You’ll have to cut me some extra slack, I”m rusty, its been a while . . . .
ROLL CALL (or “ascertaining attendance”)
Soglin is a notified absence, Mike Verveer is in the chair. Everyone else is here except King. The staff rows are oddly empty . . . its a crowded agenda, with tons of important items. Rummel suspends the rules to take things out of order and introduce items not on the agenda. That passes as per usual.
HONORING RESOLUTIONS
2 long time city staff. Katie Scharf for her 25 years with the library and Linda Elmore from building inspection and 40 years with the city. Also, a late addition honoring the Mendota Schools PUPS, for their work to raise awareness and actions to address homeless issues. Dang, they were cute, its worth watching the video . . . I hope they got the song on their video at Citichannel. . . it even make MIKE VERVEER SPEECHLESS . . . who knew that could happen. All pass on voice vote unanimously.
EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
Item 59 – James Patrick supporting Madison Sports Complex from the Sports Commission – available to answer questions but there are none.
Item 69 – Paula Fitzsimmons is in opposition we have an amazing chief of police who is responsive and caring and goes out of his way Our police do a dangerous job and work as social workers and go above and beyond, they are a progressive force and a model for the country but the city council treats them with disrespect, they are not the enemy, this seems like a witch hunt. Redirect your hostilities where they belong, poverty, how we treat the homeless and those with mental illness and austerity.
Mr. Fitzsimmons, VP of Midvale Heights Neighborhood and works on the neighborhood watch and Chief Koval is the best chief we have had in 20 years. He writes to alders and mayor and none of them get back to him, but when Chief Koval gets and email he responds. You need to open the doors of communication and talk to the chief and I know you don’t work with the chief or the rest of the community. $400,000 would help alot with the homeless community, this council is not being fair to the chief or the citizens of Madison. Do it next year, plan for it, what is the emergency. If there is a mistrust you can work it out by communicating. Work with the chief, other chief’s might deserve your mistrust, I’m watching.
Teresa Tellez Giron – she agrees that we are a great police chief. She is in support of the review, as a Madison resident, mother and member of groups, she says we need to do this to create transparency and trust with the police department. The officers do a great job, but with any large organization, we have gaps and we face issues as latinos, nationwide, and the study is needed. She works with a nonprofit, but this study is as important as the work, its important the chief made this divisive, we are all in this together and we need to work on the issues of trust where people of color are impacted every day.
Kevin ?? – Speaks against spending $400,000, the truth is and the study will likely conclude there is a good solid police department, crime is the biggest problem in southwest Madison where he lives. What will be the return on investment for this. No charges were charged after a dispassionate and independent safely. In his neighborhood a police officer was hit in the face and made the arrest safely. The police do not deserve an exhaustive study, they deserve our thanks.
(White people are in support of the chief, people of color against.)
Matt Clear asks about the “battle” between the chief and the council. She says the council lacks respect for the police department, you put the onus of all the problems in the city on the police department. Clear asks why she says that. She says the study and you never thank the police. When the Tony Robinson case – the council joined Dane County in sending the letter about Tony Robinson . . . she doesn’t remember. Clear asks if that letter was negative. She says it wasnt, it was for Tony Robinson, but nothing towards the police department. It seems very negative all the time.
Steve King says he’s only been on the council 7 years and you said you have been here 20 years and you mentioned alot of negative things of the council towards the police department. Can you name one time in 7 years where we didn’t give the police department everything they wanted. Mr. Fitzsimmons, says they should have to ask. King says that they have given them everything they asked for.
Koval is raising his hand to speak and the speakers are pointing the chief to get him to answer. Verveer asks if he has a question for the speaker. Koval says yes. They object and point out that staff don’t ask questions of speakers. The speaker says that is where you are disrespectful.
Barbara McKinney asks if it is appropriate for the chief to ask questions of speakers. Attorney May says that staff do not ask questions of the public, they could break the rules and try to do it differently.
The speaker still wants to speak. Verveer has to tell her that her three minutes are off. Koval is acting like a child.
CONSENT AGENDA
They pass everything on the agenda except,
Public hearing item 3 has a speaker, 3 – 19 are public hearing items.
