Because right now policies and procedures are created by the police department without public input or oversight, approved by the police department without public input or oversight, changed by the police department without public input or oversight, and only modified if the police department wants to, without public input or oversight. The State Journal reports there will be a Task Force, and people groan over that and if it turns out as people suspect, then there is reason to groan. This Task Force could be good if done right and it has real power or the real force of the Council behind it. The police department find all kinds of reasons why they don’t have to listen to anyone. Here’s a bunch of information about why and how this happens. This is the current policy and procedure process, what the Police and Fire Commission and Public Safety Review Board have as powers. And the powers the council doesn’t have. They’re somewhat hamstrung by state laws, so when the City Council or Mayor tries to do something . . . about the only power they have is the demands of the public and the purse strings and budget battles. I’m not sure how this Task Force is going to have any teeth. Unless we go to referendum on this issue. Or we use the bully pulpit, public will or the purse strings. Basically, the Police Chief doesn’t have to listen to us, the public. And I don’t think he’s going to, but I hope I’m wrong and that the public will wins out, but that is going to take a lot of effort. Or a state law change. Or some loophole I missed?
CURRENT PROCESS
1-300 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY
It is important that all members of the Department have an adequate opportunity to offer suggestions for additions or revisions to policy and that there is a standard procedure for doing so. The standardized procedure which follows will allow anyone with a suggestion for change, or those who will be affected by a change, to easily and appropriately offer their ideas and concerns.The following procedure will be used in the development and maintenance of policy:
The Chief of Police has designated the Lieutenant of Professional Standards as chair of the Policy Review Committee (PRC). The PRC makeup should attempt to be representative of the various members of the Department and will act as an advisory group to the Chief and Management Team. The PRC will review proposed changes in policy as well as continually review existing policy. Personnel having suggestions for, or concerns with policy, should make contact in writing with the Chief of Police or any member of the PRC. The suggestion or concern should include an explanation of the problem, a proposed solution and all available information that is relevant to the problem.Efforts will be made by the PRC to solicit and consider comments from department members as well as those outside the department who may be affected by changes in a specific policy. It may be appropriate to seek comments from persons outside the Department who have expertise in the area of policy in question.
The PRC will develop a draft of proposed modifications to policy. Others may also author proposed policy modifications, as designated by the Chief or Lieutenant of Professional Standards. The draft will be reviewed by Professional Standards and may be reviewed as appropriate, by other entities affected by the new or revised policy such as MPD partner agencies, the Officer Advisory Council, Civilian Advisory Council, City Attorney’s Office, MPPOA/AMPS, etc. The draft will then be submitted to the Management Team for review and finalization. After review by the Management Team, the completed policy will be submitted to the Chief for approval. Upon approval, policy changes will be distributed to all personnel. The Lieutenant of Professional Standards shall assure that modifications to policy are updated on the department’s computer network and website.
MAINTENANCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES
Procedural Memos
It is the responsibility of the employee issuing the procedural memo to forward an electronic copy to the Chief’s Administrative Assistant or designee.The Chief’s Administrative Assistant will maintain a file of all current procedural memos issued by the Department.
Review and Revisions of Procedure
Outdated or inadequate procedures should be brought to the attention of the Chief of Police or commanding officer of the affected department unit. Department members will be notified of new or revised procedures and will be responsible for implementing them upon notification.Madison Police Policy Manual
Each employee will receive an initial issue of the Madison Police Policy Manual. Employees are responsible for updating their copy of the manual as changes in policy are issued. The Madison Police Policy Manual will also be made available on the Department’s computer network and website
Several issues to point out:
Given the paramilitary nature of the police department, I wonder how many people feel comfortable telling the chief to change his policies?
Who is the Lt. of Professional Standards?
What is this Civilian Advisory Council? Who is on it? When do they meet? Do they ever get consulted? Are they listened to?
Are all the other groups listed consulted when making changes?
Additionally, Assistant Chief Sue Williams explains the current process to me:
Hello Brenda,
I am the point person for your questions regarding our new Code of Conduct and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s). Our Policy Manual had an overhaul that we started late in 2013. During this process everything was reviewed and updated as needed. The final product has two main components:
Code of Conduct: Expansion of core values and beliefs defining who we are and outlines essential conduct for all MPD employees.
SOPs: Operating procedures based on laws, statutes and best practices. It is expected that these will be followed. It is understood that unusual limited exceptions will occur which may allow deviation from the SOP, with articulated facts.
Our Code of Conduct contains those items that should not change over time because they are based on our core values. Our SOPs provide direction to officer and staff on expectations for wide variety of job functions. SOPs will be evaluated for potential changes on a yearly basis, or as standards change based on legislative action, case law, or as professional best practices change.
There has been a committee of personnel working on this project for over a year. After careful review of the entire old policy manual, it was determined that 21 items should be located within our Code of Conduct. The remaining items in the old policy manual were then reviewed for placement within a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), an annual memo, or slated to be eliminated because they were obsolete. Areas of the old policy manual were assigned to individuals within the department that were considered the subject matter expert on the topic being reviewed. For example, since I was a records custodian for the department, I reviewed and updated our Records Inspection and Release SOP, our PIO reviewed and updated our News Media Relations SOP, and our lead Emergency Vehicle Operations instructor reviewed and updated the Guidelines for the Operation of Emergency Vehicles SOP. In addition some new SOP’s have been written. For instance the discipline process now includes a matrix of outcomes for potential violations, an addition to the complaint and discipline policies. We believe this process improves clarity of expectations, and highlights essential conduct.
The older Policy and Procedure manual is in place until an updated SOP is disseminated to the organization, or until the entire project is complete. This has been a large project and we hope to have it completed by the end of March.
I hope this answers your questions. If not, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you.
Sue Williams, Assistant Chief of Police
City of Madison Police Department
Well, its the end of March . . . and quite a bit that was in the PolicyManual20140801″>old manual doesn’t show up in the Code of Conduct or Standard Operating Procedures. I don’t know if there are some policies still coming, I’m assuming so. But there have been few changes (the only thing they added was the use of force policy which is in the code of conduct, so I was surprised to see it in the SOP as well) since I found the policies on line a few weeks ago.
CURRENT COMMITTEES WITH OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE
Public Safety Review Commission
Legistar language:
Madison General Ordinance Sec. 33.22 – The board shall be advisory to the mayor and Common Council to assist them in the performance of their statutory duties. The board may review and make recommendations concerning departmental budgets; review service priorities and capital budget priorities of the Police and Fire Departments; serve as liaison between the community and the city on public safety issues; and review annually and make recommendations to the Common Council regarding the annual work plans and long-range goals of the departments.
MGO 33.22(4)
Duties – The work of the Public Safety Review Committee shall be advisory to the Mayor and the Common Council to assist them in the performance of their statutory duties regarding the police and fire departments. The role of the Public Safety Review Committee shall in no way interfere with the lawfully prescribed powers and duties of the Common Council, the Police and Fire Commission, the Mayor, or the Chiefs of the respective Police and Fire Departments. The Public Safety Review Committee may, in the performance of duties:
a) Review service priorities and capital budget priorities of the Police and Fire Departments
b) Serve as a liaison between the community and the City on public safety issues
c) Review annually and make recommendations to the Mayor and Common Council regarding the annual work plans and long-range goals of the departments.
Members:
Here are the members, the seat they hold, when they started on the commission, email and when their term expires:
Bruce P. Frey Alternate Member 10/1/2013 jbfrey@charter.net Termed-out: 4/30/2015
Chan M. Stroman Citizen Member 7/5/2011 cstroman@landlordcounsel.com Termed-out: 4/30/2015
Dena M. Carreyn Citizen Member 1/20/2015 denacarreyn@gmail.com Termed-out: 4/30/2015
Ernest E. Horinek Citizen Member 10/18/2011 Termed-out: 4/30/2017
John Strasser Common Council Member 4/16/2013 district14@cityofmadison.com Termed-out: 4/21/2015
Maurice S. Cheeks Common Council Member 4/16/2013 district10@cityofmadison.com Termed-out: 4/21/2015
Merrilee Pickett Mayor or Designee 12/13/2011 mpickett@wisc.edu This position does not require Council confirmation. Termed-out: 11/11/2111
Paul E. Skidmore Common Council Member 5/21/2002 district9@cityofmadison.com Termed-out: 4/21/2015
Sara E. Eskrich Citizen Member 10/21/2014 sara.eskrich@gmail.com Termed-out: 4/30/2017
Wayne S. Strong Citizen Member 5/7/2013 wstrong@globeuniversity.edu Termed-out: 4/30/2016
Here my initial thoughts:
Service priorities? Does that mean staffing levels in various districts or neighborhoods and overpolicing?
Why the capital budget and not operating budget?
How do they serve as a liaison if they don’t have any power?
Has anyone ever seen their annual workplan? Long range goals? I looked at the last two years of agendas and I don’t see either of the on the agendas in 2015, 2014 or 2013. And I also found the cancel about a quarter of their meetings per year.
Police and Fire Commission
Legistar Description:
Madison General Ordinance Sec. 33.06 and State Statutes 62.13 – Appoints the chief of each department; approves or disapproves promotions and supervision of the hiring process, with certification of an eligibility list and approval of those who are finally hired; holds hearings on disciplinary matters brought to its attention either directly or through appeal and imposes discipline if appropriate.
MGO 33.06
The Board of Police and Fire Commissioners for the City of Madison shall consist of five (5) citizens appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Common Council. The Baord shall have the power and authority conferred under the provisions of Subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (5m) and (7) of Section 62.13, Wisconsin Statutes.
Members:
Here are the members, the seat they hold, when they started on the commission, email and when their term expires:
Craig H. Yapp Adult City Resident 9/4/2007 yapp929@yahoo.com Termed-out: 5/1/2017
Fabiola Hamdan Adult City Resident 5/19/2009 Ifhamdan@charter.net Termed-out: 5/1/2016
George R. Kamperschroer Adult City Resident 10/28/2008 gkamperschroer@yahoo.com Termed-out: 5/1/2018
Michael J. Lawton Adult City Resident 9/5/2000 mlawton@boardmanclark.com Termed-out: 5/1/2015
Wesley N. Sparkman Adult City Resident 1/2/2007 sparkman@co.dane.wi.us Termed-out: 5/1/2019
Wis Statutes 62.13 Police and fire departments.
(1) Commissioners. Except as provided in subs. (2g), (2m), (2s), and (8) (b) each city shall have a board of police and fire commissioners consisting of 5 citizens, 3 of whom shall constitute a quorum. The mayor shall annually, between the last Monday of April and the first Monday of May, appoint in writing to be filed with the secretary of the board, one member for a term of 5 years. No appointment shall be made which will result in more than 3 members of the board belonging to the same political party. The board shall keep a record of its proceedings.
(2) Exception.
(a) Except as provided under sub. (6m), subs. (1) to (6) shall not apply to cities of less than 4,000 population except by ordinance adopted by a majority of all the members of the council. A repealing ordinance may be adopted by a like vote.
(b) A city that creates a joint police or fire department with a village under s. 61.65 is not required to create a separate board of police and fire commissioners under this section. The city shall create a joint board of commissioners to govern the joint department, as required in s. 61.65. If the city also creates one separate protective services department in addition to the joint protective services department, the city shall create a separate board of commissioners to govern that department. A city’s joint board of commissioners is subject to s. 61.65 (3g) (d). A city’s separate board of commissioners is subject to this section.
(3) Chiefs. The board shall appoint the chief of police and the chief of the fire department or, if applicable, the chief of a combined protective services department, who shall hold their offices during good behavior, subject to suspension or removal by the board for cause.
(4) Subordinates.
(a) The chiefs shall appoint subordinates subject to approval by the board. Such appointments shall be made by promotion when this can be done with advantage, otherwise from an eligible list provided by examination and approval by the board and kept on file with the clerk.
(b) Any person who, on June 23, 1943 has served and acted as a full-time city police patrolman, patrolwoman or police officer performing the services by virtue of regular assignment therefor under the orders and supervision of the chief of police of said city, and receiving his or her salary on the regular official payroll of said police department for a continuous period of more than 10 years, although not regularly appointed from an eligible list, is deemed to have been regularly appointed, as of the time of the commencement of his or her service.
(c) For the choosing of such list the board shall adopt, and may repeal or modify, rules calculated to secure the best service in the departments. These rules shall provide for examination of physical and educational qualifications and experience, and may provide such competitive examinations as the board shall determine, and for the classification of positions with special examination for each class. The board shall print and distribute the rules and all changes in them, at city expense.
(d) The examination shall be free for all U.S. citizens over 18 and under 55 years of age, with proper limitations as to health and, subject to ss. 111.321, 111.322, and 111.335, arrest and conviction record. The examination, including minimum training and experience requirements, shall be job-related in compliance with appropriate validation standards and shall be subject to the approval of the board and may include tests of manual skill and physical strength. All relevant experience, whether paid or unpaid, shall satisfy experience requirements. The board shall control examinations and may designate and change examiners, who may or may not be otherwise in the official service of the city, and whose compensation shall be fixed by the board and paid by the city. Veterans and their spouses shall be given preference points in accordance with s. 230.16 (7).
(e) The council of any city of the 2nd, 3rd or 4th class may provide that members of the police force shall be of both sexes. The fire and police commission shall select each police officer from an eligible list.
(5) Disciplinary actions against subordinates.
(a) A subordinate may be suspended as hereinafter provided as a penalty. The subordinate may also be suspended by the commission pending the disposition of charges filed against the subordinate.
(b) Charges may be filed against a subordinate by the chief, by a member of the board, by the board as a body, or by any aggrieved person. Such charges shall be in writing and shall be filed with the president of the board. Pending disposition of such charges, the board or chief may suspend such subordinate.
(c) A subordinate may be suspended for just cause, as described in par. (em), by the chief or the board as a penalty. The chief shall file a report of such suspension with the commission immediately upon issuing the suspension. No hearing on such suspension shall be held unless requested by the suspended subordinate. If the subordinate suspended by the chief requests a hearing before the board, the chief shall be required to file charges with the board upon which such suspension was based.
(d) Following the filing of charges in any case, a copy thereof shall be served upon the person charged. The board shall set date for hearing not less than 10 days nor more than 30 days following service of charges. The hearing on the charges shall be public, and both the accused and the complainant may be represented by an attorney and may compel the attendance of witnesses by subpoenas which shall be issued by the president of the board on request and be served as are subpoenas under ch. 885.
(e) If the board determines that the charges are not sustained, the accused, if suspended, shall be immediately reinstated and all lost pay restored. If the board determines that the charges are sustained, the accused, by order of the board, may be suspended or reduced in rank, or suspended and reduced in rank, or removed, as the good of the service may require.
(em) No subordinate may be suspended, reduced in rank, suspended and reduced in rank, or removed by the board under par. (e), based on charges filed by the board, members of the board, an aggrieved person or the chief under par. (b), unless the board determines whether there is just cause, as described in this paragraph, to sustain the charges. In making its determination, the board shall apply the following standards, to the extent applicable:
1. Whether the subordinate could reasonably be expected to have had knowledge of the probable consequences of the alleged conduct.
2. Whether the rule or order that the subordinate allegedly violated is reasonable.
3. Whether the chief, before filing the charge against the subordinate, made a reasonable effort to discover whether the subordinate did in fact violate a rule or order.
4. Whether the effort described under subd. 3. was fair and objective.
5. Whether the chief discovered substantial evidence that the subordinate violated the rule or order as described in the charges filed against the subordinate.
6. Whether the chief is applying the rule or order fairly and without discrimination against the subordinate.
7. Whether the proposed discipline reasonably relates to the seriousness of the alleged violation and to the subordinate’s record of service with the chief’s department.
(f) Findings and determinations hereunder and orders of suspension, reduction, suspension and reduction, or removal, shall be in writing and, if they follow a hearing, shall be filed within 3 days thereof with the secretary of the board.
(g) Further rules for the administration of this subsection may be made by the board.
(h) No person shall be deprived of compensation while suspended pending disposition of charges.
(i) Any person suspended, reduced, suspended and reduced, or removed by the board may appeal from the order of the board to the circuit court by serving written notice of the appeal on the secretary of the board within 10 days after the order is filed. Within 5 days after receiving written notice of the appeal, the board shall certify to the clerk of the circuit court the record of the proceedings, including all documents, testimony and minutes. The action shall then be at issue and shall have precedence over any other cause of a different nature pending in the court, which shall always be open to the trial thereof. The court shall upon application of the accused or of the board fix a date of trial, which shall not be later than 15 days after such application except by agreement. The trial shall be by the court and upon the return of the board, except that the court may require further return or the taking and return of further evidence by the board. The question to be determined by the court shall be: Upon the evidence is there just cause, as described under par. (em), to sustain the charges against the accused? No costs shall be allowed either party and the clerk’s fees shall be paid by the city. If the order of the board is reversed, the accused shall be forthwith reinstated and entitled to pay as though in continuous service. If the order of the board is sustained it shall be final and conclusive.
(j) The provisions of pars. (a) to (i) shall apply to disciplinary actions against the chiefs where applicable. In addition thereto, the board may suspend a chief pending disposition of charges filed by the board or by the mayor of the city.
(5m) Dismissals and reemployment.
(a) When it becomes necessary, because of need for economy, lack of work or funds, or for other just causes, to reduce the number of subordinates, the emergency, special, temporary, part-time, or provisional subordinates, if any, shall be dismissed first, and thereafter subordinates shall be dismissed in the order of the shortest length of service in the department, provided that, in cities where a record of service rating has been established prior to January 1, 1933, for the said subordinates, the emergency, special, temporary, part-time provisional subordinates, if any, shall be dismissed first, and thereafter subordinates shall be dismissed in the order of the least efficient as shown by the said service rating.
(b) When it becomes necessary for such reasons to reduce the number of subordinates in the higher positions or offices, or to abolish any higher positions or offices in the department, the subordinate or subordinates affected thereby shall be placed in a position or office in the department less responsible according to the subordinate’s efficiency and length of service in the department.
(c) The name of a subordinate dismissed for any just cause set forth in this section shall be left on an eligible reemployment list for a period of 2 years after the date of dismissal, except that if the dismissal was for disciplinary reasons the subordinate may not be left on an eligible reemployment list. If any vacancy occurs, or if the number of subordinates is increased, in the department, the vacancy or new positions shall be filled by persons on the eligible reemployment list in the inverse order of the dismissal of the persons on the list.
(7) Compensation. The salaries of chiefs and subordinates shall be fixed by the council. Unless the council otherwise provides, in cities of the 4th class rewards for the apprehension of criminals may be retained by the person entitled thereto. Such salaries when so fixed may be increased but not decreased by the council without a previous recommendation of the board. The council may provide that the salaries shall increase with length of service.
Note: We could do this if we wanted to:
(6) Optional powers of board.
(a) The board of fire and police commissioners shall have the further power:
1. To organize and supervise the fire and police, or combined protective services, departments and to prescribe rules and regulations for their control and management.
2. To contract for and purchase all necessary apparatus and supplies for the use of the departments under their supervision, exclusive of the erection and control of the police station, fire station, and combined protective services station buildings.
3. To audit all bills, claims and expenses of the fire, police, and combined protective services departments before the same are paid by the city treasurer.
(b) The provisions of this subsection shall apply only if adopted by the electors. Whenever not less than 70 days prior to a regular city election a petition therefor, conforming to the requirements of s. 8.40 and signed by electors equal in number to not less than 20% of the total vote cast in the city for governor at the last general election, shall be filed with the clerk as provided in s. 8.37, the clerk shall give notice in the manner of notice of the regular city election of a referendum on the adoption of this subsection. Such referendum election shall be held with the regular city election, and the ballots shall conform with the provisions of ss. 5.64 (2) and 10.02, and the question shall be “Shall s. 62.13 (6) of the statutes be adopted?”
Optional powers have been given in Beaver Dam, Berlin, Chetek, Hales Corners, Ladysmith, Lake Geneva, Marshfield, Mauston, New Lisbon, New London, Oconto, Port Washington, Stevens Point, Waupaca, West Allis, (Shawano electors repealed the optional powers granted to that city’s PFC in an April 1999 referendum.).
The council role
I distinctly remember being at the John Q Hammonds conference center when I was first elected and going to a seminar with the League of Municipalities about the role of police and fire commissions, the council and the police department. It was quickly made apparent to us, all we could approve as council members was the budget. That’s it. That’s our only role.
That of course, wasn’t entirely true. The police wanted the council to stay out of it, until they needed us, then they were right there with their next “tool” they needed to effectively police (guess what, mostly low income neighborhoods). We had pretty epic fights over loitering, panhandling, chronic nuisance ordinance, scratchiti, tasers, rifles, or whatever new gimmick or fad they just had to have. There seemed to be so many issues, I’m sure I’m missing a few. Most of the tools were disproportionately applied to low income people and communities of color. So, the council can give them more authority to punish people or change (increase) the punishments. That’s how Warren Onken stuck me on the Police Staffing Committee in 2003, cuz I was critical, he thought I should be on the committee (with Tim Bruer, ugh.)
My all time favorite was after sitting on the 2003 police staffing committee and agreeing on rules about how many officers we needed per thousand, they then came up with new “science” 4 years later and we had to fork over more money for staffing studies that of course concluded we needed more officers, but they wouldn’t show us the report before we voted on the budget.
Why a Task Force is needed and Why it must have real power
It’s obvious by now, right? We need someone who has oversight outside of the police department if they are not going to change on their own. That committee has to derive its power from public expectations, or a law change, or as a result of referendum. But since the police did little to change their policies since the shooting of Paulie Heenan and the police chief refuses to change any policies or procedures to address disparities issues.
So, this is where we are. The question is, where are we going with this? What will this task force look like, what will they address and will it have real power.
