with went with UWM last year.

Okay.

So they are under their charter now. And so everything they report with the number of students and everything is done through UWM.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Anything

else, Alderman?

No. Thank you.

Alderman Cox?

Yes. Does this revocation have any impact on the students academically?

No. No. Shouldn't have any impact on the students' academically because they they are in a school and they're being served. That's the main thing. The most important thing for us when a school closes is to make sure parents have the proper notification so they can get into a school of their choice and make sure students are enrolled at a school and not left over the course of the summer trying to find a place or here it is, September school has started and kids are trying to find a place.

That has you know, that's not an issue. Everything has been technically, far as we know, everything has been done except for appropriately completing a dissolution plan showing where everything is. Students, desks, property, financial records.

In in our agreements, when we decide to do these schools, the I'm assuming it includes the a debt olution plan. But as a part of that dissolution plan, does it say in the event that you don't do all these things that we will revoke, or is this just something DPI is telling us is the best way to answer?

No. I I think we have it at the end of the plan. I think we do, but I'm not sure. I think that's why we do when we consulted with the city attorney as going through this process, the recommendation was we could not revoke the charter ourselves. We had to make the recommendation to the standing rules committee because they're not in compliance.

Mister chair, and maybe this is for us, maybe it's for him. I don't know. But I think someone should check for the future. I know we're prepared to vote here today. But for the future, I think someone should check to see if that's in here, and if it's not, maybe it shouldn't. Alright. Thank you.

Duly noted. Any other questions or concerns?

Just for us. Has this happened before?

Nope. Not not in my memory.

This is the first. How do what do we learn from this in order to prevent this from happening again?

This is the first time this has ever happened because all the schools we ever had, they either voluntarily closed, but every school has followed the process.

Yeah. So is there a

way to ensure the process?

I think we've basically, we've we've ensured it. It's just a matter of the the question is, after being in a a charter school for since 1996 Yeah. After twenty five years of in this business Wow. Why did you decide not to follow the dissolution plan? That's it. That's the only question I have.

Yeah. There's no callback from that. Right?

No. No. I mean, my only disappointment was we've had an excellent relationship. Yeah.

We thought we did

I as mean, I I would I would go back to the leadership and figure out if there's some legislative recommendation you can make to for us to consider to help with that in the future.

The main thing, check the money for the youth. We wanna make sure it gets to

Well, it's out of our purview.

Yeah. But I don't know if you have any purview to

Once it's once it's it's once a student for example, when open enrollment begins, if a student decides to leave MPS and go to Homestead

Yes, sir.

That's a public school, but it's in a different

Mhmm. District. Right.

Once Homestead reports that student Right. The money

It goes in.

It goes to the district. It follows the student. But once the it follows the ID number. Once the ID number is put forth to DPI, then all funds are transferred to the new school.

So Howard Fuller is collecting for

He will be.

Yeah. That that is Or wherever they where yeah. Wherever they wherever they're going.

Gotcha. Alright. Thank you, mister president.

Any other questions?

Mister chair? Just just wanna say thank you for breaking this down so clearly and for your service.

Appreciate it. You're welcome. I appreciate you being here.

Thank you.

Alright, mister Anderson. With that said, Alderman Stamper moves approval of file two five zero seven seven one. Any objections to that? Hearing none, so ordered. Item number two, file two five one zero six five, communication relating to the common council's inability to require common council confirmation of certain officials. This is sponsored by Alderman Moore, Alderman Cox, and Alderman Spiker. I know that we have the city attorney here to to share some of the fact finding through the opinion. Elder elder woman Moore, you're the lead. Would you like to say anything about this at all or just or any other sponsors have anything to say?

Thank you, mister chair. I just wanted to just briefly say thank you to the city attorney for drafting this memo for us because it's just an opportunity for us to provide some clarity around particular positions in in departments that as a council, we get an opportunity to have authority to approve, you know, approve approve their what do you call it? Their Position. Position. That's the word. Thank you.

I got it.

