City Finance Committee Budget Amendments (11 – 15)

Part 2 of a 3 or 4? part series of an over 8 hour long meeting!  29 amendments were offered.  Many did not pass.  This is community services funding, removing transit workers, removing independent police monitor and removing staff 3.25% increase.  Spoiler alert:  none pass.

Part one is here, amendments 1-10.  As explained in that post:

I skipped the first 2.5 hours which includes the other items on their agenda and the public testimony.  There are many alders around the table who are “ex officio” members and can participate in discussion but not vote.  Alders on the Finance Committee are the only ones who can submit amendments.  This is why you see Alder Bidar, the council president, introducing amendments for non-Finance alders as a “courtesy”.  The people on the Finance Committee are:  Mayor Rhodes-Conway, Shiva Bidar, Barbara McKinney, Mike Verveer, Rebecca Kemble, Donna Moreland and Keith Furman.  The amendments are in three sections:

• Budget neutral
• Reductions
• Additions

CONTINUING REDUCTIONS

AMENDMENT ELEVEN

Title: Olbrich Botanical Gardens Staff

Sponsors: Alder Henak (sponsored as a courtesy to allow on Finance agenda by Council President Bidar)

Amount: ($57,500)

Motion:  Bidar moves to place on file.  Someone seconds, I think Kemble

Questions of Staff:  None

Discussion:  

Henak says that the building isn’t done until early this next year.  We are going from 2-3 personnel for maintenance and increasing programming staff that are already working in the facility.  Looking at a 6 month difference to allow for other aspects of this years budget made sense to him.

Vote:  Motion passes seemingly unanimously, the item is placed on file and will not be forwarded with the package of amendments to the council.

AMENDMENT TWELVE

Title: Community Building and Engagement

Sponsors: Alders McKinney, Henak

Amount: ($115,000)

Motion:  McKinney moves adoption, Verveer seconds “for purposes of discussion”.  Meaning he doesn’t agree, but he thinks McKinney should be allowed to ask questions and discuss.

Questions of Staff:

McKinney asks staff to update them on the movement of the Community Development Department in supporting funding for Neighborhood Centers.  There were several amendments put forward increasing funding for neighborhood centers and that work.  And also the shifting of fund to support funding for youth programs.

Jim O’Keefe from the Community Development Division brought resolutions to the council from the RFP (request for proposals) process that needed $400,000 more in funding.  Their recommendations to the mayor they tried to find $200,000 towards those needs and asked the mayor to find the balance of the funding which she did.  The resolutions that the council adopted at their last meeting allocates those funds to neighborhood centers and community partners.

McKinney asks for the numbers of the neighborhood centers that were impacted by the shifting of the funds.  He doesn’t have that with him.  Each center was guaranteed and increase of about 5%, they all benefitted.

McKinney asks if the total of $254,987 of recommendations fall under those programs?

Jim O’Keefe asks where the number is coming from.

The mayor says that the amendment is about the Community Building and Engagement Program.

McKinney says she is getting there if the mayor will allow her to do that.

Mayor says that the Alder is not looking at the budget, she is looking at the resolution for the programming.

O’Keefe says the reason he hesitates here is because in the neighborhood funding process there were two elements.  Funding for “center support” which is facility costs that help keep the doors open, non-program specific.  The RFP also covered expenses with youth development programs undertaken by neighborhood center.  He doesn’t remember the split between those elements off the top of his head but they were both addressed in the neighborhood funding process.  The other process he referenced were the non-neighborhood center program.

McKinney tries to explain where she is going.  She says some of the speakers said we were reducing dollars from programs.  She wanted to establish the RFP process and she wanted to look at the $115,000 and that we were not taking money from programs.

[Brenda is now slamming her head into her desk and dreading listening to this again.  Alder McKinney clearly doesn’t understand that they person taking money from programs is in fact, herself.  That is what this amendment does.  I’m torn between shortening this because its just so painful to watch and letting you all know just how painful it was.  Oh, and poor Jim!  He is sooooooo professional.  Not sure I could do that.]