Extra-majority items – 55, 60, 66, 68 and 71 are all unanimously adopted (no objections)
Additional recommendations – item 123 has a substitute, they refer the substitute
The exclusion list is item 59 (community sports complex) and 69 (money for the police policy review committee)
People are registered on item 54 (City Energy Plan)
Item 98 historic preservation plan scope of services, recommend adoption with an amendment and that is accepted.
Passes on a voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#3 – That Barbeque Joint has a request to not have to meet with the neighborhood association as a condition of the license.
#4 – is all the liquor license renewals and items 5 – 17 are separated liquor licenses that had items added as conditions as well as the revocation of the liquor license for Blair St. BBQ. No registrants on any of them, they all pass as recommendations on the agenda without discussion on a voice vote.
#18 and 19 – plan commission items have no registrants and they recess and re-refer 18 and 19 they have two people in support available to answer questions from the Steamfitters. They adopt number 19.
It’s an hour into the meeting . . .
ITEM 54 – MADISON ENERGY PLAN
3 speakers in support. They stress that implementation is important, that the regional efforts are important and we need to make sure this gets done. He also encourages them to support the program that was funded, but won’t have funding next year. Not everything that needs to be done is in the plan, and this is a challenging task. We need to conserve, electricity is easier than transportation. We need to change to clean energy. Some things can be done quickly, others will take more time. We need to communicate and work on this now. The chair of the committee says that his family depends for its energy from a river that will be gone in 15 years because the glaciers that were feeding it are gone. Heat stroke is a growing issue. You told us to do this, we had 4 public hearings and came up with the recommendations. We need to update our goals with carbon usage, we need to use better technology, we need consistent leadership at the staff level (there should be a staff position), we need to expand on current programs, start new programs and we need a framework for a dialogue with MG&E. It passed Board of Estimates and Common Council Organizational Committee unanimously and the committee nearly unanimously. A fourth speaker shows up and says we need to change to renewable energy and stay within the 2 degree atmosphere change, we need to work on this fast. 2 others in support available to answer questions – both from Madison Gas and Electric. There are 33 registrations in support, some with comments, they agree to pass them around instead of reading them.
Rebecca Kemble asks why they are only going for the 80% carbon reduction instead of 100%, why? The chair of the committee says that the first step is to re-evaluate those goals and they were just re-stating what was already there.
Marsha Rummel moves the alternate.
Shiva Bidar supports it and thanks the committee to work through some issues with the original language. She is looking forward to their continued work on the plan.
King and Palm ask to be added as a sponsor. Eskrich, Phair, Hall, Zellers, Cheeks and McKinney all sign on as well.
Passes on a voice vote . . .
Item 59 – Community Sports Complex
Daniel Brown from Ho Chunk Gaming Madison. He says they have been looking a developing part of their land and they did a study and part of that study showed that a sports complex could assist with tourism by joining with the City of Madison. They worked with the Mayor and staff to start planning which they have been doing for a year. They need to know more if this is a concept that can fly, we need outside assistance and they asked the city to pay for half. If this doesn’t work we move on and plan something else. If this is good for the city and tourism they will move forward.
Missy Tracy also with Ho Chunk Gaming Madison, she is the municipal relations staff and she wants to work with the city and available to answer questions.
Melissa Huggins is in support and available to answer questions, plus Jeff Vercauteran (Ho Chunk Gaming) and the Jamie Patrick (Sports Commission)
Denise DeMarb asks Jamie Patrick why this is needed. He says they want to provide data, figure out what is needed and what the trends are, this is a community need and where possible they want to make the venues available to for tournaments. They have been told consistently that they need more field space – and we need high quality fields. We either need to compare ourselves to the region and other communities and if it is a yes, how many fields do we need and we need the data to plan.
DeMarb asks what role they play. He says limited staff role, the RFP is going to be drafted with the partners and lead the process and study. DeMarb says they $37,500 is for the selected vendor not the Sports Commission.
Rebecca Kemble asks if they have been working with the county, Missy Tracy says no, but they did a sports mixer.
Samba Baldeh asks how you come up with the $37,500 as being appropriate for what you want to do. Melissa and Jamie did that. Huggins says that prior to doing this, they did research and visited other places and met some of the people who do this work and they met SFA and they shared a scope of services, that is where they started and Jamie vetted that number, they will do this in pieces, the first is $10 – 15K and if it comes back they should do this they will continue, otherwise they will stop.