You got me. Their position. And so it's just looking at what what do we have the authority to do or what are the things that we can change in order to do so to, again, make it a little bit more equitable. I don't know if you want to say something.

Alderman Mccotti, do want say anything?

No.

Or Scott.

Or

Scott. Sure. Just briefly. Thank you, madam chair or mister chair. Sorry. So used to having a madam chair. Thank you, mister president, and thank you to Alder Moore for sponsoring this and for she was the first one who really asked, okay, OCWS, shouldn't the council have an opportunity to confirm that position and not just merely be a mayoral appointment and we're done here? I got interested in that later, learned there was a city attorney opinion on it. Alder Cogs I want to thank for saying like, well, that's nice you read the opinion, Spiker, and you think you know what it means, but with all due respect, shouldn't we have our attorneys? And of course the answer to that is yes.

We should have them present the opinion, the reasoning for it, and I want to thank the city attorney's office in advance for not just saying no, you can't do it, but also for saying well, if you want to do it, this would be maybe a navigable path. So thank you.

Mister chair. Alderman Stamper. Yeah. I was part

of that conversation. If we could widen it up open to which positions are eligible for confirmation from common counsel as far as leadership positions.

Yep. And and the file is broadly

enough to Okay. Cool.

It's it's broad enough to

Basically, what? Anybody over anybody over a 100 and 20,000? Is it based on salary or compensation? That's just what

I'm talking.

What's it

based based is on? Based on your position that

Well, Alderman, I'd like to get some background.

Yeah. They'll provide it. Mean, yeah. I can provide it, but they are the pros. Okay, John.

Afternoon. You. Evan Goyke, City Attorney. Am joined by Assistant City Attorney Tom Miller, is the author of the memorandum. Just as a procedural question, Mr.

Chair, the notice for today's committee hearing included potential to engage in closed session to receive legal advice from the city attorney's office. There we can proceed in open. There are yes, we would like to furnish some advice in closed session, including what may be statutory consequences attached to potential violations of some of the laws that we'll talk about today. If it's the Chair's desire to do that now, I just wanted to procedurally know if there was a point in which you wanted to enter closed or if you wanted to have that kind of full conversation in closed session.

I know we were noticed for that and I have it here. I'm not sure at what point. I think we should have some discussion and if needed, go into closed session.

Okay, great.

I don't know how far we'll need to go.

Okay. And I'll certainly speak up should but I just want the Chair, you to do Very the broadly, reading the title of today's file, I wanted to start and zoom out and start with a discussion of Wisconsin's civil service laws as it relates to the city of the first class, Milwaukee, Us, as well as the mayoral cabinet law six thousand two hundred fifty one, which is also specific to the city of Milwaukee. So just indulge us for a minute to get some of that background. It may answer the question that you just asked, Alderman Stamper, as well as some that may be on your mind. So I'll turn it over to ACA Miller to start.

First, we'll zoom out to civil service and then 6251.

Sure. So and many of you may already know this but we start with the city service statute which is extremely broad and statement that all appointments to subordinate offices, positions and employments shall shall be made by the respective heads of the departments in conformity with the city service rules. And then that's just the start and then it goes on to list the exceptions. The general rule is so broad that they actually have to begin the list of exceptions with officers who are elected by the people,

which would be kind of shocking.

But we see in that list of exceptions an exception for heads of principal departments of the city, appointees of the mayor under Section 6,251 and any other officers, clerks or employees in the service of the city whose positions in the judgment of the city service commissioners cannot for the time being subjected for the time being be subjected with advantage to the public service. In other words, it's for the default is for the city service commissioners to exempt. So if we take the example of the Office of Community Wellness and Safety that was the subject of the ordinance, that was a position that was not codified originally. This was an attempt to codify the position. We did have individuals fill that role obviously and each time CSC exempted that position.