Mayor asks O’Keefe to explain what the $115,000 is funding in terms of programs right now.  O’Keefe says that one of the people said that $115,000 was added in 2019 to support two specific contracts.  One of them the Neighborhood Organizing Institute.  The other was the work that you heard from Centro Hispano.  The 2019 amendment characterized that $115,000 as expiring at the end of 2019.  The executive budget added that funding back.  [Alder McKinney’s amendment is now taking it away again.]

McKinney says the original funding was through 2019?  O’Keefe says that element of the funding.  McKinney asks what the process is for the two agencies to re-apply for the money.  O’Keefe says that once the council finalizes the budget and sets the funding level for the program, they will do an RFP in the first quarter of next year.  Those agencies and others could then respond to that.  McKinney asks if that is the process that they follow to determine who gets the money.  O’Keefe says the process for determining what funding will be available is the budget process, based on that decision they will develop an RFP based on that amount.  McKinney says that those agencies that did not receive the $115,000 would be able to apply for the RFP when it is issued?  Yes.  And that is the process that you follow in issuing the RFP and agency’s responding?  “That is the standard procedure”.

McKinney asks the mayor about the $115,000 that she added to the budget that was designed to sunset.  The Mayor says that the council added that money to the 2019 budget.  It was a one-year amount of funding.  She decided to continue that funding in 2020.  She thought the council made a good decision and it was her intention to continue the community building and engagement work.

McKinney thanks the mayor for correcting her.  She asks if there is a process for the RFP, does that eliminate the process for the RFP?  The mayor says no.  This will go into the post of money available for Community Building and Engagement and that entire amount will be available for a RFP.  They are discussing what that RFP will look like.  It will include elements of what is funded through this money now. There are a number of things that are funded, not just the two agencies that they discussed.  It will include some of the same things but not necessarily all.  That is the whole point of going out to RFP, people get to bring us their good ideas.  The RFP will go to the Community Services Committee, they will discuss and make a recommendation to the council.

McKinney says if that is the process the $115,000 in the Mayor’s budget, where does that fit?  The mayor says it goes to RFP along with the rest of the Community Building and Engagement dollars.  McKinney asks if it will or will not?  Mayor says “it will”.  McKinney asks again, so this money is not separated for the two organizations.  I think at this point multiple people are saying no.  The mayor says its not dedicated for anything except Community Building and Engagement.

McKinney asks if the RFP has not gone out yet, is the money available in the 2020 budget.  The Mayor says the entire amount for the 2020 budget will go to RFP.  That won’t happen until early next year.

Bidar asks O’Keefe to explain the RFP process.  O’Keefe says they will spend the later part of this year and the first month or two next year in reaching out to community partners and stakeholders to consult with them about reshaping and improving this program and would hope to release an RFP in the month of March and come back in April or early May to Community Services.

Bidar asks what the total amount of funding in this pot through Community Building and Engagement is $315,000 in the Executive Budget.  And all $315,000 is part of the RFP?  Whatever is approved by the council as the amount of money in that pot of funding will go for RFP?  O’Keefe says that it is a bit more nuanced than that.  Because the funds need to be used in 2020.  It was their thought that they would continue the 5 existing contracts for a period of time so the funds don’t go unused while they are developing the RFP and they would issue new contracts upon the conclusion of the RFP process and approval of the council, to whichever agencies are selected for funding.  The initial contract would span the balance of 2020 and continue for another year and possibly two.  The idea is to use all of the $315,000 to support agencies selected through a competitive RFP process.

Bidar says that they will pro-rate the current recipients until the month in which the decision is made for new funding.  O’Keefe says yes.  Bidar says that is how they do it for their RFPs in community services, is that correct.  O’Keefe agrees.

