|
By Alexandria Staubach At Milwaukee's celebration of International Humans Rights day, a panel of professionals and community activists were in lockstep that the United States is in a constitutional crisis. The city's eighth annual celebration of International Human Rights Day on Saturday was technically a celebration. But the event took on a cautionary tone as members of the public and city officials gathered in discussion around democracy, its erosion, and its relationship to human rights. Panelists in a segment titled “Unpacking Democracy and Human Rights,” emphasized that human rights are the bedrock of any functioning democracy. They explored the nexus between the constitutional crisis they believe is occurring and the erosion of human rights. The panel included James Santelle, former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin; Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera; Yante Turner, director of youth programming at GSAFE, which champions the rights of LGBTQ+ youth, and member of Sun-Seeker MKE, a Black trans-led community organizing group; and Svetlana Her, president of the Milwaukee Youth Council. Emilio De Torre, executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, led the discussion. Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson and Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission Chair Tony Snell Rodriguez gave opening remarks. “International Human Rights Day gives us the opportunity to reflect on what is happening in our country,” Johnson said, adding that “modern political trends are weakening human rights.” “We’ve got to stand against that movement,” he said. “Our democracy is not self-effectuating.” “Protecting human rights is not a passive task … it requires action,” he said.  Panelists at Milwaukee's International Human Rights Day celebration. L to R: James Santelle, James Santell, Christine Neumann-Ortiz, Svetlana Her, Yante Turner, and moderator Emilio De Torre. De Torre’s first question—whether the American democracy is in crisis—elicited comments from the panel that we are living in unprecedented times.
Santelle, who served 30 years in various roles within the federal government, called the current justice system “unrecognizable.” “It’s not just atypical, not just abhorrent, it’s inconsistent with the purpose of the U.S. Department of Justice,” he said. Santelle asked the audience to “embrace” feelings of disaffection to empower action. “Your own sense of disaffection from your government—you’re not alone and that sense is right and accurate,” he said. As U.S. attorney under President Barack Obama, Santelle led the Milwaukee office of federal prosecutors. He said the current justice department is working against the people by participating in litigation to dismantle the departments of education and housing and by engaging in prosecutions “premised upon the notion that the president of the United States does not like people.” Neumann-Ortiz said the immigrant community see signs of crisis in the increased freedom of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to wrongfully arrest people and in open discrimination by law enforcement. “We’ve got to think about our rights now and defend them,” she said. “Use your rights or lose them.” Turner noted the experience of Black and particularly queer Black individuals. Turner said calling this a constitutional crisis “feels unaccountable,” because “it’s always been a crisis for some people in this country.” Nevertheless, this is “a crucial point of change for better or worse,” Turner said—the only question being whether in the years to come we will be “building off or recovering from” the changes enacted at the federal level. Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission and the city’s chapter of the United Nations Associations host the annual event, open to the public. This year the event occurred at the Milwaukee Youth Arts Center.
0 Comments
 Milwaukee City Hall. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach
A large settlement moved one step closer to resolving claims of Milwaukee police misconduct, following a recommendation Monday by the city’s Judiciary and Legislation Committee. Meanwhile, while another city committee recommended a pay increase for officers. The Judiciary and Legislation Committee approved a budget-breaking $2.5 million settlement with the family of Keishon Thomas. Thomas died of an overdose in police custody in 2022, after officers failed to render care. That case has been the source of legal trouble for years. The family filed suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court in February. Taxpayers would foot the bill for officers' inaction because the city of Milwaukee is self-insured. The proposed settlement now passes to the Common Council for approval. The payment would be among the most expensive in recent memory but for a $7 million payout to Danny Wilber in May. Wilber’s conviction was overturned after a federal appeals court found police misconduct resulted in an unfair trial. Wilber served 18 years in prison on the case. The committee also considered payment of $180,000 to Sedric Smith to resolve a federal case alleging constitutional violations by MPD officers. In a letter to the Milwaukee Common Council discussing the proposed settlement with Smith, City Attorney Evan Goyke and Deputy City Attorney Naomi Sanders wrote that “(s)ettlement is in the City’s best interest.” The committee postponed any recommendation on that settlement, however. Smith, who worked for a private security company at Ascension Columbia St. Mary’s Hospital, was stabbed by Edgar Padilla in early 2024. Prior to the stabbing, Padilla had launched himself and hurled racially charged insults at Smith inside the hospital’s parking structure. Smith, with the help of other private security officers, detained Padilla. According to court documents, Smith transferred Padilla to MPD custody as Padilla continued to “yell obscenities and engage in threatening behavior.” Smith then returned to patrolling the Columbia St. Mary’s emergency room. Officers Justin Arredondo and Jeremy A. Weber searched Padilla and located a knife in his backpack. The officers then called an ambulance to transfer Padilla to an emergency room. Neither officer secured or seized the knife before releasing Padilla to the ambulance, the complaint alleges. Neither officer accompanied Padilla to the emergency room at Columbia St. Mary’s, either. At the Columbia St. Mary's ER, Padilla was released into the care of the hospital “without police escort or order and with all of his belongings, including the knife,” the complaint states. Less than an hour later, Padilla stabbed Smith several times in the ER’s public restroom. While the 2025 budget originally proposed $3.5 million in allocations for settlements, ultimately only $1.9 million was approved. Since April, the Common Council has filled that gap by moving at least $3.8 million from the Common Council’s contingency fund to the damages and claims fund, and, for Wilber’s settlement, by using contingent borrowing. Contingent borrowing is a form of short-term, unplanned borrowing that was not anticipated in the year’s original budget. While the Judiciary and Legislative Committee was recommending the large settlement for the Thomas case, the city’s Finance and Personnel Committee at a simultaneous meeting recommended a resolution to ratify a final agreement between the city and the MPD that includes a 15% increase in pay for MPD officers. That resolution, now moving to the Common Council, takes the city and MPD one step closer to ending a nearly three-year battle over a contract predicted to require $51 million in additional salary funding to the department. Nov. 20 Note: This post has been corrected to reflect that the Judiciary and Legislative Committee postponed any vote on whether to recommend the Smith settlement to the Common Council. By Alexandria Staubach
The Milwaukee Police Department’s executive staff fielded more than 60 questions over nearly three hours from members of the Milwaukee Common Council and its Finance and Personnel Committee last week regarding the MPD's $310 million proposed budget allocation. Department salaries alone cost $195 million. But the bulk of conversation wasn’t specific line items or costs. Rather, the conversation focused on what MPD is doing and the places council members saw room for improvement. The use of emerging technologies loomed large as did the department’s controversial use of facial recognition technology (FRT). Artificial intelligence "is a force multiplier,” Chief Jeffrey Norman said on more than one occasion as the conversation roamed around new and proposed tools. Not all council members were in lockstep around increased use of technology, especially when it came to additional surveillance. Alderman Peter Burgelis questioned whether placing more cameras at intersections would do any good without enforcement of the laws already on the books to identify the cars that cameras are designed to capture. Burgelis was referencing SB375/AB371, fast-moving legislation that would permit 75 red-light cameras to be placed across Milwaukee. Burgelis compared MPD’s low citation rate for failure to display plates—fewer than 200 citations in 2024—to the more than 12,000 tickets written by the Department of Public Works for the same offense. “We as a department can hold ourselves responsible for what we can enforce more,” said Norman in response to Burgelis. Facial recognition technology loomed large in the conversation. Several alderpersons shared concerns about the deployment of federal officers as close as Chicago. “It’s not just in California,” said Alderwoman Marina Dimitrijevic, who called out a letter she helped author to Norman earlier this year in which a supermajority of the council opposed the use of facial recognition technology by the department. (That opposition was shared by the Mayor’s Equal Rights Commission.) Norman compared use of FRT to his department’s use of police pursuits. You’re “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” he said. Norman said his department is still interested in the technology and alluded to current use in only the direst and time-sensitive cases. But he also said the department was using the public-facing conversations with the Fire and Police Commission and Equal Rights Commission to “understand how do we use the proper bumper guards and rails.” Dimitrijevic reiterated her hope in the current climate “to at least pause,” while Alderman Scott Spiker said there has not been a “sober conversation” about this technology as a city. Other generative AI tools discussed included software called “Draft One,” developed by Axon, which produces initial drafts of police reports from the audio of body-worn camera footage. Spiker highlighted its use in Minnesota cities and proposed that its implementation could reduce some of the additional paperwork burden often cited by MPD as resulting from a legal settlement. Spiker suggested they might be able to have fewer “cops behind desks” with Draft One but acknowledged that staffing mandates imposed by Act 12 wouldn’t permit the reallocation of salary funds to pay for the technology. Assistant Chief of Police Craig Sarnow said the department had considered using Draft One, but rolling it out would likely involve a test period on felonies and would require buy-in of the district attorney. Sarnow also highlighted its hefty price tag. Another topic of conversation was that only 63% of sworn officers live in the city of Milwaukee. A recent Fire and Police Commission survey cited crime as a primary reason male officers live outside the city and education as the primary reason female officers live outside the city. Milwaukee police officers are required to live either within city limits or within 15 miles of the city’s boundary. Alderman José Pérez noted that while on paper crime is down, “people in my neighborhood don’t feel that.” “I think there’s a lot of criminal nuisance behavior that we’re not measuring,” he said. In its presentation, MPD highlighted its priority areas for 2026: sustained efforts to ensure compliance with Act 12 hiring mandates; community relations; youth engagement; enhancing public safety; AI integration “digital trust”; employment of drones as first responders; virtual academy training; vehicle pursuit mitigation; and identifying roles that can be transitioned from sworn to civilian. As for the amount of the proposed MPD budget, while that number is $4 million short of the department’s 2025 allocation, it still far exceeds allocations to every other department. The next largest sum goes to water works ($167 million).  Community members fill the room at the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting on Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025. Photograph by Amanda Merkwae. By Alexandria Staubach Almost three dozen members of the public turned up at a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting last week to discuss an item nowhere on the agenda. The FPC wanted to talk about its procedure for public comment at meetings and had invited representatives from Black Leaders Organizing for Communities, the Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, and others to publicly comment on FPC file 212211, a communication from the commission regarding public comment at meetings. While some community members highlighted suggestions for improving communication between the FPC and the public, most instead used their time to discuss the volume of high-speed pursuits that have resulted in innocent bystander fatalities this year. A crash the day before Thursday’s meeting killed a mother and her two children at North 35th Street and West Vliet Street. Nine people have lost their lives from high-speed police chases this year—six of them innocent bystanders. What was actually on the agenda: a change in the FPC’s public comment policy. For years, items that were not formally noticed on the commission’s agenda were not up for discussion and could not be commented on by members of the FPC. While the public comment policy is still evolving, members of the public who register in advance will be given five minutes to speak, up from the previous two-minute limit. Also, FPC members will be allowed to address the topics raised, even if they were not on the agenda. FPC Executive Director Leon Todd said the “potential” improvements to the public comment policy came from considering recommendations in the Milwaukee Turners’ 2024 white paper. The Turners issued the white paper after observing the commission’s meetings over the course of a year. Nothing legally prevented the FPC from having such a policy in the past. Todd said “there is no legal prohibition” addressing nonagenda public comments at a meeting, “so long as they take no official action” and keep the discussion to the public comment section of the proceedings. In addition to using the new policy on comment time and topics at Thursday’s meeting, the commission rolled out a new website for community members to register in advance for future meetings. The website encourages people to “be clear and respectful,” advises them to avoid sharing confidential information, and instructs that testimony should relate “to the FPC’s role in oversight, policy, recruitment, discipline, or accountability” of the Milwaukee Police Department, Milwaukee Fire Department, or Department of Emergency Communications. Most attendees seemed receptive of change, but some highlighted that expanded time alone would not fix the communications dynamics at FPC meetings. “I see you all engaging earnestly,” said community advocate and FPC meeting regular Ron Jansen. “The structure undermines the effort,” he continued, because the public comment would still occur at the top of a meeting. “We all give our comment and show all our cards, and then the police come up here and call us liars over and over again,” Jansen said. The format “doesn’t give us a fighting chance to adjust our message,” he said. Following the FPC meeting, WJI spoke with BLOC member J. Robinson by phone about how community members co-opted the meeting time to discuss their priority issue of police pursuits. Robinson said although they had originally intended to speak on the public comment agenda item, the “reckless driving issue was more important,” and MPD’s pursuit policy was “doing more harm than good.” About the changes in communication policy, Robinson told WJI “it was better to be able to speak to the issues.” According to the FPC's 2024 vehicle pursuit report, 71% of Milwaukee police chases in 2024 reached speeds in excess of 75 miles per hour, up from 66% in 2023. A decade ago, the percentage was just 22%. Even during the height of COVID, which is widely regarded as exacerbating reckless driving, the percentage was 58%. Police most frequently engage in high-speed pursuits in response to reckless driving. The circumstances permitting police pursuits are found in MPD’s Standard Operating Procedure 660. Public outcry about pursuits that resulted in injury resulted in a restricted policy that took effect in 2010. That policy brought pursuit numbers to their all-time low of just 50 pursuits in 2012. In 2017, though, the MPD expanded officers’ ability to pursue vehicles in response to reckless driving. That policy remains in effect today, with a modification last year that limits when they can initiate a chase over drug activity. “As it stands, SOP 660 does not benefit this community,” said Milwaukee Alliance representative Kayla Patterson at Thursday’s meeting. “The last few months highlight gross incompetence” and a “general shameful agenda prioritizing property over lives,” Patterson said. She cautioned that “if the turnout in the room is any indication, the community is getting restless.” Antoher speaker, Tiffany Stark, said her child’s father became paralyzed from the neck down as an innocent bystander to a police pursuit. “We want to blame the criminal, but we have a policy that is harming innocent people," she said. Janaisa Rhodes lost her partner as an innocent bystander to a pursuit earlier this year. She appeared for public comment with her 2-year-old son. “You guys are supposed to be serving and protecting us, but you’re doing a lot of the damage,” she said. Public comment was not just criticism. Some speakers offered suggestions and potential solutions. “Property crimes should not qualify for pursuit,” suggested community member Brian Verdin, who also talked about using darts, meaning tracker technology shot at cars to apprehend suspects without pursuit. Concerned citizen Alex Larson referenced the 2024 vehicle pursuit report to highlight that the apprehension rate from a police chase is only 49%. “It’s a coin flip” that lives are being lost over, he said. Larson asked whether the FPC knew how much tax money had been paid by the city to settle innocent bystander claims over the years. Knowing the taxpayer impact and the lives SOP 660 has cost over the years could have a significant impact, he suggested. The FPC did not know the answer to Larson’s question. However, under the new comment policy Todd was able to say it would be good data, which he intended to look into. Per the 2024 vehicle pursuit report, the actual number of pursuits was down just slightly from 2023 (957 compared to 1,081), but maximum speeds were up, and a slightly greater percentage of pursuits resulted in crashes.  Figure from the 2024 City of Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission Vehicle Pursuit Report. In 2024, 26 pursuits resulted in an injury to an officer, 52 pursuits resulted in an injury to an innocent bystander or third party, and 164 pursuits resulted in an injury to the person being pursued—each a slight increase from 2023. WJI discussed the FPC's 2023 vehicle pursuit report here.  By Alexandria Staubach Milwaukee Municipal Court has been held in contempt for its failure to comply with an order directing it to record hearings. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge David L. Borowski on Monday found that Milwaukee Municipal Court (MMC) made “insufficient attempts” to comply with his December 2024 order instructing MMC to record certain proceedings as required by municipal court procedural law. Borowski admonished MMC for its failure to comply with his order, calling the violations “egregious,” especially given MMC’s special position as a court charged with enforcing law. He said the failure to comply was “exacerbated by the fact that the only burden imposed on MCC to record during a hearing, is for someone to simply press ‘record.’” Borowski said the facts demonstrated conduct that was “so consistently lacking and preposterous” that MMC’s failure to comply exceeds the intentionality standard for contempt and “might very well be a knowing—and intentional—disregard of this court’s orders.” Saying that MMC was "clearly only capable of following" the statute requiring recording of certain hearings by being forced to record everything, Borowski ordered MMC "to RECORD ALL COURT HEARINGS moving forward." (Caps in original.) Borowski sanctioned MMC with a fine of $1,000 per day if it fails to comply with the new order requiring recording of all hearings, but gave the court 14 days before fines would start. He also ordered MMC to pay all reasonable attorney’s fees of Legal Action of Wisconsin for counsel's efforts since December 2024 to force compliance. Since December, Borowski has rejected as insufficient two policies proffered by MMC. In April, Borowski set forth an exact list of hearings that MMC must record. At that time, Borowski told the municipal court to develop a new policy that “must explicitly require electronic recording of ALL of the following”:
In Monday’s order, Borowski laid out how despite MMC’s failed attempts to develop a policy, it has still been subject to his order to record the enumerated hearings. Nevertheless, MMC persists in failing to record them. Petitioner’s attorney Susan Lund sought proof of compliance after the December order. In the documents MMC provided to show its response, Lund found that between May 5 and May 19 MMC held 54 hearings where a defendant’s indigency was relevant and thus required recording. MMC recorded fewer than half of those hearings. MMC “has admitted they have the capacity to record EVERY hearing that they hold, with the only inconveniences involved in doing so being, charitably, hitting a ‘record’ button, and uncharitably, more easily being held accountable for the content of their hearings,” wrote Borowski. "Respondents, by their conduct following this court's December summary judgment order, have shown what is at least a complete inability to follow, if not a calculated disregard, for this court's orders," he wrote. Wisconsin law defines contempt of court as intentional disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court. Because of judicial rotations, Judge Paul Van Grunsven will decide the exact amount of attorney's fees MMC will owe Legal Action of Wisconsin. The Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission approved a resolution opposing the implementation of facial recognition technology by the Milwaukee Police Department.
The vote occurred at the commission's monthly meeting on Wednesday. Commissioner Rae Johnson authored the resolution. The vote in favor of adoption was unanimous. The resolution calls on commission chair Tony Snell to draft and send a formal letter to Police Chief Jeffrey Norman. The letter is to highlight the commission’s findings following its June hearing, at which MPD representatives discussed their prior secret use of the technology and members of the public spoke for more than an hour. The commission also consulted with the Legislative Reference Bureau on the impact and reliability of facial recognition technology (FRT) in policing. The letter will go to members of the Milwaukee Common Council and the mayor as well. The resolution states that the material acquired by the commission “affirms that FRT carries the potential for disproportionate impacts and inaccuracies, especially when applied to individuals in protected classes,” and in light of the “little publicly available information about the positive outcomes of FRT in peer cities.” “We are deeply grateful to the members of the ERC for doing the research, listening to the outpouring of opposition to FRT from Milwaukee residents,” ACLU of Wisconsin Advocacy Director Amanda Merkwae told WJI after the commission’s hearing. Merkwae said the resolution serves to recognize that “the profound risks of discrimination or civil rights violations posed by FRT are unacceptably high, even if a policy was in place.” Emilio De Torre, executive director of the Milwaukee Turners, said the resolution was “a significant official declaration of what the people of Milwaukee have been saying all along.” “There are no acceptable guardrails that can be installed that would protect our identities and privacy in satisfactory way,” he said. “Milwaukee does NOT need to open itself up to more civil rights abuses, anti-immigrant tactics and costly lawsuits,” he said regarding the technology. The ERC is not the only city board expressing concern over MPD’s unchecked and policy-less use of FRT. Eleven members of the Common Council sent Norman a letter in May sharing their anxiety about the practice. The letter urged Norman “to prioritize community trust and transparency by rejecting facial recognition technology” and by investing instead “in proven, non-invasive methods to ensure safety.” Alders Andrea Pratt (District 1), Robert Bauman (District 4), Scott Spiker (District 13), and Peter Burgelis (District 11) did not join in the letter. Common Council members retain the power to overturn or alter any standard operating procedure by a two-thirds majority vote. But without an SOP, the council has no policy to oppose. While the ERC’s mandate in the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances limits its power to promote and protect the civil rights of Milwaukee residents, workers, and visitors, the commissioners unanimously desired to take a stand now. The resolution noted the ERC’s obligation “to advocate against practices that undermine the legal protections afforded under (the ordinance code) and to promote a just, inclusive, and equitable community, including our public safety infrastructure.” WJI Policy Analyst Alexandria Staubach is one of the ERC commissioners.  The packed meeting of Milwaukee's Equal Rights Commission at Milwaukee City Hall on June 18, 2025, regarding Milwaukee Police Department's use of facial recognition technology. Photograph by Emilio De Torre. The Milwaukee Police Department claimed in a recent hearing that it is being transparent with the public about its plan to license facial recognition technology, but the department has been using the technology behind closed doors for more than two years. MPD has been borrowing the technology from neighboring police departments. Milwaukee’s Equal Rights Commission held a public hearing on June 18 regarding MPD’s proposal to acquire two licenses for facial recognition technology. MPD Chief of Staff Heather Hough began her remarks by telling ERC commissioners and the packed hearing room that “Post Act 12, the Milwaukee Police Department . . . does not have to be engaged in these conversations,” but said the department wanted to take the plan to the community. Hough likened the department’s use of the technology to date as sharing passwords on the streaming service Netflix. “We asked our neighbors for too many cups of sugar,” said at the hearing. MPD’s use of the technology currently operates without a standard operating procedure or oversight. While community members attending the ERC hearing held neon signs that stated “FRT is inherently biased,” Hough spun to a different aspect of bias. As though inspired by the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” Hough said the technology is only biased when the user is biased. She insisted that the two individuals with sole access to the two licenses would not use it in a biased way. MPD showed slides noting more than a dozen instances of prior use of facial recognition technology to assist in apprehending a criminal suspect. The department also shared details of at least three cases when the information led to criminal charges. MPD Major Crimes Division Captain David Anderson described identification of one suspect using facial recognition technology. The results included three individuals who were a positive match rating 97%, 95% or 93%. The individual ultimately charged corresponded with the 93% match. ERC Commissioner (and WJI Policy Analyst) Alexandria Staubach replied that three matches for one individual rating 97%, 95% and 93% demonstrate the real bias issue and called the technology “notoriously inaccurate,” especially for Black and brown individuals. Staubach said MPD’s example shows that the results are “inherently unreliable.” ERC Vice Chair Jacqueline Cook shared Staubach’s concern and said that the facial recognition software on her phone permits her daughter to open it. Hough initially disclosed MPD’s use of the technology at a Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission meeting in March. That meeting centered on MPD’s new drone program. FPC Commissioner Krissie Fung had posed a hypothetical in which MPD’s drones could be updated with facial recognition technology and asked Hough how MPD would deal with software updates they could not control. Hough responded then that the department was already using facial recognition technology on “a case-by-case basis,” but that the technology was a separate issue from the drones. Fung attended last week’s ERC hearing and spoke in opposition to MPD’s use of facial recognition technology. Fung highlighted that MPD has been using the technology “for years” and that “MPD did not choose to be transparent until they were forced to,” referencing Hough’s comments that the department could no longer borrow licenses from partner jurisdictions and now wanted to acquire their own. When asked at the ERC hearing whether MPD had formally brought their prior use to the attention of the Fire and Police Commission, FPC Executive Director Leon Todd said they had not. 2023 Wisconsin Act 12, mentioned by Hough as allowing MPD to purchase the facial recognition technology licenses without another body’s approval, largely gutted oversight of the MPD by the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission. Nevertheless, the statute says the FPC must “conduct at least once each year a policy review of all aspects of the operations of the police and fire departments of the city.” And Milwaukee’s Common Council can reverse any MPD policy or standard operating procedure with a two-thirds majority vote. While the common council has not altered any standard operating procedure since Act 12 took effect, ERC Commissioner Tony Snell shared at the hearing that several alders had in fact written to Chief of Police Jeffrery Norman opposing the department’s plan to obtain facial recognition technology.  Attendees and WJI Policy Analyst and commission member Alexandria Staubach at the Milwaukee Equal Rights Commission meeting at Milwaukee City Hall on June 18, 2025, about Milwaukee Police Department's plan to purchase facial recognition technology licenses. Photograph by Emilio De Torre. By Alexandria Staubach It is difficult to find two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges on the bench doing work visible to the public. That is Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s conclusion after visiting the court several times from November 2024 through last week. Specifically in branches 1 and 3, the lights may be on but often no one is home. The reasons could include a combination of a 77% drop in case load since 2018 and the two judges continuing to hold court virtually, even post-pandemic. Cases filed in the court have declined from a peak of nearly 86,000 total filings in 2018 to less than 24,000 in 2024. WJI staff visiting Milwaukee Municipal Court found that in contrast to visits to Milwaukee County Circuit Court, there was never a line to get in, and the waiting room was generally empty. While the municipal court officially begins at 8:30 a.m., Branch 3, assigned to Presiding Judge Phil Chavez, was often locked, closed, with the lights off sometimes as early as 9:00 a.m. In Branch 1, assigned to Judge Valarie Hill, WJI staff often found the same thing: the door locked with nothing happening inside. When these judges were on the bench, they consistently appeared virtually by Zoom. WJI never observed Hill or Chavez physically present in the courthouse. Branch 2 Judge Molly Gena generally appears in person, hearing cases from the bench in her courtroom, even when defendants have elected to appear virtually. During the pandemic, the court adopted a policy that permitted virtual appearances, and it seems Hill and Chavez never came back to court. They appear virtually for everything from initial appearances to trials. Whether based on a formal policy of the court or merely the desires of Hill and Chavez, it is often only the defendant and bailiff in the courtroom, and sometimes a clerk. The judge appears on screen. Observers must attend in person. There is no public facing forum for the public to join or view hearings by Zoom or live streaming.  Presiding Judge Phil Chavez on the bench (on Zoom) on June 6, 2025. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. While virtual appearances provide a convenient means to deal with citations for individuals without reliable transportation, who struggle with childcare, or who might have to take significant time off from work to go downtown, it is unclear what benefit is conveyed to the general public for the judges to be out of the courtroom. Milwaukee County Circuit Court also permitted virtual appearances during the pandemic but has generally returned to in-person proceedings with a judge on the bench. Much about Milwaukee Municipal Court procedure changed due to the pandemic and continues that way. For example, a defendant in 2019 could walk into Milwaukee Municipal Court and expect to resolve an outstanding case, whether or not they were officially on the court’s docket. The court’s website still reflects that walk-ins are suspended and will “remain suspended until further notice.” In October of 2024, when the court’s website indicated that walk-in appearances were suspended, WJI asked the court whether it was possible to walk in and resolve a case. A court services assistant said “Milwaukee Municipal Court is not doing walk-ins for court. You can appear at the reception window and fill out any forms needed regarding your case, they will be submitted to the Judge and the Judge will correspond accordingly.” However, people have not stopped coming to the court with the expectation that they can resolve their cases. WJI spoke last week with Corina Wage, owner of CJ’s Pub. She came in to pay an old citation. “They told me ‘no,’” Wage said, adding “that I have to reopen my case on paper.” What Wage did not know is that Chavez was present in his courtroom, albeit virtually, poised to finish a docket before 10:00 a.m. The court’s current policy is that one must have an appointment to come to court. The website reflects the following method to schedule defendants: “The date of your first court appearance is written on your citation (ticket), summons or complaint. The Court conducts hearings virtually and in person. Prior to the court date, you will receive a letter with steps to register. You MUST register in advance and notify the Court if you will appear virtually or in person.” Meanwhile, the municipal court docket has shrunk. The year-end total of filed cases for 2024 was 23,698, while the total in 2018 was 85,984. The year before the pandemic, total charges filed were just under 60,000, and the court returned to approximately that number in 2022. But case numbers have dropped substantially since then.  Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. The decrease in case load is consistent with a Wisconsin Policy Forum report issued earlier this year that showed dramatic decreases in overall Milwaukee Police Department arrests for more serious matters, “proactive” policing, and citations for driving offenses.  Chart created by Alexandria Staubach using data from Milwaukee Municipal Court available at https://municipalcourt.milwaukee.gov/resources/reports-and-statistics. While the court’s docket has decreased, its judges’ pay has increased. Milwaukee’s three municipal judges were each paid $133,049.02 in 2015. They now make $153,006.62 annually. Then as now, they are among the highest paid elected city officials. Their pay is exceeded only by that for the mayor ($169,436.28) and city attorney ($169,436.02).
 Judge Valarie Hill on the bench (on Zoom) on May 9, 2025, at 9:28 a.m. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach.
By Alexandria Staubach The Wisconsin Policy Forum last week released the findings of a comprehensive look at Milwaukee’s Criminal Justice Council, a relatively unknown collaborative group of city and county officials who wield power in the Milwaukee County criminal justice system and strive to improve intergovernmental cooperation. The Criminal Justice Council is nearing its 20th anniversary, yet many in the Milwaukee area are unfamiliar with its existence or work. The forum's "In the Interest of Justice" report said that the council's long-term impact is threatened by a lack of public awareness about the council, unstable funding streams, and the council’s lofty goals when weighed against its capacity. “Many of the idea and action items that emanate from subcommittees fail to materialize because of a lack of CJC staff capacity and limited help from partner organizations,” the report said. A rash of retirements, including those of former Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Tom Reed, resulted in loss of “’key longstanding CJC leaders,’” according to unnamed sources quoted by the forum. The forum wrote that “(o)ne individual we spoke with noted that the ‘key drivers of action’ in regard to the Milwaukee CJC are the Chief Judge, the District Attorney, the Public Defender’s Office, and the Department of Corrections.” Participation by other justice system leaders, in particular the Milwaukee mayor, Milwaukee County executive, Milwaukee police chief, and Milwaukee County sheriff, “has ebbed and flowed over the years,” said the report. “(E)nsuring more consistent and active participation from these stakeholders may be a worthwhile goal for the CJC in the months ahead,” the report said. The forum recommends opening the council to business leaders and interests, developing a separate and independent nonprofit organization to continue on as the CJC, developing funding for staff from the city and county, and enhancing public communications about the council’s activities and initiatives. The CJC relies primarily on funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or “JAG.” As is the case for all federal funding now, “changes in JAG funding levels or policies might eventually preclude (CJC) from accessing these funds,” the report said. Further, “that concern has served as a deterrent to further investment in staff and other resources.” The CJC currently has three staff members, including an executive director. All work out of and are employed by the Wisconsin Policy Forum through grants made to the CJC. According to the forum, “the decision to house the positions in an independent nonprofit organization and have them be employees of WPF—as opposed to one of the justice system agencies that participate in the CJC—stemmed from the Executive Committee’s sentiment that placing the positions in a department of either county or city government would convey that one of those governments had greater control over the council.” The report indicates that one of the council’s key early initiatives was to investigate how the criminal justice system could better use work-release programs. The council also oversaw the creation and implementation of risk-assessment tools used to set bail at the initial appearance in every criminal case in the county. While the CJC’s early days focused on data collection, community engagement, external communications, and jail population, its 2024 strategic plan added “new priority areas that include violence prevention, housing, mental health and trauma, and youth justice,” according to the report. The report indicates that the CJC may have grown out of a 2007 resolution of the Board of County Supervisors at the request of then-Sheriff David Clarke, to deal with a consent decree that mandated a population reduction in the county jail system. Some individuals who were around at the council’s inception, however, credit “an outgrowth of efforts already underway among justice system leaders to better understand the work of their peers and encourage greater collaboration,” the report said. The first meeting was attended by Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Kitty Brennan, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee County House of Correction Superintendent Ron Malone, Clarke, and Chisholm. The report cited an unnamed senior county staff member as saying “it was remarkable to have leaders of such distinct political and ideological backgrounds meet on such a frequent and productive basis.” Later additions to the council included the presiding judge of Milwaukee Municipal Court, representatives from the State Public Defender’s Office and Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the chair of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors’ Judiciary Committee, the director of the Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services, Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel, a representative from the Eastern District of Wisconsin’s U.S. Attorney’s Office, the leader of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Committee, and a citizen representative. Current CJC executive committee members: Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman Milwaukee Municipal Court Presiding Judge Phillip Chavez Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley Milwaukee County Sheriff Denita Ball Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern (Council Vice Chair) First Judicial District (Milwaukee County Circuit Court) Chief Judge Carl Ashley (Council Chair) Milwaukee County Supervisor Willie Johnson, Jr. Milwaukee County Community Reintegration Center Superintendent Chantell Jewell Milwaukee County Department of Health and Human Services Director Shakita LaGrant-McClain Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel Scott Brown Milwaukee County Circuit Court Clerk Anna Hodges Wisconsin State Public Defender Regional Attorney Manager Angel Johnson Wisconsin Department of Corrections Community Corrections Regional Chief Niel Thoreson U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin representative (Richard Frohling currently Acting U.S. Attorney) Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission and DataShare Director Constance Kostelac Community Representative Walter Lanier  By Alexandria Staubach After a loss in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals by service provider JusticePoint, Milwaukee’s municipal court diversion program seems poised to sunset, despite strong community support for the program and a two-year court battle to keep it going. JusticePoint has long facilitated the Municipal Court Alternatives Program, helping those who cannot afford to pay Milwaukee municipal tickets complete community service options and connecting defendants with housing resources and drug and alcohol treatment. JusticePoint provided such services for four decades, but Milwaukee Municipal Court notified JusticePoint in spring 2023 that it was terminating the contract under a “convenience” clause. JusticePoint fought the termination under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. It initially won a temporary restraining order continuing services, but then lost on the merits in Milwaukee County Circuit Court. A stay from the Court of Appeals kept the court alternatives program in place during JusticePoint’s appeal. JusticePoint lost that appeal last month. The appeals court decision hinged on whether JusticePoint distributed its own services or instead provided services on behalf of the city.  White Chief Judge Maxine White authored the opinion, joined by Judges Pedro Colón and Sara Geenen.
JusticePoint argued that it was distributing services on behalf of the city. If so, the fair dealership law would have raised the city’s obligations for termination of the JusticePoint contract and required “good cause, proper notice, and an opportunity to cure,” White wrote. However, the appeals court found that the contract between JusticePoint and the city “appears to be a typical vendor-vendee relationship,” and “JusticePoint was selling and distributing its own services.” Thus, “the circuit court properly dismissed JusticePoint’s complaint and denied Justice Point’s request for an injunction,” White wrote. "As it has been since the beginning, our primary interest is to ensure that these services remain available to the residents of Milwaukee. If nothing else, our lawsuit has kept these services in place for the past two years," said Edward Gordon, chief operating officer of JusticePoint, in an email to WJI last week. The city argued that applying the fair dealership law to the JusticePoint contract would “effectively swallow public procurement law” and “would make it nearly impossible for a government entity to ever terminate a contract that it determines is no longer serving the public good,” according to the appeals court decision. The city attorney’s office represented Milwaukee Municipal Court in the lawsuit. “We applaud the Court of Appeals affirmation of the Circuit Court in their holding that no dealership relationship existed in the city’s contracting for services with JusticePoint. Such a precedent would be harmful to Milwaukee—and all local governments—and limit the ability to provide the very type of innovative, community-based programming that’s needed,” City Attorney Evan Goyke told WJI yesterday. “The city has always acknowledged the importance of programming and alternative resolutions for eligible individuals in the Municipal Court system,” Goyke said. Concerns remain about who or what will replace the alternatives program if it now sunsets. WJI board member Jim Gramling, who served as a Milwaukee Municipal Court judge for 21 years before retirement, filed a “friend of the court” brief in the JusticePoint appeal. "A significant percentage of defendants coming through the court live in poverty or struggle with addictions or mental health challenges," he told WJI this week. "Nearly 95% of the defendants proceed without an attorney.” Gramling said he was unaware of any provider ready to step in to replace JusticePoint. “Without the services provided by MCAP, those defendants are destined to be ground up in the system,” he said. When the city first attempted to terminate the JusticePoint contract in 2023, WJI asked then-chief court administrator Sheldyn Himle whether services would continue with a different provider. At the time, Himle responded that “Milwaukee Municipal Court’s intervention/alternatives program will continue, just not with the current vendor.” WJI reached out to current Milwaukee Municipal Court chief administrator Tea Norfolk following the court of appeals decision. She declined to comment on when or whether services would resume with another provider. |
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed