Ok, had to go to part two, sorry for the gap in between the posts and for the somewhat less detailed blogging, its been a while since I tried to keep up at that level of detail for this many hours . . . so I didn’t bring my A game, it more of a B-. The first part of the blog is here.
Item 69 – Police Policy Study Funding
MOTION
Move to adopt the substitute by Rummel, seconded by someone, but I missed it.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Shiva-Bidar asks Gloria Reyes (from the Mayor’s office, who helped staff the committee) what they found when they looked at the costs of these studies. She says they didn’t make any recommendations, they just did research. They found that it varied. It depends upon the size of the city, how comprehensive the review is, the experience of the expert. They spoke with the Department of Justice and got technical assistance, they just were trying to gauge the costs and it was between $200 – 300,000. But it depends upon the needs of the cities. They looked at St. Louis County, but that was $780,000 but their Metro police department spent $200,000. They looked at University of Cincinnati police department and that was just under $400,00. They looked at Fairfax and Boulder? and their studies were more narrow and was $96,000 on traffic stops or use of force. Wauwatosa was $63,000 on staffing structure assessment. It’s more than $50,000 for a comprehensive review. It was $780,000 to $80,000 at the lowest.
Bidar says the scope of the study determined the price – Reyes says yes.
Bidar asks if the citizen group did accurately reflect the cost of the study. She says yes.
Bidar asks if they did look at a more narrow scope and supported the comprehensive study instead of a narrow scope. Reyes says that they did discuss it and kept going back to what was laid out in the resolution.
Bidar asks if they also felt that it needed to be done comprehensively? She says yes.
DISCUSSION
Bidar says that she urges them to support the additional funds, she didn’t arrive at this amount of money because we should be clear about fiduciary responsibility. We tasked the committee to do this work, they spent many hours on it, she attended when she could and often we don’t go to the meetings, often we don’t have time to do that and we often miss important events, even in their personal lives. She wanted to support their work, she wanted to try to do it for less, but she understands that they need to do it right and comprehensively. Where did the $50,000 come from? It was just a number, since they passed the resolution they found it cost more, they tried to do it for less, but to do it in a comprehensive way they have to spend this money, otherwise they shouldn’t do it. She has a sense of pain about the divisiveness, that was never the intent of the committee and this was to recognize public trust is important and the good work the police department does. This would give us an opportunity for improvement, there is not organization that doesn’t need that. This cane from a place of good intentions. This is work people have been waiting for, they spend money like this for Judge Doyle Square and other priorities. She wants to move forward as a community, we all know and respect people on all of the areas of the conversation that this has touched, including officers we work with on a daily basis. She thanks the co-sponsors. She is also sponsoring item 114 that authorizes 7 more officers for Midtown, which is $578,000, you can’t be balanced in life and she is trying to show that balance.
Shari Carter asks if they can include costs for implementation at the right time.
Tim Gruber says thank you to the police department and the officers, we might not say it enough. He has a personal experience recently at Owen Conservancy where his car window was smashed, he saw an officer and talked to them and gave them a report and they were very professional and respectful and helped to ease the fear and upset he was experiencing. He also had a call from a constituent about a crime and he called Captain Wahl and he was helpful and promised to call back the person. He says they deserve our respect and admiration. A yes vote on this resolution is not an attack or show of disrespect. He does know there is a lack of trust, particularly from the African American community, and I’d like to know why, I think that it goes back generations, and I think this study can help with that. He thanks the committee for their work.
Larry Palm also thanks the police, we engage with our officers alot as alders, it near the top of what we discuss, safety and we engage our police in that. They have data that shows Madison is doing well in most areas and we should commend them, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do better. He says he came into the meeting with strong consideration on the financial issues, he appreciates the RFP being sent to them so they could see the details. He says he got emails both for and against. He was concerns about YGB and the line about small vocal groups of people who dictate an agenda and he thought about people and their own experiences with police – concerns they have about their own interactions with the police. He doesn’t face that as a white male. He thinks about as 30 or 40 years ago as a gay man he could have been considered a degenerate and been a target of the police. Then he thought about the gay agenda and what it was 30 years ago, a small and vocal number of people who dictate agendas. Where would I be now if 30 or 40 years ago someone hadn’t said we need to do something about this and we need to make society more open to everyone. For those reasons I’m going to support this, its not about what we do now, but how we can do better next.
