Yeah. They did. Good. They couldn’t have been more clear.
I watched the whole thing while working in my office – so I don’t have time to blog the whole thing, but there are a couple parts . . . I just have to share.
You can watch it here.
There’s about 45 minutes of eloquent community input. (Thanks everyone!)
City staff runs through the changes in the various version of the report. Heather Allen explains that the city attorney and Koval changes are on the 4-14 document and that the 4-27 document has the following changes:
– Additional changes to the authority of the council – language on the legal authority of the council are in there. It includes Wis. Stat. 62.09(13) which says that the chief shall obey all lawful order of the Mayor and Council. Wis. Stat. 62.11(5) also says council has authority for health safety and welfare of the public.
– There are also changes to the waiting for back up action 7.
– #12 was change to define “thorough and credible”
– #13 is new which has the Exec Committee looking at the role of the Public Safety Review Committee.
They decide to go through the recommendations one by one.
FAVORITE MOMENT NUMBER ONE
Action Item Number 1. (page 7)
Rebecca Kemble asks a big picture question of OIR, and they say that they don’t expect communities to stand still until OIR finishes their work and its not uncommon for things to be going on simultaneously.
Shiva Bidar also confirms with OIR that yes, the items referred to the ad hoc committee were items that OIR were already looking at with the committee.
Shiva Bidar says that Chief Koval’s memo inidcated confusion over who is doing what and how long policies last and she says that they last as long as they last until someone changes them, so if OIR makes recommendaitons and the council approves them, then they will be changed. That is what we do all the time, change laws. Nothing is static in our world. They wouldn’t be there otherwise. Yes there may be something that comes out of the ad hoc committee that they want to change.
Alder DeMarb says she understands words are very important and that they have been given various words throughout the process, she would like to recommend that all actions items that start off “The common council directs MPD to . . . ” that those words be changed to “The Common Council orders the chief of police . . . ” She says directs is not the best word. But they can still leave the committee language the way it is. She says that is the best place to start because that is what they have the legal authority to do.
Bidar asks Heather Allen to quote the statute again. She says the language is on page 2.
Wis. Stat. 62.09(13)(a)
“The chief of police shall have command of the police force of the city, or the chief of a combined protective services department created under s. 62.13 (2e) (a) 1. shall have command of the combined protective services force, under the direction of the mayor. The chief shall obey all lawful written orders of the mayor or common council.
She reiterates that this is also language used in the 2005 memo on tasers. (I remember well, I was council president at the time.)
Marsha Rummel asks if this also includes ordinances they would pass. Heather Allen says she believes it does.
Rummel asks if they are all in agreement.
Sheri Carter says yes she is in agreeement.
Bidar is fine with it too, but asks if the should say “issues a lawful order” – she says that the closer they stay to the statute the less argument over words there can be.
Rebecca Kemble says that this makes it clear that they are not going around the authority of the police chief but issuing a direct order. She says that language should be used in 1, 3, 4 6 & 8.
Bidar clarifies that the language is “The common council hereby issues a lawful order to the chief of police to . . . ”
Rummel says she sees several nods. They add 7 to that list as well.
Rummel points out that according to Marci Poulson’s (city attorney) memo that is within their purview.
FAVORITE MOMENT NUMBER TWO
Kemble says that she want the Chief of Police to personally provide the data on (item 4?) – she pauses and says, “I’m sorry, I’m all worked up” – because “his answer to this item is contemptuous of the Common Council, I’m sorry, it is contemptuous. And condescending to the elected leaders of this city.”
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s basically saying my subordinates do this at other committees, and yes you’re ordering me to do this, but I don’t need to. I don’t need to address the elected officials. I don’t even need to be at your meetings. When every other single department head, when we have issues on our agendas shows up and he sends subordinates. (She says nothing personal to Captain Wheeler, she’s glad he’s hear instead) But she wants to make it clear they want him to personally provide these quarterly updates, she asks if other do. They seem to be nodding their heads and Rummel says she doesn’t hear anyone saying no.
FAVORITE MOMENT NUMBER THREE
After DeMarb is talking about the level of specificity of the lawful orders, Amelia Royko Maurer registers to speak and has this to say.
She says that in Chief Koval’s response, anywhere you were general and left it open for interpretation he said they are already doing it. She was on the NAACP and law enforcement task force that reviewed the policies and made recommendations and the first thing they did was look at what MPD is already doing because if they are extremely broad, because if they are already covering something, they will say they are already doing it, “we’re the best in the world.” So, he already demonstrated that is what he will do. I mean, that is what he does. The specifics require him to actually look into these things and outline what they are doing already. It also demonstrates a standard, that it is not enough to say they can’t ignore back up, it has to be more. Certain policies where they might be covering the base to some degree, but clearly it is not working. Specifics matter, especially when they are well researched. It says the police chief is responsible for creating use of source police and implementing it, but it doesn’t say he’s the sole person responsible for it. She wants the council to flex on this idea as hard as possible. He’s already demonstrated that if it wasn’t his idea or they weren’t already working on it before you suggested it, they are not interested. There is so much ego wrapped up in this on his side of the fence. And so making it general, he will just take advantage of that to not do it or do it when he is good and ready. She urges them to be stronger and stick with the details. He likes to say its not well researched. Some of the stuff that he has started working on came from Greg via one of his employees, she doesn’t know if he knows that. I don’t know if he knows that the MDSR pilot started with the CRT. We can hide things if we need to, like an Easter Egg hunt. It just seems that we need to be specific, he’s not going to buy in. That seems to be out of the question already. So she is encouraging everyone to “go strong.”
The report with the amendments was adopted unanimously by the committee. A resolution and final report will put in legistar. They will go and share it with the ad hoc committee once it is adopted – June 1st they will ask to be on the agenda. They make sure an alder will be at each of the meetings next meetings. Big smiles as they adjourn.
NEXT STEPS – THEY ARE QUICK!!!!
TENTATIVE TIMELINE FOR RESOLUTION & FINAL REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS
Public Safety Review Committee: May 9, 2017
Equal Opportunities Commission: May 11, 2017
Common Council Executive Committee: May 16, 2017
Common Council: May 16, 2017