Baldeh asks about how they will reach out to minority groups. Huggins says that they are going to use a equity lens and reach out to everyone, we will make sure that happens.
Barbara McKinney asks Huggins why $37,500? Huggins says that $75,000 is what they have, they feel comfortable with that number. McKinney asks if there is a plan B if that is not enough. Huggins says yes, that is the number they will write into the RFP.
Rummel moves adoption of the motion.
DAvid Ahrens objects not based on the content but the source of funding which is borrowing. He doesn’t think we should borrow money for consultants, we borrow for things that are durable, buses and roads, not consultants. This could be included in the next parks budget. It should come out of general revenue and compete with other projects and not be borrowing.
DeMarb asks Eric Knepp about why they need this and why they can’t wait. Knepp says they have been meeting, it is a gateway to the city, underdeveloped and underutilized, they have made modest but meaningful investment – there are transportation issues but they are trying to maximize use over all seasons. It seemed sensible to work with the Ho Chunk, there is possible but they have questions about if this is needed, if it is viable and how it serves the community. There are pressures of youth sports and pressure on fields, the pressure for lighting is intense and lighting next to residents is an issue. WE have anecdotal pressure in our system, its valid, but we also have a partner that will pay for half, the timing is driven by policy choices to continue to collaborate. He appreciates the concerns about borrowing, they do borrow for capital assets, but this one is an if it will be completed. They are starting with the demand questions and if they don’t get an answer that works they will stop. But the issue is the collaborators and they are doing some work.
Tim Gruber asks DAve Schmiedicke about borrowing. The Finance Director says there is some precedence for this.
Ahrens says that the issue isn’t if we should do this, we need to study it, but not at the cost of tax payers for years to come, if we want to pay for it, we should pay for it, and it should be with the other parks items. This shouldn’t be borrowing. We recently turned down a position in the Parks Department – we need discipline looking at expenditures in the context of the full budget. The Ho Chunk didn’t say we need to do this right now, this can wait for 6 months, please reject borrowing the money.
DeMarb says that Parks and the Ho Chunk asked for her sponsorship and she was happy to do that because they put in a year of work and its time to do it, they need the feasibility study to do what they need and bring more people to our city, they want to keep going and agreeing to split it seemed prudent, and it seemed good to do it without more staff time. She appreciates that they put stop gaps into it and it could cost 7 – 10k and they could stop and maybe we find something else to work on. If we wait we wait 7 months before we move forward. It’s worth the risk and she hopes they support it.
Mark Clear supports it, as a Parks Commissioner and agrees there is pressure on the play fields. Youth will have more opportunities (and adults) to play here. He also says he’s the rep to the Convention and Visitors Bureau and he is interested in the tourism. This is money well spent if it prevents us for making a mistake. He understands Ahrens concerns and he thinks its appropriate because it will likely be a future capital project.
Passes on voice vote with a few nos.
Item 69 – Police Policy Report
They first go over the rules – no public displays of approval or opposition. There are 23 speakers.
PUBLIC INPUT
Luis Yidice, co-chair of the committee speaks. He encourages support, he reviews how we got here, there appears to be some misunderstanding about who is driving what. He thanks the committee, they are citizen volunteers who meet twice a month sometimes late into the night. The committee is a diverse group, but they want Madison to be a great place for all the resident. The co-chair Christian Alburas are both there in support. He explains they needed a different date to report back because they started late. The resolution calls for a comprehensive review.
Yudice runs out of time, they want to give him one more minute, Cheeks objects to give him more time unless they give more time to everyone. Bidar moves to allow one more minute for the co-chairs but not others. That passes.
Yudice says they need a team of competent professionals and there aren’t many who have done this, and those that are available are not cheap, to invest is a less competent vendor would be a waste of time. They are not blind to the competing needs, they did they research and they need to make sure the money is spent well.