The ordinance proposed to create the Office of Community Wellness and Safety Director as a position subordinate to the Director of Administration. And so it is a subordinate office and there was a longstanding case involving our DPW in which we had by name departments under the Commissioner of Public Works authority within the Department of Public Works and one of them was the Street Repair and Construction Department. And our charter which was state law identified

it as

a department and the Supreme Court said that had to be filled by civil service because the position was subordinate to the Commissioner of Public Works. It was not the head of a principal department

and specifically focused on that language, saying that we have to give effect to the term principal here. You can't have an officer who is working at the direction of the

Commissioner Commissioner of of Public Works be the head of a principal department. And so that's what we have with our example Office of Community Wellness and Safety. And so but our memo talks about one of the exceptions is for the heads of principal departments. The city could consider making the Office of Community Wellness and Safety its standalone department. Changes would have to be made in how it was proposed to be structured.

You could not be working at the direction of the Department of Administration. They would have the hiring firing decisions of the department head. Another relevant provision in the exception paragraph is for appointees of the mayor under section six thousand two fifty one which we refer to as the cabinet law. That lists, it enumerates certain offices.

Mr. Chair, I gave hard copies out of that one so that's your sheet here

if want to follow on. Yeah. So that statute enumerates certain offices, some of whom are heads of principal departments, but as you can obviously see, some are not. But that is up to the legislature. And in fact, when that statute was adopted in the 1988, the city had to go back to the legislature about three weeks after it was first enacted to get 10 additional offices included in that enumeration.

We do not view that as an exception to the city service statute. I mean for the city to create additional offices under 6251 without following the city service statute. So, again, that leaves an option for the Office of Community Wellness and Safety. There are other offices. There are probably more than we're aware of where the solution if the council wanted to keep with the mayoral appointment and council confirmation would be to create the particular office as a department of the city?

So I think I'll just try to zoom out

a little bit. In the second page of the memo, kind of long indented paragraph is citing directly to Chapter or Statute 6,327. And towards the end, the state legislature, state law gives the power to exempt, as ACA Miller was just saying, the subordinate positions, those non heads of principal departments or otherwise statutorily listed. So if the position doesn't fit in those two buckets, which OCWS does not, the CSC is given the power to make that position exempt. And so the counsel does not have they cannot take that power away from the CSC.

And by adding confirmation, which is not outlined in the civil service law, confirmation is a kind of step over here outside of the bounds of how the civil service process works, you can't do that unless it's one of these listed cabinet positions in 06/1951 or as ACA Miller was saying, the position is ahead of a department. Does that make sense? Yes, it That's kind of broadly the opinion. And I know this is first fairly confusing because you have kind of two different statutes. You do have the power.

You, the counsel, has the power to abolish, create. You can make positions. But if that position is not the head of the department that you're creating, it's got to follow civil service and confirmation does not follow civil service. So those are the steps. And we understand that that has not always been adhered to. And so this is further complicated because we have some history where ordinances were enacted, including confirmation, and those went through, in our opinion, in error.

And it's, I guess, a two way street because it's not just the Council not having the authority to confirm, it's also the Mayor not having the authority to appoint, right? Because the civil service statute gives the authority to the Department Head to appoint consistent with the city service rules.

Okay. Questions by committee members? Anything else?

So was that followed? I'm sorry. Was that followed?

Mr. Chair?

Yes. We did confirm that the yes, the appointment, the formal appointment letter was from the director of the Department of Administration.

Okay. Mr. Chair is one of the sponsors. I'd go after Alder Moore or Cox.

Alderwoman Moore, anything? You're in the queue. Did you wanna say anything, Alderman? Alderwoman Cox? No.

You can go ahead, Alderwoman.

Bob, I'm go after you. Okay.

So for all that you say is true, what is the consequence or or or penalty or corrective action that needs to be taken for the positions that we have confirmed in error?

Alderwoman, each would be viewed uniquely. There are statutorily created positions that may fit in a different lane of legal analysis. I'd want to get back to you. I think our in doing this research, we are not suggesting that the law requires the incumbent in that position to be removed. But should a vacancy in one of those positions

one

of those positions become vacant and an ordinance that we believe to be not lawful and enforceable on the books, we would suggest that it cannot be followed in replacing the vacancy or filling the vacancy.

But

by virtue of your suggestion that based upon the statutes that you interpret them, there are only the select few positions that can allow for a confirmation. And by us now knowing that there are other positions that are not included on this list that we have confirmed in error, are you suggesting that there is likely no corrective action that will be taking?

Only on only on

For the on

your two person? For the incumbent.

Right? Correct.

Going able that.

To void or that the appointment do was void. And there are

Yes. Chair, this is as I alluded to earlier when I first was asking procedurally, would ask at this point. I think if we could go into closed session, we can provide a little bit additional context.

Sure. If you have closing remarks?

Could we ask the non closed session items before we go into closed session?

Okay. Aldo Mukhak, do have anything else?

It probably is going take us deeper into closed session, so I'll wait.

Aldo So

some of this will be in closed session, but you're saying that there are positions out there that the council maybe passed an ordinance saying they require confirmation, which now with your new opinion you're saying, maybe not, maybe you can't require that. And then in closed session you'll kind of say what those are, what the penalties are, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what they could be. My question I guess I wanted to ask in open session was this. The process of exempting by the civil service position, that attaches to the position, not the person, correct? You exempt a position. You don't exempt a person.

When a position that is not exempt by law becomes vacant, it reverts back to its civil service status unless and until the CSC again exempts it. So what you're saying is, I think, true that a position is either statutorily, as we've kind of outlined, exempt from the civil service laws or it is not. It can be made exempt by the CSC under the statute in Chapter 63 that we read. It cannot be made exempt by the council, but it does take an act of the CSC. It kind of reverts to the default position of protect.

Right. So but to just make things much more simple for people, when a position becomes vacant, what is exempted by the CSC, in fact, your own opinion says it can happen while somebody is in the position, that it be exempted. In fact, you said with respect to Office of Community Wellness and Safety that that one was exempted, re exempted in April. There was an occupant of that position in April, was there not? Ashanti was in the role.

I believe that's correct. I know because I saw him. So that's what I'm wondering if your opinion is grappled with. Are you exempting a position? There's two grounds for questioning here. You're exempting the position, not the person, and you can exempt them the position, the CSC, Civil Service Commission, can exempt a position while somebody is currently occupying it and what that does is basically what? In April 2025 when CSC went and re exempted this position, what did they do? I'm

not sure on

the timing of that, to be honest. It's in your opinion.

No. No. I know. April I know that. But I'm I'm not sure if that was in anticipation of the vacancy, if that was after notice had been provided. So I really don't

Okay. You you

staff the CSC, correct? No, I don't.

An attorney in our office does.

Okay. All

right. And then the other point I wanted to make and underscore is if you look on page two under your analysis, the indented paragraph the city attorney pointed us to, so the indented paragraph beginning officers who are elected and this is a list of basically folks who are exempted by, as it were, statute.

By law. Yep.

By law.

Get down to at the appointees of the mayor under section sixty two five one. So that's about two thirds of the way through it. It's in bold. That's why I pointed to that as a reference point. Everybody with me? The appointees of the mayor under Section 62.51. Are the attorneys with me? I'm with you. Okay. Hallelujah.

So then continue reading. This is the passage I want to focus on. So these folks are exempt. Any other officers, clerks, or employees in the service of the city whose positions in the judgment of the city service commissioners cannot for the time being be subjected with advantage of the public service to the general rules prepared under this chapter. So basically what it's saying is as long as the CSC says there's a need, a temporary one it sounds like, for the time being they can't be subjected to civil service rules with advantage to public service.

That makes it sound like it's a temporary thing. OVP from its inception has been exempted. How on earth is that consistent with state law if state law says your civil service unless the city service in this case makes an exemption for exigency, like something that happened, some need, but not since the beginning of the office. It can't and just to drive the point home, it's easy to drive point home if you have it. Oh, on page the next page, page three, at the very end.