Alder Moreland clarifies for the 4th time.  She asks how the other agencies get a fair chance in the RFP process from agencies that have been funded historically.  O’Keefe says they go into the RFP process with no pre-conceived notions of which agencies will receive funding.  He would expect some or all of the agencies would seek funding in the new process, but the outcome of that will be determined by that process and by the council ultimately.

Bidar says that historically that funding pot has added more agencies that receive that funding like Bayview Foundation and Vera Court Neighborhood Center were two new organizations in the 2018 process.

Alder Evers starts to speak about Bayview Foundation but the Mayor stops him and says they are still in questions.  He says he’s going ask a question to Deon Cruthers.  They get in an argument.  Mayor says that when you start with “speak” it makes me nervous.  Evers shoots back that maybe you have to give me some time, this is the third time since I’ve been on council you’ve interrupted me.  The mayor says she interrupts many alders and we are here to ask questions and if its a question please continue.  Evers asks about meeting him the other night at the Bayview Leaders meetings and this was one of the programs covered, can you explain the program.   Cruthers says this is the first year with a cohort of community based Bayview Residents for leadership development.  They have also have technical assistance with UW-Extension to help them develop a ciriculum and process for their organization.  They met two weeks ago and the leaders are starting to develop skills and ask good questions to figure out what projects they are going to do.  The project was for seed money to do projects in their community and they are developing those projects now.

Evers says he was really appreciative of the work and what they were able to accomplish with the leaders.  He says that the individuals there seemed to have developed their own proposals seeking funding for their own community, is that correct.  Part of the program was engagement where people felt empowered and they had agency improving their own community and the lives of children in the community.  Evers says that might have an impact on public health.  Um-hmm.  And crime?  Yes.  And other issues that people get upset about in the community?  I agree.

McKinney asks Finance staff about that analysis (she reads it)  She is confused about “continuing the one time funding”, she says that is not clear to her and maybe that is what the confusion is.  She is specifically addressing when the speakers said earlier that we were taking money from those two agencies.  Laura Larson says there were several amendments in 2019, at finance and common council.  They increased funding for Community Building and Engagement.  Those amendments indicated the funding would be one-time for 2019.  Those funds were not part of CDDs base budget and  in the process of building the 2020 budget the Mayor put that funding back in and its now part of the base funding for Community Building and Engagement.

McKinney wants to make sure that those dollars allocated to Community Building Engagement fund will be a part of an RFP that will be eligible for anyone to apply for.  [For the freakin’ 5th time yes!!!!!!!!!!!  Wow.]  Is that right, am I understanding that.

O’Keefe tried again.  He says that we initially had a question about the description in the executive budget and they received clarification both from the Finance Department and the Mayor that the intent was to make that entire $315,000 subject to the RFP process.  So, its not intended to be reserved for the two organizations for which the 2019 budget amendment was prepared and passed.

McKinney asks again “Is that correct?” [I swore I wasn’t going to get snarky, but is she calling O’Keefe a liar?] She just wants to make sure that is correct.

Alder Carter asks about the funding of the existing recipients continuing until the RFP is launched, is that correct?  O’Keefe says that they will estimate the completion of the RFP and continue the existing contracts until that date.  Until the new RFPs are submitted?  He says til the new RFP is completed, meaning the results are confirmed and approved by the council.

Carter asks if they expect the $315,000 would stay $315,000 or would it be lowered since there is overlap?  O’Keefe says they would expect the total funding for 2020, $315,00 would become part of the base budget and be available not just for 2020 but also in subsequent years.  The new contracts from the 2020 RFP will utilize a portion of the 2020 funding, in 2021 and beyond assuming the council continues the funding, the contracts would continue.

Moreland sees that the contract dates have changed throughout the years.  Are you looking to get on a calendar year at some point.  O’Keefe says yes, when he program was initiated in the 2015 budget they were given a certain amount of money, conducted an RFP process that took through June to complete and the first contracts started on July 1st.  In the good old days they used to be able to roll contracts over from one fiscal year to another, so the initial result contracts went from 7/1/15 to 6/30/16.  That continued in the second year.  Then in the third year when we adopted a new policy that forbid us from straddling fiscal years with contracts, we have to use funds appropriated in a fiscal year in that fiscal year, so that has led us to where we are today.  They have done their best to align contract years to align with the calendar year.  Moreland asks if they will be off if the contract doesn’t go out until the spring.  He says next year the existing contracts will continue through, for example, June 30, but under that scenario the contracts would begin July 1st and then continue for the rest of 2020 and a new contract would be signed in 2021 for a full year, utilizing the full $315,000.

Discussion:

Bidar urges her colleagues to not support the amendment.  As an alder that serves on Community Services she can tell them the number of requests they receive for this particular program is very much bigger than the amount they have available for funding.  As someone who has reviewed the applications, she thinks you all would agree that we need more money, not less.  Which is the reason why those of us on the council last year increased this funding.  She did send the RFP language used in the last round of funding in 2018.  If you read the purpose of the funding I can’t imagine that that we would think that this aligns with the values, this is foundational funding for us to invest in.  We continuously talk about how we want to increase the number of people who come to our council meetings, to our committees, more engagement in city government and decision making and those people who came to testify tonight on this and know about how to come before us and talk to us about budget is because they went to the community engagement and leadership programs being offered by the agencies being funded.  She would urge us to support the full amount of funding as proposed in the Executive Budget which is $315,000. Compared to big amounts of money to make sure we have the kind of cohesion, representation, voices, leadership development in our neighborhoods with a specific emphasis on people living in rental housing, lower-income, immigrants and people of color. That is what the funding purpose says.

McKinney says the reason she offered the amendment was because there was not clarity in terms of additional dollars and who expected to receive those dollars.   [My frustration is that this is the kind of thing that you seek clarity with staff, the mayor and others and then offer an amendment that provides clarity.  This is just a cut, which makes NO SENSE!]  And  specifically she gets that we want our money to reflect our values, but the problem is that there are absolutely programs that should go through the RFP process in order to be funded.  It took the Community Development Department quite a number of years to develop a process that was not subjective and when they have a process with the RFP, that process should be followed.  She says she has a problem where we make the decision when its convenient we talk about the process and when its not convenient we talk about subjective and so the process – there were two organizations that felt that the 2019 ending of the funding that she should have continued to receive those fundings, outside of the process, which is the RFP. When she was looking at the budget to shift money to have a balanced budget this $115,000 seemed to be out there and not attached.  Since it was out there and not attached and we’re adding a wheel tax for $40.  When we are balancing the budget they are looking at funding that can be shifted to balance it and she would ask her collegues if they would support that or not, but at least look at the process and if the process is the RFP where we allocate dollars to agencies that the Community Development Department has selected, then lets follow that process.  If we’re not going to follow that process, lets just not follow the process for everything that we do.  She will be supporting the amendment for the $115,000

Henak says that as a council we have made it really clear over the last 5 years that this is a very important source of funding, it is an important area and we have done that by increasing the funding over the last 5 years by almost $4M, which is 38% and is second only to debt service in the increase in the budget.  He thinks we need to look at how we are allocating those funds and by sponsoring this he isn’t saying this isn’t important, but its looking at how we are valuing things against each other and how we need to make situations work.