David Blaska – he says its hard to believe the police are the problem, if we study the wrong thing we will get the wrong answer. They aren’t shooting up the city, there was a shoot out at the ok coral and its lucky no one was killed. He complains that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders doing a shoot out for a person shot by police by not a person shot by a gang. He says that Chief Koval held hearing and a black woman stood up and said they wanted more police. He says I turned off the video when she did that. He says we might as well write out a $400,000 check to Brandi Grayson because this is racial blackmail, he says that is the dog whistle. (I missed some here, I think, but not much)
Christian Alburas says that they have been meeting diligently, they believe $400,000 is appropriate for the amount they need. The research they have done and one of the most similar studies was at the University of Cincinnati was just under $400,000 and they are a smaller department. They want to hire the most qualified and competent consultant and given the complexity of the work they need them to perform this. They need an expert to collect the data and analyze it and give us concrete recommendations for moving forward.
David Pandorski – (or Landowski) – He says you will spend the $400,000 and then pay more money for training and then there is going to be an incident and then what will the consultant have to provide solace – we are trying to come up with a solution for a microscopic point in time where there are highly emotion humans who make mistakes and everyone acts differently and how will you assess spending this money at that point in time and he doesn’t know what the return on investment is at that point. He doesn’t think that lawsuits will go down, they will go up and they will blame the officers involved. He has read the guidelines on the use of force, the MPD and federal guidelines are essentially the same. Wouldn’t the dollars be better spent on, it should be spend on people who are abused or mentally ill, he thinks this is a financial appeasement. He says they have to manage perception,
His time expired, he keeps talking and says they don’t show up to honor our heroes even tho Verveer tells him his time is up.
Jose Rea thanks Koval because he is against raids in Madison, and he appreciates that, however he worked at a bank in Milwaukee, and he was in charge of the audit and they had auditors and it was a no-brainer, this is about public trust. We need the auditors to come in and say what is done well and what needs to approve, and we corrected things that needed improvement. The auditors are there to make sure that we are going our jobs well. MPD is doing a great job in areas but it is a human system run by humans and there are errors.
Beth Neary – Pediatrician and works with United Way. We are not addressing poverty, housing and homelessness, mental illness etc and the police have to rectify these problems and we don’t thank them. She reached out for a student having problems, Koval gave her resources and helped. We shouldn’t be using the contingency fund. How can we not have more money for police but money for this study. WE should do a study in a more targeted way and spend money on programs. The chief has ideas, can we work on those?
Eric Howland, president of MOSES but speaking as an individual. He has been following the committee work and they understand what we need to get a study we need to begin healing. Will this be good for the community? Will we get value for the $400,000? He says his understanding is that the research shows this is what it will take and will bring healing into the situation.
Amelia Royko Maurer – she is in favor. No chief or civilian wants to be surprised by the things we have happened upon. She has offered resources, gone on ride alongs and wrote commendations. She cares about the police department, but asks for transparency and objectivity. She asked Chief Wray 5 times if Heimness was an ethical person 5 times he said yes. And that led to 118 potential policy changes, and we got a $4.5M settlement, and we don’t want that to happen again. She doesn’t know about the perpetually offended, but she says we can do both.
Veronica Lazo says at the heart of this is the community, the ones that put you in the seat and didn’t vote. This isn’t a time for threats, this isn’t an expense, but an investment, saving one life is like this is important. A bank is entrusted with money, the police are trusted with our lives. This is about trust with communities of color and I hope you make the right decision.
Nate Royko Maurer – talks about the race to equity report and the data it showed about disparities and the police department is one area that needs to be addressed, there is a 12:1 disparity. He reads a portion of the blog where Koval says that this report might not tell us if it is police policies or social issues. He says if we do the study, we won’t be questioning the data and source of info, and then we can at least address the issues .. . (ugh, I did a bad job) . . . he talks about recommendations from the President’s Committee on policing.
Linda Ketcham and Madison Urban Ministry support the study and we need to adequately fund it, we need to move forward, we can’t wait. She commends the council for supporting the police department in the budget and to study the issues. $400,000 is a lot of money, but if we get more equitable and effective policies we might save money in services if we stop disproportionately arresting people of color. This review is not a witch hunt, you are being good stewards of our tax payers to better understand what we are funding. Everyone in opposition will look like Chief Koval and I, middle age and middle class, those most impacted and the most to gain in health and well being are not the people who look like me. We have to be honest about the disparities that exist, that is why we are here today. It’s not just about the money, its about doing the right thing. Looking at the community and what the police are doing is the moral and right things to do.
Keith Findley, on the faculty at the Law School and teaches criminal procedure. You tasked us to do this work, it was a response to what is going on across the country, to engage the community to make sure we maintain a strong police department. We heard from many people, some good, some serious issues of trust. The council was wise to create the committee and process for community review and engagement with the police, to do this work meaningfully, we need resources. Our research shows us that it will take in the range of $400,000, less than that is not realistic. He came to the committee with the reassurances that the police want to work with them to improve police relations, he was surprised and concerned to hear recent comments that this committee is an affront to the police, he doesn’t see it that way, he wants to work together constructively in a supportive and objective way. You can choose not to pursue this if you have higher proprieties. If we don’t get this funding will will not do what the council recommended.
Ed Kuharski in support, how are we this great progressive place, except for where we failed a certain segment of our population and a lack of curiosity of that leads to bad outcomes. Pam Oliver talked to his neighborhood about these disparities 20 years ago and not much has changed, we have talked about it but not much has changed. Because we are good, the more we do right, the more the mystery remains, how are we still having these outcomes, how does that happen, I want to know and I hope you want to know.
Sean Burke in support in the money, this isn’t to MPD bash, he sees a problem in the culture and temperament of the leadership of the MPD, he speaks form personal experience. He has had a member of the command staff call me mentally ill, and nothing was done to him. There are incidences where police are working under commend of family members. He sat in Koval’s office and he gave me a hug and admitted there was a felony being committed and nothing was done. He told me I looked like a fool for emailing the council and the media. He has been treated poorly by his staff and him personally. I am speaking up, but I was afraid to come here, there is a temperament issues. His medication was stolen last ?, they know who it was and i was told they would not help me. My life is worth more than $400,000, everyone’s life in this room is. He can email video of the lieutenant. (time ran out)
Mario Garcia Sierra – also on committee, been here for 13 years, when he first decided to be on the committee he was skeptical, he thought it was too good to be true, he thought the body really understood the charge, and since then they have been working hard to understand what other states are doing. He also work 4 years at Centro Hispano and he saw the (great?)ness that is MPD, he supports item 69, with $400,000 will be the only want to complete an effective review. He saw countless issues at Centro how they did alot of inappropriate things to mostly youth and alot of the times it was me meeting with lieutenants or captains or officers, and they did apologize. So the idea was to highlight the areas of improvement. Remember that what we have at the center of this is the dignity of the people who have been impacted.
Erica Bach, she honors the request to respect the department and the report will do that, and there will be better ifs. She has ridden in the front and back of the car. A ride along in the front, but in the back as person who was a victim of domestic violence, and she has been is kicked in the ribs by a cop and told to take her medication in front of her attorney father. She has friends and family members who are police. She wants to make sure all our lives are safe. You have invested this time energy and money and this will save us future lawsuits. Yes, when you kill someone’s family member, they have the right to be effected for the rest of their lives
Shady Kilfoy, Flores – When you talk about disparities you are talking about me. I have to kids, one about to graduate and one who just said they want to kill themselves. When asked if they know what that mean, she said yes, they live one block from where Tony died. She wants a good relationship with the police, she has respect for the work, has friends who are police, but we need our kids of color to feel safe and protected. When I was a youth on Williamson ST. I knew every officer in my community by name, In the last 20 years this is not waht I have seen, that was not that way under Wray and not under Koval. He takes this personal and this isn’t’ personal. We need to all be safe.
Sharon Irwin, I don’t do this generally speaking. She is in support for reasons besides her grandson being killed. We as a community need to know where we are doing well and what – Tonight he called me a raging lunatic, why won’t you talk to me about the transparency I do not see. You cannot say we did an internal investigation, but you said under oath you did not investigate. What she wants for all of us for no one else s child to suffer what I did, I honor and respect anyone who puts a uniform on ,but we pay their salary, we are the ones we answer to, I want a community of police officers I can say hey how you doing, I want a community. WE need officers who understand the community, who don’t have procedures that aren’t just suggestions, we can’t have more violence because there is not communication. Kids of color do not believe you care about them, they think you want to lock the up and keep them down, give someone from the outside to show us what is good, what can change, otherwise there will be more families who cry every day for child who should not be dead. We can change this together, we can be a community we were before, we need this, we need someone form outside to show us some changes. You do not follow your own code of conduct.
League of Women Voters supports the resolution, she reads what it covers, as the committee has worked it has been clear that it will cost more than $50,000, the League believes that a report will reduce chance of deadly force and disparities and increase the trust. There is a significant cost in not doing this review. Last year the police paid on a settlement on Pauly Heenan. If we had done this review earlier officers alone might use tasers, we might know if we have the best training in deescalation before force is a necessary option and people of color and others might have more faith in our police department. WE cant afford anything less than doing this.
Gregory Gulumbiek – damn, he’s talking fast. He says experts say the money would be well spent. He talks about Koval mischaracterizing what he said in the blog. He plays a tape of a woman calling in a n incident where a man was beaten by the police and left without help.
Alix Shabazz from Freedom Inc. Appalled that we are having this debate right now, they are in support, but it seems like a contradiction to support money going to an oppressive police department, we are arrested 9:1, Koval says the police department is doing a good job, that is a reason enough to do a review, we can’t trust your leadership. They are confused by the council listening to the community, why are they being mocked for that. They are in support of the study, They think we should spend money to fix poverty, it seems like the police change their position depending on what the issue is, they stand for the community and want an end of poverty, but because an officer has shot 2 people with mental wellness challenges is now training officers, that is cause for review. Any job I’ve ever had I had to have a review, I don’t understand why there is any question about reviewing people serving the public
Missed name . . . middle age middle class white woman from district 16 who associated with middle age and middle class people, we ant to have confidence in our police department, our fiends and I have conversations about if there was a problem would they call the police. They want to have confidence in the police, this report would go a long way, for people like me.
Greg Frieden – lives in Bay Creek, in support. The intent was for a comprehensive review. The $50,000 was assigned randomly, and there wasn’t research done on what was needed to do the intent. That was in error and no one could do the review with that amount. It looks like the council supports this they will show they are sincere by passing the funding. IF they push it back or don’t fund it, that it will appear they were not sincere.
Annette Miller – Has been a policy analyst for the state, worked for the City, and worked for a private company. Most importantly she is a long time resident of the city since 1988. She thinks what is interesting tonight, we are going in circles, we need to understand that there are two Madison, or 2, 3 or 5 Madison. All the comments are good, but the most important comment is to be accountable for our community and we are in disagreement and our ad hoc committee did the work that they were asked to do and they are recommending a study and that the resources be available to do it right. We know as a city of Madison that we had studies that were not done right and we can’t afford to lose on this , we are talking about people’s lives and the investment is needed. WE will get this money back not just through savings, but you can’t put a price on confidence, not just in the city, but the police. This is a both/and situation. We have to hold the community in one hand and the police in another. As a black mother, she has had to say things to her son things she shouldn’t have to say. WE need to support the money to audit the good and bad and what we can improve.
4 registrants in support – 3 against.
I’D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE, I WAS TRYING TO GET THIS OUT QUICK AND MISSED A LOT OF THE DETAIL, BUT HOPEFULLY I GOT THE MAIN POINTS.
QUESTIONS OF SPEAKERS
Gruber asks Yudice how long he was with the police department. He says 31 years. Gruber asks why this is an attack on the police department. He doesn’t think it is, but there have been questions about how this got started. WE were citizens standing on the sidelines and asked to work on this and we are acting in good faith to do the best we can.
Gruber asks if Yudice has talked to officers, do they feel like they are being scapegoated. He says he hasn’t talked to officers about this.
Gruber asks if there was alot of discussion about trust with communities of color. Christian Alburas says “yeah”. Great question. He assumes there was some form of sense that there was some lack of trust, there has been public comment, was it specifically brought up at committee meetings? The committee is diverse and there may have been brought up at times. We got lots of public comment and there was quite a bit of concern brought up around the trust issues
Gruber asks if this study will solve trust. Yudice says if the study is don’t and there is not follow through, then we would have failed. We need to identify the things they do well, there are trust issues all across the county and Madison is no exception and we will be moving forward by addressing the issues if we do the study with a professional group that is competent.
**********
I stopped at 9:45, took a break and fixed some errors, so there is a HUGE GAP HERE, which I fill fix in the morning . . . there were more questions of the co-chairs of the committee and at least one other speaker.
**********
The council moved for a “ten minute” break. So I will try to resume when they come back. My computer misbehaves when my posts gets to long and I’ve reached that point, so it might have to wait til the morning for the rest . . .
