|
By Alexandria Staubach
Today the Milwaukee Common Council voted to effectively suspend during the Republican National Convention local requirements that typically govern private security personnel. A substitute ordinance “deems security personnel who hold a private security permit or license, a private detective permit or license, or a reasonably similar credential issued by any United States state, territory, or municipality as in compliance with the provisions of the Milwaukee Security Personnel License ordinance.” The substitute ordinance modifies requirements that have been on the books only since March 2024, when the Common Council voted to require security personnel to obtain a license and execute a bond agreement. Under the March rules, to obtain a license an applicant must not:
Private security firms have proliferated in the United States recently. There are “roughly twice as many security guards employed in the U.S. than there were 20 years ago,” according to an investigation by TIME. In 2021, Allied Universal, an international security company, was the third largest employer in the United States behind Walmart and Amazon. The industry is largely unregulated. Variation from state to state is near limitless. No national body governs private security, and 21 states have no training requirements for private security personnel who are unarmed, says a 2021 report from the National Association of Security Companies. In Wisconsin, unarmed private security personnel are not required to complete a mandated number of training hours, while armed private security personnel are required to complete 36 hours of training. Meanwhile, the District of Columbia requires 98 hours of training for armed private security personnel, New Hampshire requires 4 hours, and Kansas requires none. Per today's new temporary ordinance in Milwaukee, accepting “reasonably similar credentials” from any state or any municipality is necessary because “convention organizers estimate that as many as 1,000 private security personnel may be present,” and if each were required to be locally licensed, the volume of applications would “hamper the License Division’s ability to perform its regular business.” The new ordinance does not identify how credentials will be verified for out-of-state private security personnel or what “reasonably similar” means. The substitute ordinance will be in effect from July 13-20 “or as further required for the completion of the Republican National Committee’s presidential nominating process.”
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach
Today the Milwaukee Common Council passed an ordinance restricting movement and property within the Republican National Convention (RNC) “security footprint” zone. While coolers and nonplastic water bottles will be prohibited, all guns not otherwise prohibited by state law are OK. Newly prohibited items include those commonly associated with acts of civil unrest, at times taking that definition beyond its logical conclusion. The ordinance bans everything from tennis balls and canned goods to bicycle locks. The list contains 27 categories of prohibited items, but Police Chief Jeffrey Norman will have the last say, as the ordinance also provides a catch-all provision prohibiting anything he deems to present a “clear and present danger.” Last week, at a special meeting of the city’s Public Safety and Health Committee, Ald. Robert Bauman, whose district includes the security footprint zone, introduced a version of the ordinance that would have kept firearms out. The committee had no appetite for that version, with Common Council President José G. Pérez and Alds. Sharlen Moore and Scott Spiker voting no. Ald. Peter Burgelis voted in favor. Ald. Lamont Westmoreland abstained. Had the proposed ordinance prevailed, any attempt to keep legal firearms out of the RNC would have violated state law, said newly elected City Attorney Evan Goyke in a letter to the committee last week. Goyke pointed out that a Wisconsin statute bars the city and all local governments “from prohibiting the possession or carrying of legal firearms.” The RNC, taking place in Milwaukee in July, and the Democratic National Convention, taking place in Chicago in August, are designated National Special Security Events (NSSEs) by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). NSSEs include large-scale events where DHS anticipates the attendance of dignitaries; which are of political, historical, or significant symbolic significance; and which are “likely to draw the attention of terrorists or other criminals, particularly those interested in employing weapons of mass destruction,” according to the DHS website. Once an event has been designated an NSSE, the U.S. Secret Service “assumes its mandated role as the lead federal agency for the design and implementation of the operational security plan,” says the DHS website. On July 28, 2020, shortly after Milwaukee was announced as host for this year’s RNC, the Common Council passed an ordinance precluding all persons “without the required credentials” from entering or being in the security zone during times to be designated by the Secret Service and Milwaukee Police Department. The ordinance also puts time and place restrictions on counterprotests, which are the subject of a recent ACLU lawsuit against the city. Many details regarding who and what will be permitted in the security zone remain a mystery, with the RNC set to kick off in just over a month. City of Milwaukee voters will see on their ballots a contested race for city attorney. Evan Goyke challenges incumbent Tearman Spencer. The election is on April 2. Goyke is a representative in the Wisconsin Assembly. He graduated from Marquette University Law School in 2009. Spencer was elected as city attorney in 2020. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2003. WJI asked each of the candidates to answer a series of questions. The questions asked are patterned after some of those on the job application the governor uses when he is considering judicial appointments Goyke's answers are printed as submitted, without editing or insertion of “(sic)” for errors. Spencer did not respond to WJI's request.  Evan Goyke
Why do you want to become Milwaukee City Attorney? I’ve seen firsthand how the City Attorney’s office can help improve the quality of life for Milwaukee residents. That is only possible if the office is functioning properly. I bring a skill set and vision to the office that can restore the culture and trust inside and outside of the office, return to a standard of excellence, and proactively address real world issues in our city. Name one of the best or worst U.S. or Wisconsin Supreme Court opinions in the last 25 years and explain why you feel that way. While I wish I were writing about a different case, I think I have to select, as the worst U.S. Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Citizens United devastated the American political system. It’s impossible to quantify the extent of the damage. In Wisconsin, the money that has been allowed to enter our political races has resulted, in part, in a near decade of one party control. I’ve experienced this firsthand during my tenure in the State Legislature and know our state’s inability to experience meaningful progress in areas deeply important to me have their roots in the flawed political process Citizens United has empowered. Describe two of the most significant cases in which you were professionally involved. State v. Moore, 2015 WI 54 I was co-counsel for Mr. Moore and briefed and helped argue the pretrial litigation that was the subject of the State Supreme Court case. Mr. Moore was interrogated by law enforcement and as co-counsel for his defense, I helped challenge the admissibility of the interrogation. Juvenile interrogations should be audio or visually recorded and portions of Mr. Moore’s interrogation were done without recording and a subsequent recording was made in secret by law enforcement. The State Supreme Court ruled wrongly that the interrogation was admissible against Mr. Moore. Bank of New York Mellon v. Carson, 2015 WI 15 While I was not counsel on the Carson case, it was one that I followed closely and was inspiration for and useful during multiple legislative sessions working on mortgage foreclosure legislation. Carson involved so called “zombie foreclosures,” where lenders never sold properties after receiving a foreclosure judgment. This meant the previous homeowners, many of whom no longer lived in the home, remained legally responsible for property taxes and the condition of the property. Carson was a big victory and helped create additional legislation improving the sheriff sale process for mortgage foreclosures. Carson remains an inspiration to me today as I look toward focusing on housing and housing quality as City Attorney. The City Attorney’s Office wrote as an Amicus in Carson. Describe your legal experience as an advocate in criminal litigation, civil litigation, and/or administrative proceedings. My litigation experience is in the criminal justice system. I worked as a trial attorney in the Office of the State Public Defender in Milwaukee County and handled all levels of criminal defense litigation, including administrative hearings. During my time in the State Legislature I have been actively involved in writing laws, or trying to block bad laws, that make changes to how criminal and civil cases are tried in Wisconsin. Describe an instance when you were challenged and had to exhibit courage in the face of adversity or opposition and how you handled that situation. Throughout my elected career I have had to make difficult decisions in the face of opposition. I handle these instances through research, balancing each side of the argument, listening to those directly impacted, and making the best decision possible. I can think of many instances working to reform the criminal justice system within a legislature hostile to the idea, where I pushed for compromise rejected by both the right and left wings of the major political parties. This was particularly the case working to reform Wisconsin’s juvenile justice system, where one party rejected doing anything and the other pushed against plans that did not do enough. Those were difficult, long days/months/years, but I stayed committed to the process I’ve outlined and it ultimately was a positive, meaningful effort for the issues being advanced. What are the greatest obstacles to delivering true justice for the citizens of Milwaukee that you anticipate? What can or should be done about them? I think the greatest barrier to true justice in Milwaukee, as I define it, is poverty. I don’t mean temporary poverty, I mean the generational, segregated, deep poverty that strips hope and opportunity from a person or a community. I say this because I define true justice as an equal opportunity for each person to reach their potential and live a happy, healthy life as they desire. That definition falls well outside just a legal context of justice. I plan to use the power of the City Attorney’s office to work alongside, listen to, and support community organizations, community leaders, and residents to address the challenges that allow generational poverty to persist. I plan to focus on tangible progress at the neighborhood level. I expect many barriers, as change is difficult. I plan to stay committed to residents and local stakeholders and to not allowing opponents, especially those outside our community to distract from solving the issues presented. I plan to be relentless in these pursuits until we achieve meaningful progress. By Gretchen Schuldt
A Milwaukee County judge acted with “apparent antipathy” toward a state law designed to protect businesses from unfair treatment when he ruled the law did not apply to a contract between Milwaukee Municipal Court and JusticePoint, a nonprofit that provides services to indigent defendants, the organization alleges in an appeals brief. Circuit Judge J.D. Watts “disregarded the factual record, made unsupported factual findings, and erroneously interpreted and applied the law to find that the relationship between JusticePoint and the City does not qualify as a dealership under the WFDL,” attorneys Jeffrey Mandel, Erin K. Deeley, and Rachel E. Snyder wrote on behalf of JusticePoint. The WFDL is the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law, the 50-year-old statute designed to protect businesses from unfair and arbitrary actions by entities issuing contracts. The appeal seeks reversal of Watts’ ruling, a remand to circuit court, and a temporary injunction while the case is litigated there. JusticePoint qualifies for WFDL protection and the city must show that it met certain requirements in ending the contract, they wrote. The city must show it had good cause to end the relationship, that it issued proper notice, and that it provided JusticePoint an opportunity to correct any performance problems. “The city admits to making no effort to comply with any of these three requirements, relying instead on a ‘convenience’ clause as its sole justification for terminating JusticePoint’s contract,” they wrote. “This is patently insufficient under the WFDL.” JusticePoint’s agreement to provide Milwaukee Court Alternatives Program (MCAP) services was terminated at the behest of two of the three Milwaukee Municipal Court judges without explanation, under a “convenience” clause that allows the city to end a contract for any reason with 10 days' notice. The city notified JusticePoint of the termination in May 2023, giving the organization until mid-July to finish its work. Municipal Court officials did not name any successor provider program and said the court would seek bids sometime in the future. That meant that without JusticePoint, Municipal Court defendants would lose the assistance the organization provides for completing community service requirements, handling inability-to-pay forfeiture cases, or finding various social services. JusticePoint sued over the termination, alleging that it violated the WFDL, and Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan temporarily placed the contract cancellation on hold. Watts took over the case after that, ruling against JusticePoint after an October hearing on the matter. The city contended that, applied to a municipality, the WFDL should protect only businesses with a profit motive or a business offering, to protect public procurement law, the JusticePoint lawyers said. “Its concern was not a concrete one in this instance but an abstract fear of a potential slippery slope,” they said. The city also argued that applying the WFDL would lead the city to violate competitive procurement regulations, but “admitted this might be an illusory issue because it ‘may be accurate’ to say that the instant case has no bearing on procurement regulations.“ “Though the city maintained its consistent agreement that JusticePoint distributes city MCAP Services, the trial court at numerous points attempted to steer the city into making arguments contrary to that position — and inconsistent with the factual record,” they said. Minutes after the October hearing ended, the attorneys wrote, Watts “presented a single-spaced, 11-page written decision that disregarded the city’s arguments and the undisputed factual record, concluding instead that: 1) the relationship between JusticePoint and the City was not a dealership protected under the WFDL because JusticePoint was distributing its own, rather than the City’s, services; and 2) there could be no community of interest between the parties in the absence of a ‘joint undertaking’ and shared profitability.” Watts then prompted the city to seek dismissal of the entire case, which he granted, they said. Appellate Judge M. Joseph Donald issued a stay pending appeal, maintaining the suspension of the contract termination. At the trial court level, Watts “made a series of legal errors in applying the law to the undisputed facts of this case, fundamentally narrowing the purview of the WFDL in contravention of both statutory text and binding precedent,” the JusticePoint attorneys said. Watts held, for example, that the “WFDL cannot apply outside of conventional franchise-franchisee, profit-driven, commercial relationships,” an error appellate courts have consistently warned against, they wrote. “To the contrary, JusticePoint’s delivery of services on behalf of the City fits soundly in the ambit of the WFDL under the uncontested facts before this Court,” they said. The nonprofit qualifies for protection under the law because it has an agreement with the city, distributes city services, and shares a community of interest with the city, they said. While the city effectively conceded that JusticePoint distributed city services, Watts found differently, ruling that JusticePoint was distributing its own services. Watts found it dispositive that the city “ ‘did not have the services’ themselves and . . . Municipal Court defendants do not directly pay JusticePoint for the MCAP Services those defendants receive,” the lawyers wrote. The law does not require that, however, they said. It simply requires that a dealer sell or distribute the grantor’s — in this case the city’s — goods or services. “If WFDL protection applied only if JusticePoint was selling city services, the agency could charge a penny meeting Watts’ “atextual, invented requirement” but not making JusticePoint profitable or defraying city expenses for MCAP services, they said. Watts’ misinterpretation also would effectively block charitable nonprofits from WFDL protection if they provide services free of charge for recipients, they wrote. Watts also misread the law’s “community of interest” provision to require JusticePoint to maintain a commercial business enterprise receiving revenue and setting prices, the JusticePoint attorneys said. Under state Supreme Court precedent, a community of interest exists when there is continuing financial interest and interdependence, they said. A “ ‘continuing financial interest’ contemplates a ‘shared financial interest in the operation of the dealership or the marketing of a good or service,’ while ‘interdependence' is the ‘degree to which the dealer and grantor cooperate, coordinate their activities and share common goals in their business relationship,’ ” they wrote. Watts also “arbitrarily rejected the uncontested factual record” to find that there was "no coordination of activities” between the city and the nonprofit. He found that JusticePoint’s investments in staff and computer programming infrastructure needed to run its program were not substantial compared to its overall expenses, despite there being no evidence of overall expenses offered, the lawyers said. While JusticePoint does not charge clients for its services, it saves the city money and has a financially interdependent relationship with the city, they wrote. The city’s own goal for the program, as stated in its most recent request for proposals to operate the program, is to “ ‘ultimately reduce Milwaukee County Criminal Justice Facility and House of Correction populations and reduce the associated cost to the City of housing these offenders.’ “ The agency also works closely with Municipal Court and other city officials in its program operations, they said.  Milwaukee Common Council unanimously approves new early voting site on Dec. 12, 2023. Photograph by Alexandria Staubach. By Alexandria Staubach The Milwaukee Common Council this morning unanimously approved a new early-voting site that will be located at N. 60th St. and W. Capitol Dr. The site replaces a popular one in the Midtown Center. In the 2020 and 2022 elections nearly 30% of the absentee ballots cast during early voting from the city of Milwaukee came from the Midtown Center site, accounting for more than 18,200 ballots in 2020 and 8,500 ballots in 2022. The Midtown Center site was described as “the most popular in the Midwest” by more than one alder, including Mark Chambers Jr., who sponsored the measure and highlighted its importance to Milwaukee’s Black and Brown communities. Chambers said the site would be ADA accessible and on a well-used bus line. He said he looks forward to another robust voting cycle. A coalition of stakeholders campaigned for the new site after Midtown Center was purchased by an Atlanta-based investor who sought more than double the rent for less square footage. Contract negotiations between the new owner and city devolved earlier this year. Today at City Hall hopes were high that the new voting site would be just as productive. “We have the opportunity to be more potent” and “we can drive even more people to this location,” said Gregory Lewis, executive director of Souls to Polls and board chairperson for Power to the Polls. At a press conference following the vote, Angela Lang, executive director of Black Leaders Organizing for Communities (BLOC), applauded the Milwaukee Common Council for its unanimous vote and “their work supporting this mission.” Calena Roberts, Wisconsin state field director for Power to the Polls, exclaimed that “one door has closed, and another has opened wider!” The coalition advocating for the new site included Souls to the Polls, BLOC, the Wisconsin Working Families Party, SEIU Wisconsin, Leaders Igniting Transformation Wisconsin, Power to the Polls Wisconsin, EXPO Wisconsin, ACLU of Wisconsin, and Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed