Common Council Recap (Livish)

Posted May 16th, 2017 @ 8:44 PM by

Sorry, I’ve been 2 – 3 jobs at Tenant Resource Center since last August and blogging has become a luxury . . . . I see a light at the end of the tunnel, but I”m half expecting to get hit by a train. I hope to be back to more regular blogging by budget season . . . but we’ll see. I have 28 days of vacation to use up! You get what I can manage to make happen during the meeting without proofreading! Sorry.

Getting Started
Roll Call – all here except McKinney. (Tho she shows up minutes later . . . )
Suspension of the rules for introducing things and taking things out of order. Yeah, things, things like ordinances and resolutions.
Goofy resolution honoring 43 citizens who bring conventions to Madison.
There’s no public hearing items, they referred the petition, so they go to the consent agenda – mostly here. I have to admit, I got a little lost but I think they took items 45 and 47 off the exclusion list. Verveer separates item 5 so they can get the dog and pony show from the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Steve King makes a motion to take the remaining items in the following order: 5, 56, 57, 58 and then 22 (the item everyone is here for).

The Convention and Visitor Bureau did their bragging/powerpoint thingy for a little over 10 minutes. I once asked how TRC could get the opportunity to do that . . . I don’t think they took me seriously. They adopted the report.

Arvina Martin welcomes a boy scout troop.

And that was the first half hour of the meeting.

Bus barns
56 and 57 are the new bus barn and evaluating the old bus barn. Rebecca Kemble pulled them off the agenda because they are milestones for Bus Rapid Transit and a RTA. She thanks Mark Miller for his support. She says there is some confusion about why both the new and old bus barn are on the agenda and staff will explain. She says that they have applied for grants recently and not gotten them and this will help up the score for future grants.

Chuck Kamp, the Metro Manager, talks about the history of the group doing a study about expanding the current barn, it was a $75M plan. The departments were looking at this with the mayor and it wasn’t realistic, so they started looking at properties and they decided there was enough room at the Fleet facility, it was also mentioned in the 2005 study. So, they moved in that direction. THe $35M Nakoosa facility would house the 60 foot buses that they can’t use now at their facilities. It’s also going to be for alternative energy (electric buses). Meantime, they do need to invest in the current building. THis has gone through the CIP process, the council approved this in the budget. Right now they need to do this because they don’t have enough facilities and he has had to turn down requests for additional service. This will plan for more capacity.

Maurice Cheeks asks what the fiscal implication is, for clarity. David Schmidicke from the Finance Department says that this is the design for future capital fund requests in grants. He says that the city is putting in the money for the design and then we’ll get funds (50% of $35M) for the construction costs. THey think the design will get them a better score on grants.

Mayor says the TIGR grants are hard to get and bus barns are not “exciting” as some of the other applications, like rail, which doesn’t have a promising future in our state due to conditions beyond our control at the capital. He says the state (or feds?) indicated that we should make some adjustments and apply for Small Starts grant and we should show progress. This is a small commitment relative to the total package.

Kamp says that it needs to be shovel ready and this puts us closer.

Motion carries on 56.

Now they have a motion on 57.

Sarah Eskrich asks to recuse herself. (Wondering what conflict she has now?)

Ok, that passes too.

Reconsideration on item 58 – $1.8M for a parking ramp.
Ledell Zellers make the motion to reconsider. Mayor does his parliamentary procedure explanation. Again, they can reconsider which takes 11 votes, but it takes 15 votes for the motion to pass. They will take the speakers if reconsideration passes. Samba Baldeh recuses himself (he works at American Family). Motion to reconsider passes.

There are several lobbyists available to answer questions – and some residents? (They didn’t explain) I think they were all lobbyists. They don’t want to have the project delayed and slow momentum was the gist of it.

Zellers asks staff to explain the increases in cost.

Natalie Erdman the Director of Planning and Community and Economic Development. She says this is a new model for them

. . . and they pause for one more lobbyist from the Chamber of Commerce to speak in support . . . collaborative, ensure infrastructure, blah, blah, blah, vote for it. (so we know where this is going given how many of the alders get support from the Chamber of Commerce during campaign season)

David Ahrens asks how many spaces are in the project, the Chamber dude has no clue, he says to ask city staff.

Erdman says this is the first time they are building a parking structure outside of the downtown core. WHile it’s not far away on foot, it is unknown for transient parking. Normally they would look at TIF generated and have them build private parking, but they are building a public parking ramp and the TIF will be used in part and then it will be leased to Cosmos and American Family. This will stabilize the new structure and fund operating costs in an unproven market. We also want to have 24/7 parking in the evening for restaurants and businesses – Breese Stevens and Central Park. This is not the norm. This is a new structure in an unproven market and they are trying to make decisions for 65 years into the future. She explains the cahrt on page three of the memo they gave them. tHe council approved a $16M structure with TIF, borrowing, etc. THere were 50 parking spots for the parking utility and the rest was leased. After they contracted for design and looked at it, the engineers and architects said a larger structure with less steep ramping was more efficient and they got 56 more spaces. The costs are for the planned structure with 556 spaces. The developer increased the size of their building and is developing more space. That increased $10M in assessed value for the increment. The increment will cover much of it, it will not increase G.O. Borrowing and the $900,000 gap will be paid by the parking utility.

Zellers asks about the residential development in the corridor, but she wants to hear about employment. Erdman says that this side of the street has been for development and almost every developer wants to do housing. She says they are looking for mixed uses and the department has stayed strong on that but it has been unsuccessful until this proposal. She says that they will be bringing jobs downtown. This is a good business to bring downtown, plus the incubator, the entertainment venue and more office space for other businesses and they were excited about this project.

Zellers asks about options to reduce the cost and the UDC approval. Erdman says that a private developer would have had a conditional use and it would have made it go to UDC. The staff encourages activated street frontage for any new parking ramps to make it seem not like a parking structure, staff pushes for this and UDC looks for that as well.

Zellers asks about the ATC line and how it impacts the project. Erdman says that this is a large electrical vault – MG&E needs to maintain access and it was a tricky engineering project. It does complicate the project (says Sabrina) and that is why it is designed differently for the column spacing. They can build around it but not directly over it. Zellers asks if the refinement of that is part of the increased costs. Erdman says yes, they stretched the building longer.

Oh, hey, Marsha Rummel is back in the chair.

Denise DeMarb is grateful to American Family coming back downtown, she says this is economic development and will reduce poverty which is something she works on every day. She is concerned about the amount of money it is to park downtown. Its $220 to park downtown. The 550 spaces will be $56 a day and it will increase for 15 years. DeMarb asks how they would calculate the market rate. Erdman says they can’t, they wouldn’t need it without American Family. DeMarb says $56 seems low. Erdman says that without those two major employers we couldn’t fill a 600 space parking structure.

DeMarb asks about the rates. Sabrina says that this rate will generate the operational costs in the early years. They also wanted public parking. They will be leasing 550 and over selling them. They should have 105 spaces, with the additional spaces we don’t know what the hourly rate or monthly rate will be, but at .65 per hour they can cover operating costs and pay it off in 20 years. SHe says $220 a month is on the higher end, it ranges $125 and up. Rates for the public monthly rate will be based on demand and in year 16, those rates will go to market rate.

DeMarb wants to be clear that the parking utility staff believe that $56/stall and a percentage being rented out hourly will cover the operating costs and financing of the structure. Sabrina says that is correct.

DeMarb asks if maintenance is in the projections. Sabrina (Tolley, sorry I didn’t know her last name til now and everyone kept referring to her as Tolley) says that yes, construction matters and it should be good for 50 years.

Barbara McKinney (who voted no along with DeMarb last time), she appreciates the detail but they didn’t have that 2 weeks ago, she wants to confirm how many spaces will be public parking during the day and at the end and close of business. 106 spaces during the work day for public parking, and then at the end of the day and weekends its 656. McKinney says she is supportive of a core large business coming downtown and she appreciates Alder Ahrens bringing this forward which has lead to a robust discussion which is necessary when they are making a large adjustment. She thanks him and is glad she voted against it so they could have this discussion, she wants to get to yes because she understands the long term vision but wants staff to have more robust and free discussion and items we can look at in advance for questions they have.

Mark Clear asks Tolley about the way the market changes for parking the farther they move from downtown. There is free 2 hour parking in the area, right. Tolley says that they don’t have alot of into for structured parking, but yes there is free on street parking in the area. Clear says that the economics will change based on having more employment downtown. Chicken, egg, I got lost.

David Ahrens asks Tolley the initial financial description of the debt, which is included later and is the majority of the costs. Are you certain it covers the debt, financing costs and maintenance. Tolley says the Oct. 24th memo was updated and includes all the costs and the model shows covering all capital costs and PILOT. I was $56 based on the negotiated agreement.

Ahrens asks if the parking costs downtown cover all the costs downtown. Tolley says much of the rate structure is based on demand to generate revenue for future costs, but each facility doesn’t cover all its costs. The rates incorporate demand. Ahrens asks if they charge $225 cuz they can get it. She says they do it to spread the costs.

Mayor Paul Soglin says the city has never constructed a ramp that pays for itself until now. He says that when we look at Madison Metro and the pricing, we don’t cover the cost of the ride, otherwise they customers would pay twice as much, that is because there are benefits to all of us for the costs. We make that conscious decision as part of our transportation policy. The Lake St ramp and other ramps lost money for 40 years. The reason it could sustain itself was because we used revenue from the meters on the streets to keep the parking utility solvent. It was a conscious decision that without a ramp we would like Milwaukee or Anchorage with blocks of surface parking or people would locate outside of the city and Fitchburg and Middleton are eating up acres of land for surface parking. The ramps were built based on an analysis that without subsidized ramps we will not have a robust city and robust downtown and in turn, it has not been solely revenues that has determined how we fix the rates, but other issues such as making sure that the ramps aren’t filled by all day parkers so shoppers can’t come downtown, so its more than just economics. We care about equity, access and sprawl and that all fits into the parking policy and that is one of the reasons why we have a walkable and accessible downtown that is not blanketed with surface parking lots. This will be the first ramp that will pay for itself without subsidy from on street parkers. He hopes that this decision is not based on how much money comes in and out, because it would destroy Madison Metro and community services if we don’t look at the larger impact of our decisions.

Rebecca Kemble asks about the leases – are there one or two. Tolley says 275 each (Gebhardt and American Family). Kemble asks if they are the same? Yes. Can they re-rent the spaces at a higher space. Tolley doesn’t think there is anything in there that limits them from doing that.

Ahrens says that the purpose of his no vote is not about Starting Block, its to stop an incredibly inequitable pricing scheme designed by the city and Gebhardt and American Family. He appreciates the memo and wants to comment on parts of it. He says it lays out indirectly the main problems. First is the notion that this is a boon to employment. It will increase the number of employees in the area, but these are not employees that are from our community, they will drive in and back every evening. Also, this is for the Frank Productions concert venue, 2 or 3 nights a week there will be 650 slots for the 2500 person venue. (Distraction from Sheri Carter), that will be 1300 car trips on some nights, this doesn’t seem to be a benefit for the downtown community, but overall, 1300 commuters isn’t a real plus. He says that 106 spaces for the public but it is primarily private. This won’t really serve Central Park, its several blocks away. This might be for some Breese Stevens projects, but since we gave Frank Productions a near monopoly they won’t be using Breese Stevens.

Rummel interrupts and asks if there is a question. There is confusion about if they are in discussion (that’s what Ahrens thinks) or if they are doing questions (that’s what Rummel thinks) Ahrens decides to ask a question but thought they were in discussion.

Ahrens says that we are paying $35,000 a space, we are making it nice looking, but $35,000 a space is nearly double the $22,000 they had gotten in the past. He says that the history was different, this was $13M, then $16 and now $18M and he bets we are closer to $20M once they are done. In the bigger picture, this project is the antithesis of supporting a transportation plan for the city. Having a 650 space garage is not something that promotes public transportation, in fact this is the type of project that will keep Metro in debt and relying on subsidy. He says this will be subsidized by other parking structures . . .

People who came here for the policing issues are starting to leave, so I guess that strategy worked . . . thanks ALder King.

Ahrens is now talking about the $56 rate being unconscionable, its incentive not to use public transportation and stay in their cars. They should ask for an increase in charges and he hopes they will vote no.

Zellers says that she hopes people will support it. She says that they ahve talked about more employment and large employers downtown, housing comes readily but employment is difficult. She says this infrastructure makes it easier for businesses, they already lost one employer on the 1000 block who wanted more TIF for parking. This is a sustainable choice, this is a great Madison employer who wants to move back downtown, don’t punish them for choosing to expand downtown. It is the wrong comparison to compare it to the core downtown parking structure. At the UW the parking structure next to Camp Randall is $63 a month. Different places have different charges. Location, location, location. Parking 8 blocks from downtown won’t compare to core parking downtown, that doesn’t make sense. There is a provision to make changes if they are successful. We decided that it was wise to have it be publicly owned instead of having the private owners own it, and we keep the valuable resource and can manage it for the good of the city. She says the Mallards have been good at indicating where parking is available at Breese and they are running out of option because of the developments in the area and this will be used for Breese Stevens and its needed for the events at Breese Stevens and for the smaller businesses in the area. The city should hold itself to high standards like private developers and that means making the underground utilities, wide sidewalks and ground floor retail, so she hopes that everyone will support this, especially those who want to support economic development in the downtown.

Kemble says that she has been over these details many times and has always been in support of the parking utility owning it. It’s important for many reasons, but that only makes sense if we have the power to control it, the thing that bothers her is the leases. Hearing that they can re-lease it for more, and there is nothing in writing restricting it, it bothers her that they can make a profit off what we are subsidizing. The parking utility is adept at moving demand around through costs. They can integrate parking and all their other transportation plans and she thinks this is not wise and not in the public interest, the public is bearing the cost of cheap parking for these two companies. On their side, they say this is the deal killer, but that doesn’t seem like such a big cost on their end given the investment they are making, which she is supportive of. She says that the leases are the sticking point for her.

Rummel says this is not a private garage, we will make the money. It might not be the right amount of money and we will cover the cost. She says that they will be investing $58M in our Capitol East District and our cost is 1/3. We could nickle and dime it and have no development here. American Family is in the cornfields but we are bringing them downtown. They will create the market and success of the neighborhood. She says she was a neighborhood person and doesn’t consider this downtown, but this is the central part of the city. They took the parking meters out on Atwood because they would steal parking and try to get free parking. There will be lots of events in this area and we have built in customers. She didn’t have then when running a book store. This is good for the city, we need to move forward on this, it has taken us a long time to get to this point, I can’t just say that the lease isn’t good enough. This staff report is alot better. We’re ready to go with this.

Ahrens says that the resale option that is open, when we gave TIF to block 89 it was understood they would not rent the spaces for a lower fee than the parking utility, but you see the sign undercutting the parking utility on the weekends. It happens. It needs to be in writing to stop it.

King apologizes to the people in the audience, this is inequitable. He says that there is one vote in the balance and everyone who voted for his motion should have said something, because this won’t make a difference.

Everyone drops out of the queue. Passes this time. Baldeh recuses. Ahrens, Carter and Kemble vote no.

Public Testimony
I apologize, I’ve read so many emails and hear so much testimony, this might be brief because I feel like I’ve heard it all.

Nathan Royko Mauer says that he felt that with the chief’s latest memo, he senses a deal in the making. He reads the charter, and says that Koval wants them to believe that they are on shaky ground, but they are not. He says they should eliminate the ambiguity. He says City Attorney May says that there are different practices around the state based on tradition. He says we should make good policy. (Sorry, got distracted) He says he assumes they read the emails with the many cities that review and propose police policies. The city attorney gave them clearance and they should keep the recommendations as they are.

Greg Gelembuik point out that several people went home. He also has sent many emails. He says that there have been $6M in settlements and two more suits in the works, and there are human costs. These need to be orders. They have committed to the NAACP recommendations, but they have not followed through and that is why these need to be orders, otherwise they will not follow through. If it is not mandatory it will not happen. (I can’t type as fast as these guys talk!!!!!) He also cites the other cities, he says the Chief has been repeatedly insubordinate and the only way to deal with him is to draw boundaries and hold him accountable.

League of Women Voters speaker (sorry I forgot her name) says they attended meetings, reviewed the draft and Koval’s response. They urge adoption because they believe that the policies should be set by the community and elected officials together. They have been impressed by the work of the workgroup. They are not recommending specific working but directing the police. The police followed the policy in several deaths in our community and the violent arrest of the young women. They agree that just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right, they want the police to get help dealing with disoriented people, they want the police to talk to people instead of resorting to public force. The chief doesn’t object to the changes, just the elected officials making public policy. They want the elected officials to set community policy. We have been waiting since Paulie Heenan’s death and they want the council to take this step. (Damn, that was an awesome statement . . . I didn’t get it all)

Jackson Lewis talks about police in the schools and the impact on people of color and kids with special needs. He has the numbers on the disparities, and notes that there are more arrests and referrals since the police are in the schools. He supports the report and its the bare minimum of what is needed. He says accountability is the key to police reform, don’t needlessly water it down. We need full community control over the police. Please concretely impact Madison policing instead of just making a statement.

Dan Stevens says at the last meeting last week, we all seemed on the same page until the end when they said this was micromanagment. This not only impacts the police, but also the community and it only makes sense that the community have some say in what happens.

Teddy Shibabaw says that these need to be lawful orders given the chief’s resistance, if not, he won’t do them. He says we need community control over the police, the Police and Fire Commission should be elected and have broader powers or we need an elected body. Protect and serve leaves open the question of who you serve, its not black and brown people. This is about power, the community or the police. He condemns the body for paying the legal fees after the chief was found guilty, tonight is the opportunity to redeem themselves. (Again, way more eloquent than I captured)

Deb Rogers – left.

Luke? – In support of the recommendations. Again, eloquent, but I had to take a break.

I’ll just note here . . . the chief is here (I didn’t see him earlier). There don’t seem to be any of his supporters here. It’s now 8:45.

I missed another speaker – also eloquent.

8 supperters, 1 against also registered.

Amelia Royko Mauer says recommendations are options, she doesn’t want the recommendations thrown away, make them lawful orders. There were recommendations that the police have not followed up on – including allowing police to use a taser if they are by themselves and they haven’t made that change. I again missed much of this. If I had time . . . I’d go back and get these comments, I’d suggest watching it. The speakers have been awesome, I just can’t keep up adequately and its hard to hear, there is alot of background noise to the right of me.

One last speaker – some confusion over forms. He talks about disparities, the higher than average officer involved shootings, and he urges them to pass this as orders.

The council staff Heather Allen goes over highlights of the report. It started out as a subcommittee of the Common Council Organizational Committee but ended as the workgroup. She reviews the purpose of the committee (reads out of the report), the intent was to identify urgent issues, not temporary ones. She skips the info they collected over time, actions items start on page 6. A lawful order to the chief to deal with “emotionally disturbed persons” for mental illness or incapacitation due to drugs or alcohol. Action item 2 refers to the ad hoc committee – other supports for the officers such as social workers There are three action items on Use of Force including the duty to intercede and de-escalate. Also emphasizing the duty to preserve life, including the person placed in custody. Some of these recommendations are in the policies but this makes them ore clear. Item 5 I missed. Item 6 is about more mindfulness training and support officer mental health. Item 7 is about waiting for backup, the council is issuing a lawful order to develop a comprehensive policy since it was recently changed. They ant the policy to be more clear. They are asking for regular updates to the council for changes in procedures and data. They have an action item for the council for the use of surveillance equipment for all city agencies. Oversight of Internal Investigations will be reviewed by the Ad Hoc committee and look at the early intervention warning system capabilities. Thorough and credible root cause analysis should be used to look at incidents and they ask the ad hoc committee to look into this. Finally, the council will look at the role of the Public Safety Review Committee.

Rummel thanks the staff and people who assisted them in coming up with the report. She says that they all took their own path, but hers started in 2012 when Paulie Heenan got shot, and she has questions about the role of back up and could the officer have waited 7 seconds. She says the first action item is about working with intoxicated and emotionally disturbed persons. She talks about March 6th 2015 when Tony Robinson was shot and again last summer when Michael Schumacher was shot, all in her district and there are so many questions and that core group of people have helped us learn. We have changed state law and we have learned so much on the committee. Its there if you did down, but she recommends reading the document with the principles. It was an honor to serve on the committee.

McKinney appreciates the work done and asks a point of order if Rummel should be in the chair. McKinney wants to make sure they are in order. Rummel says normally she would have been called on first. Mayor takes back the chair. McKinney asks if Rummel is done, they are having a conversation off mic and I can’t hear. McKinney asks about item 13, what is the intent?

Allen says that during the course of the work, they discussed how important it was to have a forum for elected officials and citizens to discuss these issues and the PSRC work overlaps with that work and they are trying to ensure that the PSRC is doing as much of the work as possible and maximizing the public input, to look at what resources they need and if the mission is clear to maximize their capacity.

Mark Clear asks Chief Koval about his memo and how operating procedures and policies should be created? Who should guide the police department.

Chief Mike Koval says it is a shared responsibility, they have access to clearinghouses and best practices and the Obama guidelines, that is an appropraite place to state but we need input from citizens and elected officials. Ultimately you decide what get funded, but its a collaboration. Clear asks if their role is primarily budget. Koval says this approach was novel, this was an opportunity for us to give insight into what a practicioner sees. Clear asks where the buck stops. Koval says it is a shared responsibility, they can’t work in a vacuum. He says he is only worried about the daily operations. He says that they are doing or in the process or willing to do these things and they will put it on the website. He gets concerned that some folks believe or think they can take it to the daily operations and that is all he wants to flag. The city attorney made some clarifications, they softened their positions from one draft to another, they are not against thee lawful recommendations, (missed a bit). Clear says he wants to be clear, this is like the streets policy on snow removal and the bottom line on how that works is that we rely on the expertise of those who do the work, but the policies of how we make decisions are made by the council and we are accountable to the voters and nothing can throw out politicians like poor performance on snow removal, but nonetheless its on us. We have to own it. The street superintendent can point back at us and say they told us how to do their job and its their problem. How is the police department substantively different than that? You seem concerned about the council making those decisions.

Koval says that it depends upon the specifics, back up is complicated and we aren’t dismissing the issues out of hand, but to suggest that you have a formula that on every call we need back up flies in the face of data, exigent circumstances. Those are the kinds of discussion that need to be deferential to the staff.

Paul Skidmore thanks Clear for the questions. Skidmore asks Captain Wheeler how long he’s been on the force. 26 years. What kind of training do you have? 24 hours a year and then additional training and they can go to trainings around the country. He noticed in the reports that there were many interest groups and experts (the police) of the other speakers do you consider any of their testimony expert or professional testimony? Wheeler says no, they did not speak to practitioners in the field. (He further responds to the softball . . . sigh . . . something about a trip to Seattle . . .) Skidmore asks about the action item on the New York model on intoxication. He says that it looks good on paper, did someone go investigate this? Wheeler is confused about which item this is, its item number 1. Wheeler says they have policies and procedures in place, they have places to take people who are intoxicated (detox and hospitals) and they tranfered people to Winnebago 142 times last year. Skidmore asks about the back up policy (off mic so I missed it). Wheeler tees up for the softball and tells Skidmore about how some of the policies are not practical for every situation and comes up with an absurd situation – he talks about how he can’t have a policy for everything – does he wait for back up for a suspect he confront. Koval says that if someone is being stabbed they don’t want to have to explain to the family that they had to wait for back up and that would be in conflict with another policy about preserving life. They are just being absurd now. Wheeler jumps back in without being asked a question. Ok – you should watch this – 3 hours in, its 9:30. Wheeler says that the city council is going to tell him how to do his job. What if we let someone die, that will affect the officer. We will protect people even if it means giving up our lives. This policy will lead to inaction and loss of life or the officer getting killed.

Skidmore asks the City Attorney about liability if policies are created through the council, basically political, will there be liability. The city attorney says that it depends upon if it is reasonable and the end result is that we will come up with policies with the police department that are reasonable and won’t expose us to liability.

Skidmore asks if there is liability if . . . not sure what he said, something about OIR . . . May says it was really hypothetical and they will need to see what OIR comes up with and what the conflict is, he’d have to speculate about any conflict. May says there might be confusion if there are two different directions and they will have to be clear.

Mark Clear says he’s trying to reconcile the answers he got (working on policies together and that the recommendations are reasonable and can be put into practices) vs. putting officers at risk. Wheeler says its the difference between policy and going into the weeds and telling us how to do our jobs. You can’t come up with scenarios and tell us what to do if you are not trained. Koval says this is compatible with what we are doing, and this is not a deal breaker. Clear says to tone down the hyperbole. Koval says that if you never walked in those shoes you might think there is one way to do things can raise some provocation.

Kemble asks “you can’t train for scenarios”? Wheeler says situation evolve, I shouldn’t have to wait until someone is beside me. Kemble says to train for scenarios, not telling you what to do. Wheeler says that he says it says to wait for back up. Kemble says that it is asking the police to develop the policy.

Kemble asks the chief about how he will implement the recommendations. When SOPS are reviewed what will you do? Koval says that Use of Force are things they revisit annually at trainings, this wouldn’t be a word or sentence change, but it has to be brought to life through training to make sure it is understood and can be implemented. They will make sure people understand it and use it in scenarios. They will also do more reporting. What you have been seeing since the hellacious night of several incidents in a few hours, so he is affirmatively doing the overnight reports to get more robust flavor. They had a clerk at the 3500 block of E. Washington get shot three times tonight. Kemble asks if there will be budget implications? Koval says they will have to look at the ultimate findings of OIR (in December). If they say they want best practice of a deploy-able non lethal mechanism, that would have a cost. He doens’t see anything in these recommendations, there should be no mid-year adjustments. He says the back up policy could be a concern depending upon how they view that.

Shiva Bidar thanks the committee members and staff. She wants to address the fake narrative that one of the members of the body is trying to lead us to. She says that residents of the city have spent alot of time on these issues, they might not be experts, but she would not dismiss the knowledge of the people. They heard from many experts and they did that. The members of the public that joined us on a regular basis learned alot too. Another fake narrative is about micromanagement and they carefully considered this and make policy recommendations and landed in a place that has support of the city attorney and the police chief. Trying to continue this narrative that feeds into conflict with the police department is not a productive way to serve the residents of the city. It was productive to sit on this work group to come up with the reocmmendations. She is also hearing a fake narrative on back up. The final document is very different because we read the memo from April 28th and had a discussion about how far to go into operational management and we ended up in a place that tells the police to create the policy. Who can say that is not what we should be doing? Who thinks we shouldn’t have a back up policy that protects the lives of residents and officers. Please do not create hyperbole and a fake narrative. The other piece mentioned as a red herring is wthat OIR and the Ad Hoc Committee will think. She sent the transcript form OIR testimony, and they know that life goes on. If the OIR comes up with conflicting policies, we will override, we take new action that supercedes the previous action. That is what we do. We didn’t spend additonal resources excpet the time of the elected officials. She has not heard from a single member of the Ad Hoc group that thinks that we are in conflict. Lets not perpetuate this us vs them narrative. THis is not about that, its about us listening, understand better and us as elected officials making sure the policies are what oru constituents expect. None of this gets into minutea. Stick to facts, not fake narratives, that is what is done at other levels of government.

Mayor Soglin cautions the council on how they talk about what other said, be careful not to characterize it. He says he has come close in the past.

Maurice Cheeks thanks the council and members of the committee. He says that it is remarkable how favorable the comments from the public has given, and that is rare. The reality is that speaks to the powerful work the ladies did. He wants to dispel the word political as an inferred pejorative. This was worthwhile work, we were sent here to legislate, that is what politicians do, we govern. For members of body who are questioning that he is confused. Today he is proud of this work, where we continue to learn and grow.

Matt Phair compares policing to teaching and the role of political influence. He says boards have made decisions or DPI decides something and they shake their heads, take the training and adapt and are flexible and use the training the best they can. He htas confidence the police can do that too. These are common sense and good recommendations and hopes it is unanimous.

Sheri Carter thanks people too. They worked hard and diligently to come up with something fair and represent the concerns of constituents and respect the operations of the police department. She hopes Chief Koval graciously implements and embraces this.

Rummel talks about all the community meetings the neighborhood had and how Attorney Herrick came to many meetings and helped them understand the role of the PFC and the council, she doesn’t think they thought about that before, the duty to protect the health public safety and welfare of the city. She says that there is so much work going on in this community around criminal justice reform. She says that she learned a lot. She is proud of item number 8, she wants to know when important things happen. We learned about technology like IA Pro. She says that they will get important quarterly reports, so we don’t have excuses for not knowing about these initiatives. She says the OIR process is complementary, they didn’t create measurable outcomes, OIR and the ad hoc committee will provide those details. We deferred on body cameras but we also want to look at surveillance equipment.

Samba Baldeh says he was pleasantly surprised to hear the chief say he wasn’t against this, he thinks this is the beginning of a good working relationship. This is what happens when we talk to, not over each other. He is thankful to the police chief for agreeing to work with us. He thinks this is the beginning to restore public trust in the police department. He thinks the Chief is well intended, but once we focus on the concerns we can make progress. There is nothing he takes more seriously than public safety because it is life and death and that is where the police are leaders. Lets not look at this as for or against. He thinks people and hopes in the future we avoid giving $400,000 for a study if we can work together and work it out amongst ourselves.

Clear thanks the MPD, there were comments that the MPD is broken and he rejects that. He thinks the report shows that there are not huge errors but these are tweaks. There are things that happen every day, we aren’t asking for substantial changes. This report recognizes the shared governance, that there is responsibility and authority for the council and the police department. He says that its like the League of Women Voters said about civilian control over the military. He looks forward to the report.

Sheri Carter wanted to thank Captain Wheeler as well.

Kemble thanks the member of the public that provided us with research and information. She says there are three items that need follow up. She said that the chief wants more clarification about the reports the chief will report to them. Action item 9 they need to develop a policy on surveillance equipment and the review of the PSRC charge. She assumes that the Exec committee will take that up or the council president will ask for volunteers.

Denise DeMarb says the work was difficult, excruciating actually. But it was an amazing education. She is proud of the thoughtful work and the hours it took, it was worth it. She is happy they have the support of our chief, he is our chief and we have his support. If you read the report, please read it if you didn’t, its more than a policy statement, it is our responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of the public, and the police department is part of that. The report speaks to that as well. She wants to move forward in collaboration, its been a difficult year, there has been a lot in the news between the police and council and she’d call it fake news. They support the Madison Police Department and always have. There is still work to be done. She thanks everyone who stayed.

McKinney says that the former police chief Noble Wray said the Madison Police Department is not broken, she wants that in the official record. There are areas to work on, but it is not broken. Members of this council supported the full reimbursement of Chief Koval’s legal expenses, we sent it back to the PFC and we did our job. They are policy makers, she’s sees no conflict because the buck does stop with them, she has not problem supporting the work of the committee.

Mayor Soglin says that its incumbent on them to refer the report to the consultant and have them incorporate in the recommendations and findings. The more discretion the individual employee has, the more difficult and challenging it is to manage form a distance, that is true in any agency. That is why policing and fire fighting is a challenge in any city in any state. That said, the policy makers, us, have to be very careful in making decisions when there are people who are professionally trained. The discussion started long about about snow removal, we get recommendations about use of salt, how much slat per mile, the use of brine or beat juice. They give us the information about the cost and technical efficiency of the recommendations, but there are consequences to each one, beyond the financial, so it is up to the policy makers to make the judgement about which mechanism to use. In terms of the application, that we leave to the individual who is carrying out the assignment. The more discretion, the harder it is to control their actions. Police officers have the greatest degree of discretion, but they are in the most dangerous of situation, but the council has the right to make policy and there should be no question about that. His office will take the report and work on administration and also consider what the consultants say.

Passes on a voice vote with only Skidmore voting no.

Introductions from the floor/End
I lost track if there was anything in addition to what is here.

The mayor left already, Rummel back in the chair as various alders are reading them off.

Adjourn . . .

Categories: | Media

Forward Lookout's Comment Policy - use a real e-mail, if not an actual name. We don't share your e-mail with anyone.
blog comments powered by Disqus