Bidar wants to correct the narrative about how Community Development Division is not following processes that are RFP based and fair and very thorough.  She would invite any of them to come and sit through community services RFP processes.  She would hope other departments could emulate the level of depth and detail of the contracting process.  The RFP process, the level of engagement to get feedback about RFP processes and the level of scrutiny of every one of the applicants that respond to the RFP process, that come and testify before the committee and get asked a lot of questions and the final recommendation that the committee makes to the council and contracting language based on measures and outcomes based on the source of funding and account managers for the contracts that follow closely the contractors.  She wants to be very clear to dispel any narrative out there that thinks we are not using our CDD money to their highest potential that is very, very transparent, RFP based where everybody can apply.  Now, do we have additional work we want to do to make it more accessible to smaller organizations that have not traditionally received funding, that have not had a foot in city hall and the ways to apply for funding.  Absolutely, 100%.  If there is a reason she sits on that committee, that is her goal in life.  That is what the department is working on too.  It’s work they are doing in that department just like the work the city as a whole is doing to have our programs and offering be more accessible.  So, yeah, room for improvement absolutely, but work that we talk about every time that we meet and the staff talk about constantly.  The RFP processes are very thorough, some would say maybe even too thorough.

Vote:  There was one aye, I believe it was McKinney.  The motion fails, this cut will not be in the package sent from Finance to Council.

AMENDMENT THIRTEEN

Title: Eliminate 2 Newly Created Positions

Sponsors: Alders McKinney, Henak

Amount: ($150,000)

AMENDMENT FOURTEEN

Title: Remove Police Auditor Funding

Sponsors: Alders McKinney, Henak

Amount: ($200,000)

Motion:  McKinney moves approval.  Verveer sounding even more weary seconds for discussion purposes.

Questions of Staff: None.

Discussion:

Alder McKinney says police do not guarantee public safety, that is very clear.  The allocation of establishing the position of an independent police auditor.  If we had a horizon list for the operation budget this would absolutely be on that horizon list.  Currently we have an acting chief, we will be hiring a new police officer and before the realignment of the Public Safety and Review Committee.  She shares the make up of the Public Safety Review Committee (PSRC).  the Mayoral appointment was Brenda “conklin” [Konkel] who is now the chair of the PSRC, the co-chair is an african american male.  The past co-chair of the Madison Police Department Policy and Review Committee is on the committee.  A retired police officer is on the PSRC.  There are two african american males on the PSRC.  One is the co-chair of the PSRC.  There are three alders on that committee and to establish the $200,000 for an independent auditor oversight board when you’ve got a PSRC that can be restructured and realigned to serve as that oversight committee and the independent monitor.  It’s not saying if we should have an independent monitor never, its just that putting it in alignment with everything else we are looking at.  We just received the full report of the ad hoc committee.  Going through those recommendations is critical.  Some of them will have implementation, some will not.  But putting the position in place before we look at going through everything else is pre-mature.  It in no way negates the work of that committee over the period of time they have been in sessions.  Some fo the recommendations have already been put in place.  It absolutely has changed the tenure of the police department.  Even one of the members says that because of the work the committee has done they have seen a decrease in the number of police involved events.  There has been a sense of not accepting or not respecting the work of the committee, that is absolutely not true, what she is asking in putting this forward is that it is premature to allocate and hire someone for that position before you have gone through the report, hired a new police chief, realigned the PSRC and then to see what is so.  That is why she is putting the amendment forward.