Cite this case. State ex rel, whatever that means, Hayden versus Arnold, in quotes at the end, the last three lines, by the Civil Service Act, the end legislature intended to go as far as practical in dealing with all administrative officers below those elected by the people in the cities dealt with under the merit system, meaning the civil service system. How can that be the case and the administration, the last and the current, take a position, OVP Director, now OCWS Director, and have it be exempt from its inception until this day without citing any additional circumstances? Isn't that a clear case of the administration, the mayor, whoever he or she is basically saying we're going to work around this whole civil service thing and permanently exempt something yet not, according to your opinion, not have the counsel have any ability to confirm that person? Isn't that the clearest violation of the intent of the civil service system is to avoid that sort of administrative, one might call it kingship rules that you get to name somebody and the council has no say on confirming it but they will always be exempt, always serve at the pleasure of the mayor.

Isn't that uncomfortable? I can

the position has been repeatedly re exempted by the CSC. Mhmm. I haven't been involved with what was considered each time that they re exempted the position.

Does the city attorney I consider understand. Let me just ask. Does the city attorney consider it their job to examine this and look at whether the Civil Service Commission should be operating, you know, on whatever basis they are without citing like there's something special this time. So I have deep concerns about the Civil Service Commission, Commission, its independence of DER and both independence of the mayor. That concern is not alleviated by what I see with the history of OVP.

And so I would ask the city attorney to, you know, work with us on making sure the attorney advising the civil service commission makes them aware of what their responsibilities of independence are under state statute. Thank you.

Elder Obama, do you wanna say something before I answer your question? Open the packet. Okay. Is there still the desire of the committee to go into closed session? Okay. With that said Mister mister Scherer. Alderman Stamper.

Yeah. How did you guys interpret that?

What Alderman Spiker just

Yeah.

Mentioned.

I don't understand your interpretation of that.

Well, we do staff the CSC. Have just communicated with our attorney to see if he can join this hearing to give additional insight in that role. I have attended those hearings. I'm not an older person, so I don't view them from maybe the same perspective. Hear Alder Spiker's concerns. Our job is to make sure that lawyer who is staffing that committee, the commission is their job is to make sure things are done according to the law. I have every confidence in our lawyer that staffs the commission and that it was carried out. The law does not say that you are guaranteed to like their judgment, but it says it's their judgment to make.

Got you.

And that's why it's quoted. I'm glad that we read it. I think it's pretty black and white whose decision it is. And if the policymakers of the City Of Milwaukee want to change how the decision is made or if they want to seek changes in the statute as to how it's made or how often it's made or all of those things, that's certainly something that's possible.

I would just close with this. It says in the state statute that you have printed in black and white, for the time being. For the time being is not consistent with permanently.

And I read those same words, Alderman Spiker. And again, the CSC has acted to re exempt that position. You may think that that's in perpetuity, but until they have actually done that, it is not re exempted.

Right. So your position seems to be that they can de facto exempt in perpetuity without violating state statute, de facto?

I don't accept that.

Okay. Happy to talk about this out.

Yes. I mean, the only time I've interacted with them online at a meeting asked to hold a file and I felt like they were considering it until someone from Doctor jumped in and just told them they didn't have to listen to us and they didn't. And I was on there with another alder too. So there's an experience there, at least from my perspective, with the CSC. Okay.

With that said, alderwoman Cox moves that the steering of rules committee convene into closed session pursuant to s one nine eight five one g Wisconsin state statute for the purpose of confirmed with our city attorney who will render oral or written advice with respect to litigation in which the city is or likely to become involved. Roll call, please.

Alderman Jackson. Aye. Alderman Spiker.

Aye.

Alderman Cogs. Aye. Alderman Zamripa. Aye. Alderman Stamper.

Aye.

Alderman Baumann. Aye. Alderman Dmitjiewicz. Alderman Dmitjiewicz.

President Perez. Aye. We are now in closed session. And with that said, Alderman Jackson will motion to hold to the call of the chair item two two five one zero six five. Are there any objections to that motion?

There are none. Hearing none, so ordered. And there being no further business before this committee where I adjourned.