Mark Clear thanks Palm for the most eloquent comments in 9 years. He 100% supports the police department and is in awe of the work they do every day, he hopes his actions over 9 years have demonstrated that. He was shocked last Wednesday when he heard Koval say how little we care and how much time we spend bashing the department. He is disappointed and maybe we don’t say it enough, perhaps we don’t do the honoring resolutions, I had no idea that I didn’t support the police department til last Wednesday and that pained me. Then to hear him describe this resolution and I wasn’t surprised because I heard it the Wednesday before. I did something I never did before and I walked out of the meeting when I heard that and I just couldn’t take it any more. Its been a tough 7 days, it was hurtful and painful to see him rile up the public and have them parrot it. I hope we never have another manager who turns against this body so viciously. I wish he or one of his assistant chiefs had called me. They could have recommended to do a resolution, we would have done it. Staff ask us to do those things and I can’t imagine we wouldn’t do that for the police department. He supports this, he has questioned why we have a public manager who is so defensive and angry and I wonder if there might be something there. I question myself for having that thought.
Koval packs up and leave.
Phair is called on to talk, asks the chief to stay. He says why bother because he can’t talk or respond. Phair continues to talk to him, chief refuses to particiate in ex parte editorials. Lots of arguing.
Phair says he will take it one step farther. I’m not going tot say I appreciate the police department, because if people don’t know through my work and actions, then to bad. And I’m not going to be threatened or bullied into saying that. I don’t know what else to say on that. He supports it strongly. He doesn’t think that anyone can articulate it better than the members of the community. We set up the community, we have faith in it, they are not a small group of people, we should listen to their recommendations and go forward to it. All the emails I’ve been getting are about the money, apparently we have a fiscally responsible chief all of a sudden. It’s not about $50,000 or $400,000, its about doing it right. Where this is coming from is mind boggling. I hope we can get past this at some point, I fear it will be hard. I want to work with the police department and work on the root causes that we really want to look at. This council has been supporting services to back up the police department. He would hate that the last few weeks and days would put a damper on that relationship. He will continue to work and hopes others will join.
Ledell Zellers thanks her colleagues for expressing so much of what she is feeling and wants to say. This is a major, important agency, there are many good people working in this agency. There are ways to improve things and to turn our backs on experiences elsewhere, now is the time to work on this and there is clearly a gap of trust, we’ve heard ti about our communities of color and I”m sure that is where a large part of the trust gap exists. She says she has heard a worry about calling police from white middle aged men and women and she wants there to be trust. This is not an attack on the police department as an institution or a part of the city, we value our police department, many of us have commended individuals in the police department for extraordinarily good work and hopefully they have heard that and understand they are appreciated. She sees it as important and is supporting it.
Barbara McKinney says she has seen both sides, community policing and driving while black. She has been stopped driving home because her flashers were on too long. WE have read the emails for an against, her struggle was expressed at the Board of Estimates meeting – there are more urgent needs. She wants to know how we got hear, why? We have been called names, and they said we were cowtowing, she have been hurt, she saw three alders shed tears today, this has deeply divided us. The quest to increase transparency and restore trust, restoring that trust needs significant repairing of the harm, this was never a referendum against chief Koval. She wasn’t going to support, but as she saw good people maligned and rocks thrown at the police department, she refused to be beaten with a big stick. I understand that working hard without recognition is a hurtful. I now believe we need this expert, we need to look at this and decide what to keep.
Steve King apologizes to the first two speakers. He says that we are in a worse beginning state and we have a hole we have to dig out of, our perceptions with the public, our relations with the police. WE all regret this. We should live in an and world not an or world. The chief and we talk about or, if we started over with the budget I’m not sure we would have $65M for the police, I might have more for traffic calming. He apologized to people who spoke earlier, I never thought this was a referendum on the police department, but that is what we are left with and have to deal with.
Amanda Hall says that without the mayor here she has to do the history lesson. She remembers the contentious debate about this committee, many people of color didn’t think that the government could be part of the solution. She remembers being torn about this committee and if they should do this or do something more grassroots. I remember thinking we were asking for alot. It was an arrogant ask, here we are and we asked to be trusted, this is about keeping a promise and a commitment. This is about trust, I will be voting for this.
Denise DeMarb thanks everyone for sticking with us, its very emotional on many levels. Alder Palm did a good job, we all did because we are speaking from our hearts. She doesn’t have a trust issue with the police, her dad was a cop, but others do. We heard people, asked them to come and need to take them at face value. This isn’t isolated, we hear it everywhere, with our own colleagues, we heard that in the body camera study. This was never an attack or something bad for the police department, she had a career of being reviewed. They are scary, they get less scary and you learn from them and you can’t review yourself. That is how I looked at this work, as supporting them. They do come under attack so lets support them in what they do well. And look at what we can improve upon. I’m sure there are gaps in service and how will we wrestle with our budgets and priorities to fill the gaps. The committee was charged with coming before us, they found out they didn’t have enough money, there was research done. This isn’t about the $400,000, its alot of money, but if we believe this should take place, we need to spend the money. it really bothers her the emails she has been getting and the rhetoric because she tries to take in all the voices.
Sarah Eskrich says she could not be more proud of everyone. WE have done so much to invest in the strong work, the review we are funding will make it more impactful, accountability and transparency and added trust makes it more valuable and effective.
Marsha Rummel says that when she started they had a neighborhood officer named Jean Papalia. She is still involved in the neighborhood because they have the most officer involved shootings, she has people who don’t get stopped, but also people asked why they are standing in front of their own house. We have 2 Madison. There is alot of distrust, I know the police know that, and they want to work on it. She works with great officers, the elements of community policing are still there, but we need to deal with the disparities that we see. Some people in my neighborhood called the shooting of Tony Robinson a “murder”. Someone called this a microcopic moments, life and death moments – that 15 seconds, if Heimness or Kenney had waited 15 seconds, it could be done. This is emergency money, we need to make sure that in those 15 seconds they best thing happens.
Mo Cheeks thanks people who came out, there was great testimony and we got alot of email in the past few days. Its great to hear about the public about important issues and we heard impassioned pleas from both sides and that is a fantastic thing. In addition we saw some really disappointing, unbecoming, unproductive language via email. It was more than a disappointment, because it is so divisive, he is sorry we find ourselves in that moment. It sad to have that anger based on the tone that has been set. You hear that if MPD is going to pop off at elected officials what am I supposed to expect, that’s really troubling. That is not what people should expect. He wants to express to his constituents that they shouldn’t have to fear, we have a professional police department and they use great tact and de-escalate and collaborate and solve problems. I choose to believe our chief’s recent tone is not what he would expect his officers to take with our community. That is not an expectation that people should have. Its unfortunate we have seen those expectations on display from our top police officer. I hope going forward that calmer heads will prevail and work together to support our police. We have to work with our police chief and that should not be a burden going forward. I hope no one leaves with the impression that tonight’s vote – that by keeping our word – that we are doing anything other than to support the police to do the great work they need to do in the future. This study is meant to support that.
Paul Skidmore says that there is alot of distrust and that it comes from all directions, the police distrust where we as the selected body, do they really have our back, the officers I talk with are worried about their safety, if they will get sued and how the city attorney will react about how they interpret an ordinance There is a distrust there. He has a great deal of respect for how the police chief stands up for the staff. He says police have been texting him during the meeting, one is retiring. He says people come in here and call you a murderer and use profanity. He talks about being at 30 on the square and profanity hurled at the officers and the police acting professionally, and they said welcome to our world. It difficult when you are not respected, I saw this coming. The original study on body cameras, he supported that study for a pilot project. He can see how the frustration mounted when the price rose, why so much money, why not more cops is what some of his constituents say. He hasn’t heard from a single person that supports this. He will not be supporting this, he will probably be the only vote in opposition, he suports the police, its unconditional and he looks forward to hearing from Chief Koval and wants to hear him finally have an opportunity to respond to the attacks on him tonight.