Alder Paul Skidmore appreciates Alder McKinney bringing this forward and appreciates her comments and suggestion.  He supports where she is going with this, he has additional comments about the task force report which was based on the OIR report.  He supports an independent un-biased auditing of MPD.  Chief Koval supported that, so does the current command staff of Chief Wahl and captains and others.  They already have the Police and Fire Commission (PFC) mandated by state law to keep politics out of public safety for a very good reason.  He will be talking about politics in this public safety really shortly.  The city also has the PSRC of which he was a former member and Alder McKinney was on.  It is a citizen alder committee appointed by the mayor and has had varying levels of respect through the years and I think with the current make up it will have a better future than it has in the past.  He opposed the independent monitor proposed by the task force and included for funding for some of the reasons Alder McKinney addressed and some other ones.  He does not believe this model will be unbiased.  They have heard a lot of comments expressing extreme bias against the MPD and individuals in the department.   The task force recommendations criticizes the city’s ability to be involved in the hiring, firing and discipline of police officers, very specifically the first seven recommendations that urge the PFC to listen to the city and get political.  Listen to the biases brought forward.  Very recent comments by the mayor suggest a significant bias on her part relative to the police department and the conduct of the officers.  He has had officers suggest to him, what would the mayor do in this situation given somebody committing a criminal act.  The events over the past two years have created a new narrative that is very critical of chief Koval, individual officers and MPD even tho they have been cleared by internal and external reviews.  They have been subjected to on-going harassment including by some incumbent alders.  That is well documented.  He says there have been a number of individuals talking about the many millions paid out by the city for the wrongdoing.  He says City Attorney May could comment on this if asked, but he isn’t asking cuz he already knows.  By and large the settlements that have been made have been out of court settlements by attorneys who have a cottage industry.  They know what the limit is an how they can settle out of court.  Most notably the Tony Robinson settlement was just under the threshold which would have allowed the city council to opine on that and review it.  They were not given that opportunity.  Police Office Matt Kenney really wanted to go to court but was not allowed to because the cities risk manager who is also the head of the self-insurance company WIMMIC, decided to settle out of court, so there was a large settlement which included an embargo and this was a stipulation saying no fault was found and the parties will not discuss it.  He doesn’t think the ink was dry on the settlement before the proponents were on the capital steps proclaiming victory.  It’s a sad statement.  This model would provide and opportunity for individuals and groups to file complaints and have a forum for what many in the community would consider harassment as well as a waste of time and money.  We don’t need this.  Maybe this model would work.  But he doesn’t think this model at this time would work.  The state got it right, keep politics out of public safety, we have opportunities to use the PFC and PSRC as a model for independent monitoring and review.  He recalls early in the machinations with the Robinson, our review that McKinney did bring up to leadership why PSRC was cut out, he had the same question.  He opposes this and hopes there is support to oppose this and at least give the council enough time to review the entire report which he just received Friday afternoon, so they can look at it in context.

Bidar strongly opposes this amendment.  She says the committee forwarded two of their main recommendation back in August because they knew those recommendations were the cornerstone of their work of what they were going to recommend.  Because they didn’t want to be having this conversation where people said the report came to late to take action on during the budget.  They purposefully put those recommendations forth so an independent monitor could be included in the Executive Budget. She was on the OFC for 5 years, including being the president before she was alder.  There is nothing about the independent monitor that is being mentioned that fall directly in the role of the PFC.  She struggled in her role as PFC because there were expectations from the community that the PFC could do, that they couldn’t do under their statutory obligations under the law.  That said, the PFC certainly has an important role and in no way an independent monitor position would do anything but support the role of the PFC in doing their work better.  There seems to be a conversation that mixes the independent monitor as a person and the civilian oversight board.  It could very well be that in the discussion it ends up that the Civilian Oversight Board which is also a recommendation ends up being some version of the current PSRC.  She knows deputy mayor McLay has been looking, none of us want to create another thing, but how do we make sure there is clarity about the oversight board’s role.  There needs to be quite a bit of conversation around that oversight board.  What we are talking about is regardless of who the oversight board is, there needs to be an individual, and independent individual within city government but also at arms length from other roles in government.   An auditor like the financial auditor.  And auditor that is taking charge of the role, looking into the oversight board and how to move it forward, how to create it, what do we need to make sure we have good citizen oversight.  It’s a chicken and the egg, if you don’t have the person taking all of that on, you won’t be able to do all the other things.  There needs to be someone to take on some of these recommendations.  The work is too important, they have spent a lot of time talking about the importance of this and she fully resent any narrative is about not believing in our police department.  This work is about deeply believing in our police department.  It’s about investing in the building of trust of our police department and every single one of our residents. The reasons she spent time at the ad hoc committee and put her heart and soul in this work is because she believes this is the way to make sustainable inroads in making sure we continue to be who we want to be as a city and as a police department.  It is our police department.  She has been on the council for 10 years and she has no more patience for the politics of narratives that are not true.  And to say that there is a single one of the alders that sit at this table who do not believe in the value that our law enforcement brings to the community is false narrative.  To also say that there are not alders here that think that we can always do better.  It would be incredible for me to sit here and say we are perfect as a city and we should never be improving on anything.  For every single one of the departments.  She just talked about Community Development and how we are doing great things, but we need to continue improving and she would say the same of every single one of our departments.  The day that we reach perfection is not going to happen.  This work is about believing and investing in our residents and our police department.  She urges them to vote no, support the ad hoc committee work.  We should start with the auditor, that is a key way to move forward with all the recommendations.  She thanks the Mayor for including it in her budget.

