This is mostly about police in the schools, but, by the looks of this agenda . . . summer is over, back to work! Just a few of the items the Board of Estimates made recommendations on and heard updates on were as follows: Judge Doyle Square TIF district, mayor’s task force to study government structure, new Civil Rights Direcotr, undergrounding electric projects, State St. grant program, Madison Public Market, Midtown Police Station, Day Resource Center funding, police in the schools, annexing the Town of Madison and Garver Feed Mill . . .
They started nearly 10 minutes late.
CONSENT AGENDA
They passed everything on the agenda except items:
2 – City Task Force on Structure of City Government
17 – Day Resource Center
18 – Police in the Schools
20 – Town of Madison Attachment
21 – Garver Feed Mill
22 – Settling a law suit for $377,428 from an employee at Overture
Sara Eskrich recused herself on item 16.
City Task Force on Structure of City Government
Sara Eskrich says we still need to work on this issue, she says they have challenges as they incorporate the Town of Madison and do redistricting. The motion to place on file (toss out) was approved unanimously.
Day Resource Center
Alder Marsha Rummel has a substitute. She wants to incorporate the recommendation of the Homeless Issues Committee and wants to discuss if we need outreach at the library.
They ask Jim O’Keefe, the Director of the Community Development Division to come forward for questions. The Mayor, Verveer and others are wondering why CDBG deleted the language about the library outreach outworkers. Essentially the committee thought it sent a mixed message that if we are putting all our efforts into the day resource center, why would we also have resources at the library. Rummel explains that the library director wants to keep the outreach worker at the library. She says the budget will determine if the program continues. O’Keefe says the committee members felt that there were mixed signals, the focus is to provide support to the day resource center. The mayor says that they cancelled the August meeting, but he says staff will be discussing this and look at it closer and make a recommendation. Mayor says he doesn’t know if it should be in or out. Barbara McKinney says the Library Board discussed this and the library is engaged in this and is committed to it. The library is a welcoming place, it is in addition to, not a subtraction from, the resources at the day resource center. The strongly support keeping the services and is glad the mayor is going to discuss this. Mo Cheeks says CDBG wrestled with this and they expected that there would be some clarity, they did not intend to introduce confusion, they probably wouldn’t be upset if this was taken out. The Mayor says that the services at the library were supposed to be interim until there was a permanent day resource center, he wants to know if the city will be able to continue funding this at the library and meet the expectations in terms of the city funding of the day resource center. Then there is the compounded question of how much of the service is embedded in the library budget and how would removing that impact the library. This is essential as they approach an agreement with the county. Alder Rummel says the goal is a statement of intent, not holding a future budget or them. The fiscal note does say that case management will continue but the other services will be discontinued. She is willing to let the staff team look at it, but she also is concerned about the language of the Homeless Issue Committee and would like to separate the two of them. The staff team may or may not meet on the 12th. O’Keefe says that regardless of how they vote the case management at the library will continue. O’Keefe says that the purpose of the day resource center is to have a central location and if case management at the library continues, it will be an island separate from the day resource center and frustrate the intent of the day resource center. He says the library director has ideas about services to be given there, and we should discuss if they should be for only homeless persons or for others as well. Verveer strongly supports the library services, but asks for a timeline and update, and especially the issue of storage and he’s wondering if the county has softened their hard line on not including that.
O’Keefe gives an update on the Day Resource center. The county is choosing an operator, there were two responses and they have been reviewed by the panel and are being reviewed by the county budget department. They should decide soon. Then they will apply for a conditional use permit, and they hope to have that by the end of the year. They are looking at what they need to do to have the renovations in and hope to have it up and running summer/spring 2017. Storage discussion is on-going. Based on what they saw in the proposals, the county and the operator will determine this. Rummel says there are issues of daytime vs. overnight storage.
McKinney asks to clarify the language about the library. What impact would removing the language have. The mayor says that they would discuss costs with the staff and see if there is a contradiction and then include funding in the budget based on that. If the amendment is adopted, he would do the same analysis and provide the information to the alders. He would present all the variations. McKinney wants to make sure the director of the library is involved in this. They had a long discussion at the library board meeting. The Mayor says that he wants to know if they want a maintenance service at the library, the housing counselor at the library – is it a loss since their hours are undependable and irregular? Those are the things they want to look at.
Rummel says that either way the Mayor will review it, she would like it left in. Motion carries.
18 – Police in the Schools
Public Testimony and Questions
note: ERO is what they call the police in the schools, Educational Resource Officers.
A woman from Families for Justice reads a letter from their group. They are white families concerned about racial justice, they ask them not to renew the contract for police in the schools. They don’t think that armed police officers should address discipline and recognize that their white children don’t face the same issues black and brown children do. They want all students to thrive and don’t want to criminalize black and brown children and increase arrests for them. For every white child arrested, there were 6 children of color arrested by police in the schools, yet they are 18% of the population. They want the contract to end. They think the money could be better spent on mental health and basic needs and ask that they listen to those most impacted in developing solutions.
Dean Loumos from the School Board, he is in support of a letter they sent earlier today. He says they are changing their behavior plan away from being punitive. He says that punitive measures create a profile for children towards prison, as early as 3rd grade. They now have a behavior education plan designed to keep kids in school and be restorative and teach kids how to behave. They weren’t able to understand the impact of the ERO contract until it ended, and what they are going to pass later tonight is a 1 year option so they can look at the recommendations of the study and how others are doing this. They want to know the best way to use EROs, if at all.
Ed Kuharski asks why the school district is being charged for police protection, he thought that was the basics of what the police department is supposed to do. They should have “ordinary policing” in the high schools, why are they singled out for extra policing like low income neighborhoods. A school should be a haven, a home away from home, it should be a safe place and none of us would be comfortable with police posted outside our home. None of us would like that – but Brandi Grayson has to deal with it. This money is needed by the school district and the city should provide this service.
Verveer says that they got the letter, it wasn’t signed by the school board members. Who sent the letter. Dean Loumos says that a majority support the letter. Verveer asks if one year will be passed. Loumos says that there are amendments on the agenda for this to happen, and he thinks they will pass. He doesn’t think there will be more amendments and he expects they will have community input.
David Ahrens asks about East High and the data he has, he says 32% of the students say they feel safe and half the staff feel safe and 36% of parents feel safe there. The safety issues is the lowest performing measure in the framework. How will that be addressed? Does the ERO add to the safety or would a lack of an ERO detract from that? He was shocked by how low this performance measure is. He says that parents say they leave the school district over the safety of their kids. Loumos says that those results represent several areas of why. What is the impact on the ERO on that piece of data? Some studies show that it is impacting it negatively, by intimidating people. Other pieces of the data are about bullying. The new behavior policy is being implemented unevenly and that is an issue to. Mental health and trauma are also issues and when kids act out there is not unexpected because it is the only place they feel safe or they mimic behavior at home, the schools want to move toward more restorative practices. The ERO piece is something they didn’t change because there was a contract in place and now they have the opportunity to address it. Loumos says essentially they are not sure what impact the EROs have.
Rummel says the resolution talks about the language in the resolution and wants to know what the police do on a daily basis. Loumos says they do go into classes occasionally, there is no class they teach. The good ones, and there are many, essentially is about relationship building and assisting them in ways they can. They often describe themselves as social workers but they are not. The question you have to ask is should we get real social workers instead. Occasionally, if something significant happens they get called in, but that is not that often. Rummel says it is still not clear what they do.
McKinney asks about the relationship building, she says the EROs strongly supported the youth court. She asks about the role of the ERO in the schools, has that shifted. Should the staff, teachers and school system be taking on the roles the EROs are doing. What are the duties and responsibilities of the EROs. Loumos says the contract lays out some of it. They don’t have a copy of the contract. They don’t do classes, it hasn’t shifted, it hasn’t changed in many years. This was funded by the federal government after Columbine and after the federal money went away the schools picked up the cost. He doesn’t understand how they are the ones bidding a contract and can’t determine what they want. They want to study this for a year and see what best practices are and what is working. This is the way it was set up and hasn’t been looked at in 20 years.
Questions of staff
McKinney asks why they don’t have the contract before them. The mayor says that the police can answer questions and he’d like the opportunity to frame some of the issues. (He avoids answering why they don’t have the contract before them)
Mayor Paul Soglin says he’d like to frame the discussion and give some history. He says there are three option: a three year contract, and he will veto a one year contract, he is perfectly fine with no contract. He says we share the same name, we do not serve the same people, there are significant parts of the City of Madison not in the Madison School District, but the residents of the city of Madison pay for services. It happens in TIF districts and things like this. There are 7 communities that are part of the Madison School District that are not Madison (Town of Madison, Maple Bluff, Shorewood, Fitchburg, Oregon and others) so when we pay we are subsidizing the other communities. When this was initially being negotiated, there were two issues. Who will pay for overtime and the training? It was resolved at that time that the training was paid for us, he supported us because the training stays with them and is a value to the community. The overtime is a value to the school district. Then the school district re-opened other issues – one category was items covered by school district policy, not the law and we thought that was unacceptable. We can have one set of laws for some and another set of laws for others. There is also the issue of civil and criminal liability and that would fall on the city. The schools should hire their own security if they want their own rules. The schools said that they want a one year contract with an opener. The reason they want a 3 year contract is because they are doing a recruit class and they need to plan for that. If the school district pulls out then we are overstaffed and we don’t have the funds to pay for it. Then came the conceptual language of the re-opener. At any time that they want to discuss the use of the officers, talk about strategy of how the students are arrested. If we don’t have agreement, the question is if we have a 3 year contract or can they get out. (Mayor asked a question off camera about what this means and Attorney Mike May said something I didn’t hear.) Mayor goes on to raise issues of the legislature and the city’s inability to raise tax funds. He says is ok with a 3 year contract and he is ok with no contract, but he is not ok with a one year contract. Fiscal responsibility. We are providing a service to a district that doesn’t have the same boundaries as the school district. They could contract with another district (Town of Madison, Shorewood, Maple Bluff etc.)
Rummel asks for clarification about what the mayor said about the recruitment class. The mayor says its the difference between if we hire 21 officers or 17 officers. The number they hire depends upon who retires. Mayor says we would not need the 4 officers. Chief Koval clarifies that the EROs work in patrol services over the summer. Koval says they have had a good 18 year history with 6 3-year contracts. He says that allows the officers to meet them in the freshman year and see them through graduation. It allows for greater engagement and relational stuff. He says before restorative justice, it was started through the efforts of an ERO at LaFollette and the rest of the country has caught up with us. EROs are a complementary piece to that. They also don’t want to arrest when they have options and alternatives, that is why they allow 12 – 16 year olds to have restorative justice throughout the city. This is an opportunity to do the good work they started. He brags about the officers . . . and what they do . . . and I’m tired of the PR shit so I’m not typing it . . . feel free to watch it yourself around the one hour and 11 minute mark. Koval says that they need this contract for continuity and predictability.
Eskrich asks about this coming before them directly without being referred and what is the time line? Why is this before us, where does it go next. Mayor says council has to approve it. Normally you’d have agreed upon versions, there have been several bumps in the road. One on our end when mayor asked about overtime and now at the school board side due to 1 vs. 3 years and the language that superceded the state statutes and ordinances and created liability issues. They had it at their last meeting and they referred it. School Board acts on it tonight and we get it at the council. They will be out of the contract Thursday of this week. It would be his recommendation to the department that if the school board adopts anything but a three year contract that they re-assign the officers and figure out the budget for the rest of the year and then get a new recruit class. If its a three year contract he assumes they will ratify that. Eskrich asks if someone from the city is there tonight to convey that message, Mayor says it has been conveyed repeatedly. Eskrich asks if anyone will be there from the city to answer questions. Mayor says it is not necessary, we are here tonight. Michael May says it was intended to introduce this in August, there was a glitch in legistar and it will be at the council on the 6th. Rummel asks if that was after it was withdrawn. Rummel and Verveer have a copy of the contract but the rest of the council has not.
Captain Brian Ackeret says that at late Friday the school board lawyer said to go with the language they have now. What got posted over the weekend is the agreement that we agreed to on Thursday. The only thing that really changes is more negotiating – the school board wanted a 50/50 split – our starting point was to continue as is. We made one small concession in training, about $4500 and the school board had paid for that in the past. It’s 24 hours of training for 4 officers and they conceded on that part so they could have some victory on their part. All the other changes are language changes that reflect the current practice to talk about expectations. We’ve been doing that, they have an outstanding relationship with Luis Yudice their Security Director. He says the changes are current practices that they plan to continue.
McKinney says that BOE hasn’t seen the contract, and she is concerned about racial disparities in the citations by EROs, she would like to know about that. She had also heard that the role of some of the EROs has shifted from relationship building to on-site policing. She asks why the school district is questioning the racial disparities and the shift in the duties and responsibilities and that they are taking on more disciplinary policing as opposed to having it addressed by a teacher in a non-threatening/non-threatening way.
Ackeret says the roles have not shifted they way she suggested but are shifting away from enforcement. Many things are now dealt with by the school district and they deal with the school violations without the police, police are the problem solvers and restorative justice to look at alternatives to arrest. There are some criminal investigations that do happen at the school and it might be things that happen outside the school, and kids report things to officers that they trust. “Clearly” a teacher would not deal with a sexual assault or a child abuse situation where there are bruises and injuries. That seems to be on the increase. They are not interested in adding a citation or arrest. Our racial disparities numbers are the same as citywide and the schools are a reflection of other areas of the city. We are cognizant of those and we have been addressing those for years. In terms of citations and arrests (underage drinking, possession of drug paraphernalia or marijuana) are handled through the restorative justice process where a citation could be issues, but peer courts are offered. There were some laws they wanted to write into the contract and our restorative justice programs will not work without incentives to participate and attend the circles. Often times there are sentences handed out by their peers – community service or education. Without that citation hanging over their head a certain percentage will not participate.
Koval says that when the school behavior plan went into place the EROs were like clean up in aisle 6, they were called in when all else failed. The ERO has to be part of a coordinated response. The citations are starting to trend down. He asks what the schools would look like without an ERO, then “just a beat cop” will show up and they will handle the call based on the legal facts that are there. (Oh ffs, he just made the argument about why all this “relationship building” is pure bullshit. 1:30) He thinks if the police aren’t in the schools there will be higher disparities.
The mayor asks if there is more current arrest disparities data. They don’t.
Rummel asks what happens if there is no contract, couldn’t they be like neighborhood officers. Koval says that the schools are getting a good service that meets their specific needs. They wouldn’t get that otherwise. Koval says that this is a small village and it is more dangerous and volatile. They arrested a 14 year old last Friday at school for the attempted homicide of a 17 year old. That is the new way of the world. He would like to see a member of MTI be here saying what they are concerned about.
Sarah Eskrich asks about the EROs being the first to respond now and if it is just patrol, it will be different, can you explain what might be different. Koval says there will be delayed response time at the most critical time. The active shooter phenomenon is increasing to once every 16 days as opposed to once every 30 days.
Brian Ackeret says that every three years there are rumors that the EROs are going be cut, and there are letter writing campaigns and the EROs start to question the longevity of their assignment – its a 4 year assignment with an option for a fifth year. We can dismiss them if it doesn’t work out. They don’t want to go through this anxiety every year.
Zach Wood asks about happens if we don’t have a contract and then go back to a contract? Dave Schmiedicke from the Finance Department says it is training and police logistics issue. Captain Sue Williams says they would have to look at the number of calls to determine if they have to add a beat. They’d have to look at that data so they can best respond. It would be an annual review of calls for service if they are not in the schools. It’s best to know by the beginning of the year, because they start the process now to shift officer positions.
Mike Verveer asks about the length of the contract renewal. If we cannot get to agreement, and the school votes for a one year contract, and the mayor says its 3 years or nothing. Is a one year contract better than no contract. Koval says that we have to look at all of the systems and the school board has a problem with perception about safety and their absence will add to the perception of safety. He says he remembers when Edgewood was on the ropes financially and then there were shootings in the parking lot at Memorial and then we didn’t have that problem the next year.
The mayor says that he hasn’t gone into detail about the subtitles of the negotiation, up to now the school district paid 100%. They requested 50/50 and then they rapidly moved to just the training and over-time. The reason this is so important is because they are starting to shift the cost to the city.
Koval says that he is also concerned that this year is that Luis Yudice is the Director of Security and he is looking at retirement and then they will have to go through more training.
Verveer asks if Koval thinks the school board will go with a 3 year contract. Koval says that is his hope. Mayor says that he doesn’t think they will. He thinks they will go with one year. He says MTI is greatly concerned about taking control away from the police and when teachers hear this they were deeply concerned. He doesn’t know how that will fit in to the thinking of the school board. Koval says he thinks MTI is at that meeting instead of that one. Verveer asks if Koval will be there on the 6th. Koval says “you know I can never miss a good council meeting.” (1:46) Koval says he agrees with the mayor, its three years or walk. 3 years or they can handle it themselves. He wants three years for the predictability, the relationships and not to be subject to the vagaries of political outcries. It’s time to stop the posturing and look at the good we did in the last 18 years and now it is up to public policy makers. If they say one year those officers will be pulled.
Verveer asks what happens to the 4 officers. Do they just go to patrol? Ackeret says that from September to the end of the year they would be day patrol, they have shortages, they would finish the year working there, subject to where they shortages are.
Verveer asks if the recruit class that has offers will be pulled. Sue Williams says they have given job offers and would have to talk to the mayor about that.
Rummel says she still hasn’t hear what it is like to be a ERO on a daily basis. Do they get called away. No, they stay here. Ackeret says they might respond to large numbers of students gathered by the schools, but they don’t respond to near by emergencies. They might “if its Armageddon” Koval says at one point there was thinking that officers might do more teaching, they do some of that (civics class – role of a police officer). They would like to do that more. The only perverse thing that happened with Tony Robinson was some very frank discussions.
Rummel asks about the memo to not have a recruit class, Mayor and Verveer says that is for next year.
Mo Cheeks says that it looks like MPD wouldn’t have a problem with some extra officers. If they had extra 4 officers for patrol, they would not be a problem. Mayor wants to point out the fiscal implications, those seem clear to everyone. Sue Williams comes back to the 100s of case numbers and Ackeret says that we can’t measure things that they prevent. He says that other issues are that things happen in the neighborhoods and spill into schools and they deal with it there. It’s in our best interest to maintain this relationship.
Cheeks asks Schmiedicke about the budget and future implications of this. He asks how we are ramping up the MPD budget and what foreseeable increases do we have in the policing budget. Schmiedicke says in 2017 we had to build in to fully fund positions that were funded by the COPS grants, and positions that were partial year. There is a workload and staffing study within the department and they need to expand over time to reflect the growth of the city. We need to look at the ultimate staffing of the police. In this case, the revenue to the city for the 4 officers is an issue. We will also have an immediate financial issues – for 2016 its $120,000 – $140,000 and for 2017 its $360,000.
Mayor says that the school board works on many of the same constraints we do, if they were in the same position we were, they would be taking the exact same position. He thinks its disconcerting they don’t get that we will have shortfall in our budget, as a partner of ours.
Cheeks asks who is on the negotiating team. Marci Poulson and Captain Ackeret.
Cheeks asks what the changes are. Ackeret says just the three training days and some language. Cheeks says that he is uncomfortable approving a contract he has never seen. Williams says that the other changes are things that already existed and it is formalized in the contract. Cheeks says he wasn’t able to ask intelligent questions about that. City Attorney May says that the other major changes are in section 3. Verveer says there is a chart that has 16 changes. May says that is A4 section 3 – restorative practices language. They say that is what they have been doing all along, they don’t think the changes are substantive.
McKinney says they are in the 11th hour, some have seen the contract and others haven’t. She is concerned about the posturing and the broader issue of safety in our school and the evaluation of that depends upon who is doing the evaluation. She is concerned about 3 year, 1 year or nothing. She wouldn’t want to be around the table where something terrible happens. She is uncomfortable with the all or nothing and leaving the schools in a state of flux. She understands the schools wanting to be data driven, she does not appreciate being in this position with a contract that is going to run out in a few days. She has a sense of concern and fear.
Mayor says 30 days ago it was who pays for overtime and training. They had agreement, they had a contract. They were in complete agreement on payment and codifying practices. Then the school board wants to change the length of time and the itemized references where the matter of laws and ordinances are part of the contract and we can’t do that. He says one solution would be to extend existing contract for 30 days to give us more time. We cannot go on a one year contract. If they don’t want the EROs, that’s fine. Marci Poulson is not available tonight. They likely aren’t watching us because they are having their own discussion. There’s some joke about the Chief being able to order an officer to go to the meeting and tell them what they decided.
Verveer asks about the re-opener discussion. There was no agreement says Ackeret. They want to opt out which would make it a 3 year rolling 1 year contract. That is not an option to us. We have been clear about that from the beginning. Koval says he will call Yudice to let him know the outcome of this meeting. There is language about giving notice to opt out of the contract for fiscal reasons, that was unfair, they re-negotiated to have 60 days for financial reasons for both parties to make it more fair. They removed the old language.
Koval says that he agrees with McKinney that they want the what is safe for kids and teachers. If they feel that we are not improving the situation, or not wanted, then it might be time to take a break.
Mayor says the district is under pressure on disparities in arrests and they want to manage the police officers in the schools, to control the consequences. We are committed as they are to address the disparities, but the way it is going to be managed is not to get the school district to manage the police department.
Rummel asks why the language is “up to 3 years” in the resolution. That is because of the opt out.
Rummel asks about the recruit class. Can’t they compensate with a smaller class in the future? (DAMN! The mayor won’t ever let Rummel finish a sentence. He constantly interrupts her.) Schmiedicke says that yes, there will be an immediate concern but it can be smoothed out over time.
Verveer asks why a 2 year contract won’t work. He’s thinking about compromises. Ackeret says that is the way they did it six times and it works. They would prefer longer. 2 year causes the same issue. The school and city fiscal years are different and that is hard. They would be in constant negotiating. He thought this was done and over a month ago. He would prefer not to go through the agony every other year.
Verveer says he doesn’t recall this level of angst in the past. Ackeret says the schools feel it.
Sarah Eskrich, is going to abstain due to lack of information, this was a good discussion, now she doesn’t know how she will vote. The school board will decide tonight and we can authorize that or not. She looks forward to the documents.
Alder Cheeks asks when the contract expires. Thursday say some. June is when it ended. Cheeks says that the contract is ended, what happens on Thursday. The plan was to start with the EROs. if the school board rejects it tonight they will have to meet tomorrow. He is concerned if we show up and have nothing in writing we can’t put the officers in the schools. Mayor agrees.
McKinney asks about a 30 day negotiating period. She says that would give us a bridge. She says at least go back to the table for a bridge. Can she make that amendment for that 30 days extension. She can’t walk away from the table with this total uncertainty. Mayor won’t let her make a motion since she spoke but he’s happy to recommend a motion for her. (Again, with the patronizing, what’s up with that!)
Verveer says the contract starts a week before school starts are the EROs in the schools now. Ackeret says yes, they are there for the in-service trainings and are meeting with the security team. They have been continuing as if this would pass. It was just Friday he found out. He thought on the 8th that the votes were there on the school board. Something has changed since then. They were going full steam ahead as if it was going to happen. Koval says “I patted him on the back on Friday night, now I’m ready to kick him in the . . .” (sorry, I missed it). (2:31)
Mayor says that they got a letter a few months ago about the TIF district and Judge Doyle Square, we worked that out and advanced them the money. At that time, we didn’t address the issue, but there was something disconcerting about that letter. The school board only thought about their immediate needs and not the long term needs of the city, it was totally callous. We are the ones responsible for building the tax base and he is fearful that there is a trend here in the tone of that letter and it will affect how we work together. He says he could see a continuation for 30 days if there is no agreement on a 3 year contract. It would go to the council on Tuesday and we will know then what the school board is gone and we can decide then if we will approve a 3 year contract or go with the extension. He says that he is worried about the liabilities but he says maybe missing the first 4 days wont’ be an issue.
Attorney May points out that if we approve a 30 day extension, by the time the school board can vote on it the 30 days might be over. Mayor says there can be a special meeting or give the authority to the administration.
McKinney says that she is more comfortable that we extend the opportunity, the end result might be the same. She doesn’t want to say we are out of the game completely. She wants the 30 day window to extend the opportunity to go back to the table.
Rummel makes the motion to extend the contract 30 days.
Cheeks will abstain without the information he needs. He thinks 45 days might be more realistic. He supports the continuation.
Rummel says the school board meets every two weeks.
McKinney just left in hopes of testifying at the School Board.
Cheeks moves 45 days.
Eskrich says that if the mayor made his position clear, she’s not sure how this changes anything. Mayor says that he made the suggestion for the motion but he doesn’t agree with it.
Woods says he supports the extension because they and their colleagues need more time to digest this. We haven’t had ample time to digest this. Whatever we decide, nothing happens, depending upon what the school board does.
45 days passes. The main motion passes.
Verveer asks to have this information on legistar in the morning. He suggests a similar chart as the school board staff prepared for the school board.
Motion passes. Eskrich abstains.
There’s 40 minutes of open session left . . . but I ran out of time . . . these are the issues they have left.
And, I just gotta say . . . I had the information and blogged about it . . . why didn’t the alders have the info?
20 – Town of Madison Attachment
21 – Garver Feed Mill
22 – Settling a law suit for $377,428 from an employee at Overture