Verveer asks if he wants to ask a question, there are currently 5 people who want to speak. Paul says whatever the police chief want. Chief indicates that he wants to speak. (It’s off mic and hard to hear) Skidmore asks the chief how he feels about the distrust and how his officers are reacting and how you feel about not getting an opportunity to respond.
Chief Koval says he feels like the City of Madison police department at many levels has been hijacked and co-opted by a narrative that we are not subscribing to. If you read that blog, that four corner document, he doesn’t know anywhere where it has been said that they are not in favor of that study. Yet that is how this has been dichotomized and marginalized. There is a difference between having a study and when is the best time to have the study fiscally. If you can’t pay your rent, you don’t shop for an escaladae in the same breath. They never said they would oppose a study, not ever. But he has two things when he goes to work, what’s important now and the now part is I’m told the fiscal reserves are down to the nubs and we don’t know how much it will snow. But this has to be done by July, that’s how important this is, but as a department head we are being told Midtown is in jeopardy, you said you wanted more cops, forget that you might have to scale back your operation. Well, in the face of that, I’m not going to listen to being tagged with another $400,000. Alder King in his deliberation with the Fitzsimmons, and by the way when you are talking about fundamental fairness, I do want to say that this is the first time in 2 years that I appreciate the decorum and he appreciates Verveer and the efforts that were made to go both ways and he appreciates Alder Cheeks for setting the tone. He says this is the level of decorum that has been lacking in these volatile situations in the past. When the Fitzsimmons came, if you’re Jill and Joe sixpack and your going to cross examine, in all the times he’s heard controversial conversations, I’ve never seen someone who has expressed anti-police sentiments, that has never been challenged. Someone off camera says they have, police says he must have been asleep because he rarely if ever has seen it, and he’s glad to see if this is the new transparency we’re going to have, I’m glad we’re all on the same page. He says no one has ever challenged the good work of citizens that are being challenged to do a difficult job. He thinks the co-chairs have been phenomenal, no one has criticized that work. What he wants to know what happens to the reserves from the chief financial officer, what does this do to the reserves if we carve out $400,000? He pauses and waits for an answer. (Just so everyone knows, this isn’t how this works, staff aren’t council members, they don’t participate in debate and ask staff questions – but apparently the chief thinks he can.) Verveer asks if the chief is asking a question. Verveer says that will come when its in order, someone will ask Schmiedicke that. Koval won’t move on, wants an answer. Verveer gently suggests that Skidmore ask the question so its in order.
Skidmore asks what taking $400,000 at this point would do to our reserves. Schmiedicke says that $50,000 of the $400,000 has already been appropriated. What is before you is another $350,000 from the contingent reserve, there is $1.2M in the contingent reserve and with this resolution $695,000 of the $1.2M would have been appropriated and there will be a little over $500,000 in the reserve.
Verveer asks if Skidmore has more questions, he says he does not. Verveer asks if they want to continue questions of Koval or go back to the regular order. King indicates he has a question. Verveer says they will go back to questions of staff if there are no objections.
Steve King asks the chief, if, based on what he heard tonight, based on the divisiveness in the community, and based on the emails that have been generated to us, would you still write that blog, in the same way you did, tonight? Was that your intent?
The chief says it is never his intent to cause divisiveness. But when collaboration fails and we are shut out of the process, he results to his legal training and that’s an adversarial system and in an adversarial system sometimes through con get resolved through conflict instead of 360 degrees. This thing was getting no traction, no public attention, no discussion until we were finally allowed to take the gloves off and actually discuss it. The committee has been convened since last November, they had a staff member there, but our level of participation for a community based discussion left the police on the side line with very little “facilitative” discussion as a public matter expert on anything. He would think that at some time in 7.5 months that the chief of police would be asked something about how he sees a direction about where this is going, and then he was told he would have an opportunity to respond once the price tag grew at BOE. At BOE there were no questions of staff, and he’s not going to independently, when he is being told, stay away this is an independent process, we don’t want you to weigh in, it has to be autonomous of the Madison police chief, it makes it difficult to come together . . . he stops and tells the alders to stop talking and pay attention to him because its distracting . . . (seriously . . . I didn’t notice who he was even talking to because I didn’t hear or see anything at that point) . . . he says he appreciates that and thank you . . . so he feels like they were left on the sidelines with little direction ont he scope and the guidelines and he feels like at some point if you claim to be community based, we are part of the community. So as to Alder King and the Fitzsimmons, I wrote it down hold on . . . King says he already apologized. The chief ignores him and says “We gave the police department everything they asked for” . . . “Alder King, a correction of word phrases, this is “our” police department”. This isn’t about us vs you, this is about everyone who has a stake in this, and now its being framed different, this is about everyone’s public safety issues. With respect to how the police are supported, yes he wants to draw attention to the distinction between how the police are supported, from Midtown and personnel and public safety, you folks run for office, I don’t think that is a contrary platform for which to garner votes. There is a distinction for how you are demonstrable in what show of support you show your police department. So, he reads again, he doesn’t like to dumb things down but he wants to see how many things he can think of where they squandered their opportunity, the Tony Robinson, you let the community ventilate for two hours, and you could have used the committee of the whole to let me respond after 2 hours, but no, we just took a unilateral hit and got blamed for anything and everything. After police were doing SET demonstrations there was a well publicized memorial, not one of you showed up. Police week, again, we went over that. We had a citizen and police awards banquet at the Overture Center, over half of the recipients were citizens, not one of you showed up. We have had events annually where new recruits get to meet public officials, the PFC comes, the Mayor comes but very seldom an alder. We have graduations, the PFC comes, the Mayor comes, but very seldom an alder. When again, decorum, when annual overtime reports comes, they fly through the BOE and then they get here and again that is where the decorum just flies out window. Registered speakers on nothing to do with the report, use it as a pretext, and what do we do, could we have at least silenced their microphones, could there have at least been someone who could call order and say this is not the subject for which you registered to speak. Let us not forget too, that people as Fitzimmons was being “crosspolinated”, there was a letter of city and county officials who were quick after Tony Robinson’s death to jointly sign an expression of disbelief, distrust and racial disparities and were silent on thanking the police. And then there was the resolution the week before the anniversary of Tony Robinson’s death, thank God I caught wind of that and referred it to the city attorney (wow, I think he thinks he’s an alder sometimes . . . ) who went back to you and told you to drop it we were in litigation. The comments made to the police department were spurious and completely without merit. So, there are ways to be supportive of the police and there are ways to be demonstrably supportive of the police. Someone told me, chief I don’t know why you’re angry, we support you, we vote for you. He says that is not the same, its a different type of support, when you have the chance to weigh in, your silence has been crippling the morale of my force. (Oh, wait, he’s the one who got the city attorney to tell them they couldn’t say anything about Tony Robinson, for or against they police or the family – he created the silence and now blames them?) That is what he is trying to elucidate here. We appreciate the support and you are benefiting from this department, you’re putting your money where your mouth is, and we appreciate it, but now we are asking for something more, we are laboring in a toxic environment and it would be nice if from time to time we could rely on some symbolic support, verbally or in writing. He asks them how many stop by their district station to thank the people on their work, about half raise their hands. He says good. (Apparently that didn’t make the point he wanted so he moves on) He says that despite that, despite it being said that the police don’t want this study, there is also if this is the right time. Those are completely different things than saying you are fighting and evaluation, no one has been fighting and evaluation. Verveer thanks the chief, but the chief says “hold up” he says in his blog he doesn’t name names and he just talks about an attitude that he gets and his officers feed back to him, he didn’t go to the point of saying he’s all about fighting white men throwing temper tantrums, that sexist. And being tone deaf to people of color, that’s interesting given how much activism they have done fighting against the chiefs of police and for the undocumented latino community. So, you’re right, there have been a lot of hurt feelings in this process. So, you take your vote and we move on, that’s part of the democratic process, but he doesn’t think the police should be blamed for tearing up the community about the this study at this time, no one said we were against it.
King follows up, you danced all around it. And he wants to remind everyone again that he apologized to the Fitzsimmons, but I guess he was asleep when I said that. I go back to this, you said, specifically about this blog post, and we are going to differ about how that came across, you said you’d take anything you throw at us, but . . .5 paragraphs of all the reason we should not have it and that means your against it, that is how any human being would have interpreted that . . . Chief interrupts but I didn’t quite here it . . . that’s how he interpreted it, so he wants to go back to this, you said that you were reacting to an adversarial position. Help me understand what that committee did by proposing a study, how was that adversarial.
Koval says they are not the adversary here, this decision was a third party group of people I have no issue with.
King asks how is the council supporting them adversarial?
Koval says that supporting the study is their perogative and no one said you couldn’t, he is the canary in the coal mine saying what the fiscal implications are for the city at this time and could it be deferred for 6 months until you have a budget. There are two types of support, that which is financial and manifested in a a vote and that which is demonstrative and it apathy, that is the distinction.
Verveer says there are 8 people waiting to speak. Ahrens, Baldeh, Carter, Kemble, Wood, Phair, ? and Palm.
David Ahrens says his reason for asking for exclusion of the item was, after this lengthy heartfelt, substantive discussion now strikes him as incredibly mundane. He was skeptical of consultants, our use of consultants and the cost of this item. Having heard the basis for how we got to $400,000 from people here, and then reflecting on his own notes about the many misadventures in the use of consultants, what separates this project form those projects and contracts is the committee that we have. With the committee, and had he known all this up front, he would not have excluded this and will support it. It’s hard not to comment on the lengthy heartfelt response from the chief, this was a real reality check. Sometimes we see dollars and cents kinds of terms while the police and the public see this as a cast of allegience. Not to any deed but the overall mission of the department and the people who serve. We have cognitive dissonance around that.
Samba Baldeh says that for his one year and a few months he has been on the council, this is the first time it so tense. This is the first time I felt uncomfortable with the police chief sitting behind me with a gun. I’m a black man and I have alot of contact with the police, and I told this to my colleagues. This resolution has nothing to do with trust or lack thereof, each and every one of us work with the police, what have we learned in the past months. Now that he has been on the council over a year, he gets asks three questions. How do you like the council. He likes the people but not the politics. How do you like the Mayor? It depends upon what day you ask me. How do you like the police chief? He has the utmost respect, he doesn’t know him that much, but he speaks with authority and as someone who wants to fix the problems with the city. Additionally, he says that he deals with the captains and he meets with them regularly. But the behavior of the police tonight was totally unimaginable. I was afraid tonight for him to be behind me, with a gun. I said to my colleagues if we are going to question him tonight, we should ask him to turn over the gun. (You can’t see this on camera, but the chief is sort of openly mocking Samba behind his back, with a big goofy smirk on his face. It’s very childlike and unprofessional) He says that when he first saw we would give more money to police studies my first instinct was no because it won’t make a difference, but he heard about the committee and listened to his constituents. But he is voting for this now more because of the behavior of the police chief, if people who act like him were in the public at a council meeting, they would be sent out of the chambers by the police chief or his officers, but when its him doing it, we all sit here and let that happen, we should not let that happen. If you want to live safe, we have to accept our differences, we have to accept the fact that we are not all the same and sometimes we have to force our natural bias towards people who are different than us. He wants to ask Koval questions, when is the right time to do the study if not now.
Koval says that is your decision, he says he would think it would be when they have more ample reserves, if you are asking me as a taxpayer.
Baldeh says that you are not against this as a tax payer, you are against this as a police chief.
Koval says he is not against it as a police chief, I said you could have your study.
Baldeh says at the “right time’.
Koval says no.
Baldeh says you said at the “right time”
Koval says it was a fiscally unfortunate time to start.
Baldeh asks if that was as a taxpayer or the police chief.
He says both.
Baldeh says but how did you say it.
Koval says at the police chief.
Baldeh says the person that is responsible for the finances is the finance director. We ask staff questions all the time, none of them behaved the way you did here tonight. We all should not accept that. I am a black man and my experience with the police is not good, but that does not mean I hate the police, that I do not vote for what is good, he has organized 9 meetings with the police department with the African community to understand what is going on here. That is what you are supposed to be doing, not to stand here and act in a way that is not acceptable by any standard. Whether this passes or not, we have to work together. When you hear Africa, what do you hear? Negative. Wars and corruption and all this stuff, our police officers do not distrust like we heard tonight, they do not carry guns, and when they go to a citizen, they listen to them. Of course you cannot compare America to that, but we are all human beings whether you are black or brown or different, but the way you felt at that meeting the other night (talking to Clear about when he walked out of the neighborhood meeting when he was being attacked by Koval) that is the way I feel every day, because of this behavior, we cannot accept that. There is no need to say I support this police here and this and that, this behavior is not acceptable and we all have to agree to that. He is going to vote on this, and anything else that comes forward he is going to scrutinize to the best of his ability because of the tactics Koval said he used – because you said this is why you were framing it and instigating this kind of stuff – just because you bring it here doesn’t mean I will vote for it, we each consider our own things.
Koval interrupts and asks if he can respond or if this is a unilateral conversation.
Verveer asks if Baldeh is still asking questions of the chief.
Koval asks if he can respond to the last “rant” or no?
Baldeh says this is not ranting, this is telling the truth, this is what I am talking about, this is what happens now, this is not ranting. You were ranting and you were ranting over everybody.
Koval says he doesn’t think that he was that demonstrative and he apologizes.
They argue, chief dismisses Baldeh and says that is not how he meant it but if that is how he took it “alright”.
Baldeh asks him to listen to himself.
Koval wants to clarify that as a police officer of 33 years with a stellar record, he resents the inference that you thought that someone sitting behind you with a gun was a clear and present danger to you.
Baldeh says it was because of his behavior.
Koval says “my behavior because I expressed my opinion?”
Baldeh says walking around and doing whatever
Koval says it is because he was going to the aid of the Fitzsimmons earlier
They are arguing back and forth and I can hear Koval more than Baldeh, Verveer interrupts and asks to follow the rules. Verveer asks Koval not to talk over – to restore decorum. He asks them not to talk over one another, we can’t hear you. Baldeh has the floor, you are asking questions.
Baldeh says his question is wrapped up, but if he wants to respond to what he calls a “rant” he can, but he’s been ranting all night and behaving in a way that nobody appreciates.
Verveer clarifies if he wants a response from Koval?
Baldeh says he is done, but if he wants to respond to what he calls “rant”, he can also rant.
Koval says he will “decline the offer”
(Oh my god, I was in tears last night watching this happen and again this morning. I adore Samba and the way he cuts through everything so clearly – and I’m so appalled at the chief not understanding the core of the issues that are at play here – and he will repeatedly miss the point as this conversation goes on with other alders as they try to point out his white male privilege and that everyone might not experience things the same way. The white man gets to throw a tantrum because he’s entitled. A black man speaks from his heart about his experience and he’s openly mocked, interrupted and told he’s “ranting”. Yet when Koval didn’t have 100% of the council’s attention he stopped and shamed them into listening. This is soooooooo gross. You have to watch this. Currently we are at 5:34 in the meeting. It’s painful. It’s painful to watch it again, last night I just stopped blogging and watched. Our city is so grossly divided and its about race and class and privilege and no matter how much people say it, some people fail to acknowledge it and continue to blame those saying it. We live in 2 (or more) different Madison’s and those with power like the police chief are, aren’t the victims here, as much as his feelings might have been hurt. That isn’t what this is about at this point in time and we need a chief that understands that – this is not that chief. UGH!!! Sorry . . . just had to get that off my chest.)
Shari Carter has a question about the finances. Schimiedicke says that $685,000 of the reserve would be spent if they spend this, they are half way through the year and its a significant draw, you should just be aware, we have half of the year left and typically it is used for emergencies, but its at your discretion to decide how to allocate it, I’m just advising you on how much is there. It has implications if it is not spent to try to keep thte goals of 15% fund balance to keep the triple A bond rating.
Rebecca Kemble says she is befuddled. She heard from professor Findley that the police department were working with them and behind them. Then chief says that collaboration has failed. The question in her mind is when did you decide that and why didn’t you communicate that to staff that was there for the last 7 months.
Koval says that Captain Mary Schauf was there and providing information, but she thought at some point they could respond to what people were saying.
Kemble asks if there is communication problem between you and the committee and why did you wait until Sunday afternoon to tell the whole world about it.
Koval says mostly because we were told we should sit on the sidelines because it was autonomous and if we had these conversations it would look like we weren’t that, so that is why we didn’t take an active role.
Kemble says on Sunday she was at a meeting of the Mutual Aid Network and Stephanie Rearick was there talking about an award given to the department and she has worked with youth court and Greg Rosetti and how we are a national model and I got home and I read your blog and I thought, you’re not making an enemy out of me, but you’re making it really hard for your friends to support the good work with the rhetoric you use. You are in command of the legitimae use of violence in this (she mis-speaks and says “committee” and he corrects her, so she says community), that’s your job. (he interrupts and says “statutory use”)
Kemble says “right, of violence”
Koval says “um, hmmmm, its called force”
Kemble says “well, you in that position, when you tell an elected body that you are doing a pre-emptive first strike against us, do you, I’m just asking you to really think about, how that felt to us when some of us are out there promoting and supporting the work of your department”
Koval interupts multiple times with noises, this time he says “I appreciate that.”
Kemble says that you are using this military language like we are your enemies.
He says that he didn’t mean to suggest you are my enemies but I’m saying I’ve been at the tail end of a lot of these council meetings where the speakers are allowed unmitigated to take their cut and run comments and I’m not allowed a timely rebuttable and you don’t ask questions to me to allow me to do that. If we’re going to go through this debate again, I’m telling you the decorum has to be different. (Why does he think he gets to tell them how to do their jobs? Curious.) He’s tired of being on the recipient end without time for rebuttal. that’s how it was intended.
Kemble says she can see where you are at but when you use the words “pre-emptive first strike” and that “we are watching you”. You are the guys with guns, and quite frankly in this era of Trump, that’s chilling. That’s really chilling (he starts to interrupt again, she talks over him) I heard what you said – he interrupts and says ok – I heard and I understand it – he chimes in with several more oks. But people talking over long when they are talking about fear for their lives that is a different magnitude, you know what I mean? Koval says um, hmm. She says it seems like the committee was going great and no one, least of all the committee chairs or the committee members, knew that collaboration had failed until right this moment. So I guess that communication, the explosiveness of this meeting and comments the last couple days is really unfortunate, painful for everyone and I hope when we do this pass this, cuz everyone is going to vote for this but one person, but lets think about our words before we say them or write them in our blog, I mean, you have Joel Despain on your staff, he’s amazing. Koval says probably should use him more – clapping.
Koval interrupts again . . . and although it looks like things are getting better, its about to get worse again. There are amazing comments by Shiva and Mo and others and I don’t want to rush this . . .just watch . . . I’ll finish it tonight so its captured . . .but you really need to watch the last hour or hour and a half.
Thank you so much for capturing this, Brenda.