Alder Marsha Rummel also hopes they vote it down.  This idea has been around for a couple years and when she served on CCEC we created a President’s Workgroup on Police and Community relations.  It was a quick committee and they had 13 recommendations and pretty much all have been adopted in some way.  One of them was to ask the ad hoc committee to review the feasibility of external oversight.  They did what we asked, as they did in so many ways, like the police department did that made a lot of changes.  We approved that report in May of 2017 where we directed ourselves and staff to go forward with this idea.  We are at the point we are moving forward.  It’s great that we had the report and the mayor’s budget item with this included and she thinks it needs support.  There are details to be worked out.  The PSRC could work with the monitor.  That was part of the charge to strengthen the PSRC and live it up to some of its mission which I don’t think it always did effectively.  And she thinks that is still on the table.  It’s time to move forward on this idea.

McKinney wants to offer a substitute amendment after Alder Carter speaks.

Carter says recently someone commented that they didn’t understand how we could do an RFP and put an amount in and not know how much consultants cost, but we put a number in there and then we send it out.  I haven’t had a chance to read the report, which is what she has been saying over the course of time, she wants to read the report.  At the time this was brought to the council she said she wanted to read the report.  As policy makers, regardless of who lives it for 3 or 4 years, we all need to be versed in this report and make a solid decision on whether we want to support this, if we want the auditor, whether we want to hire an outside consultant to be the auditor.  All those different variances, but she needs to read the report.  If you want to go blindly into this, that’s fine, but she needs to read the report first.

Skidmore appreciates Alder Carters memory and comments, that is the way he understood the meeting.  We were asked to vote on this fundamental issue, recommendation, even tho we didn’t have the report and he felt he was assured that we would be able to review the report.  He got the report at 3:00.  Thank you Abby (I believe he is referring to the Cap Times reporters), because I didn’t get it from the city.  I saw enough in there to raise concerns about some of the fundamental issues, the context. He would agree its not soup yet and there is a place for an independent monitor, an unbiased monitor, but this is not the way to go about it.

Moreland says that Alder Carter was quoting her.  Carter says she thought it was a good comment.  Moreland says that she accepts it.  The reason she supports this is because so many people in our community feel this is needed.  That dollar amount, I”m still concerned with it, because we just don’t know what it would take to get the position, but its symbolically important that we have it here and that we don’t defund or attempt to defund this $200,000 placeholder.  This is important for the city.  If we ask this group of people to take the time to go through this and they came with this recommendation, right now is the time to hold this place.  If it turns out that to get this position its $500,000 then we need to rethink this position.  Cuz we don’t know where that money is coming from.  We don’t have all the information, but she does think it is important to have this placeholder here.  We need to tell people your voices have been heard and the time you took was important time.  She can’t hang her hat on the number, but she’s not going to take it out, its the same way with some of the studies that they have in the budget.  If we don’t send out RFPs we don’t know what its going to cost to do it.

Carter clarifies this is not an RFP, this is someone we hire.  Mayor says that is correct, this is a position.  Moreland says she knows it will be a position, but if we approve the $200,000 its benefits, its compensation and she doesn’t know what else goes into the number and they feel they can hire a good person, an unbiased person for that amount of money then yes they should do it.  Mayor says they didn’t just pick a number out of a hat.

Almost a Substitute:  McKinney offers a substitute that reads “To create the position of independent  police auditor, after the selection and hiring process of a chief of police for the city of Madison.” [Never gets a second]

The mayor asks if that includes a change to the numbers or just the text.  She asking if the proposal is to cut the funding and add that language.  Or leave the funding and add the language.

McKinney says leave the funding and add . . .  Mayor suggests if she is unsure to bring it as a council amendment . . .She says she needs to think through the process.  Her process is that there are so many unknowns and when you said a placeholder that made me feel more uncomfortable.  She wants to honor the work of the committee.  She thanks Alder Bidar for going through the process that we are not against the police and a lot of those narratives just don’t fit.  But for us to put a position into place without actually knowing the fit for everything else concerns her.  As policy makers.  They are hiring a police chief and how will the mayor have that selection process.  There are too many unknowns so her amendment is to defer creating the position of an independent police auditor until after the selection and hiring of a police chief for the City of Madison.  She doesn’t know about the dollar amount so your suggestion is what?

Mayor says that she suggests McKinney take it back and discuss with staff and put together an amendment for the council process and we dispense with this amendment, what is before us tonight and you bring back a new amendment for the council process.

McKinney says “ok”

Mayor says “So you can feel confident in what you want to proposed” and then moves immediately to a vote.

Vote:  Only McKinney votes to remove the funding that I could hear.

AMENDMENT FIFTEEN

Title: General Municipal Employee Pay Increase

Sponsors: Alder Henak (sponsored as a courtesy to allow on Finance agenda by Council President Bidar)

Amount: ($329,140)

AMENDMENT SIXTEEN

Title: Digital Equity

Sponsors: Alders Furman, Baldeh

Amount: $20,000

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT SEVENTEEN A

Title: Restore $25,000 for Pavement Marking

Sponsors: Alder Verveer

Amount: $25,000

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT SEVENTEEN B

Title: Restore $50,000 for Pavement Marking-Option B

Sponsors: Alders Bidar, Foster

Amount: $50,000

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT EIGHTEEN

Title: Special Election – 8th Aldermanic District

Sponsors: Alder Bidar, Mayor Rhodes-Conway

Amount: $30,000

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT NINETEEN

Title: Odana, East Towne, and South Madison Area Planning

Sponsors: Alders Bidar, Baldeh

Amount: $45,000

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

 

AMENDMENT TWENTY

Title: Create a part-time Police Data Analyst

Sponsors: Alder McKinney

Amount: $55,400

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT TWENTY ONE

Title: Snow & Ice Control on Arterial Shared Use Paths

Sponsors: Alders Kemble, Foster

Amount: $65,000

AMENDMENT TWENTY TWO

Title: Police Educational Incentive

Sponsors: Alders Furman, Bidar, Moreland

Amount: $143,250

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT TWENTY THREE

Title: Traffic Safety Enhancements

Sponsors: Alders Kemble, Foster

Amount: $160,000

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT TWENTY FOUR

Title: 9th Ambulance

Sponsors: Alder Henak, Tierney (sponsored as a courtesy to allow on Finance agenda by Council President Bidar)

Amount: $637,400

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT TWENTY FIVE A

Title: Add 3 Police Officers-Option A

Sponsors: Alder Verveer

Amount: $168,000

AMENDMENT TWENTY FIVE B

Title: Add 6 Police Officers-Option B

Sponsors: Alders McKinney, Henak, Carter

Amount: $335,830

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote:

AMENDMENT TWENTY FIVE C

Title: Add 12 Police Officers-Option C

Sponsors: Alder Skidmore (sponsored as a courtesy to allow on Finance agenda by Council President Bidar)

Amount: $671,700

Motion:

Questions of Staff:

Discussion:

Vote: