Under the Wisconsin Statutes that provide for the scope and authority of a Police and Fire Commission, there is a requirement that the
Board Shall Approve a Department’s Subordinates. “The chiefs shall appoint subordinates subject to approval by the board.” 62.13(4)(a)
A review of the minutes of our Whitewater PFC reveals that citizen approval of promotions is rightly understood to be a requirement of the law. That’s why our PFC will sometimes go into closed session, for interviews or discussions of promotions.
Did that happen in early 2005, with the approval of interviews for a patrolman and a sergeant?
In the February 2, 2005 minutes, under “New business: Chief’s report — ” one finds a notion on “Special Session to be announced for late may [sic] for interviews for a patrolman and the vacant Sergeant position.”
Did that legally-required citizen approval take place before these positions were filled? It doesn’t seem like it. Here’s why.
The next meeting is a May 4, 2005 meeting, at which the last meeting listed — for which minutes were approved — was the February 2, 2005 meeting. So, no meeting is listed or mentioned or recorded between February 2 and May 4, 2005.
Yet, at the May 4, 2005 meeting, the minutes reveal that Chief Coan had already hired an officer and promoted a sergeant. Here’s what the minutes record, under “New Business: Chief’s Report:”
Discussed new hiring of officer and promotion of Sergeant. Favorable response within Department.”
So the promotions had already taken place, without approval of our PFC, as the law requires?
When Chief Coan announced this at the meeting, how did the PFC members respond? Here’s what the minutes record:
A Wendt/Triebold motion was passed unanimously requesting that PFC members be notified when there is a swearing in of officers, so that PFC members can be present at the ceremony.”
The minutes reveal that (1) the PFC did not approve the promotions as the law requires, (2) were unaware of the hirings as a citizen body until after they had taken place, and (3) thought no better of the importance of their roles than to ask if they could present at the swearing-in ceremony!
Those are the minutes as published to our community. Our PFC has failed in the most basic matters of oversight, and so we are left with a police chief who acts, however poorly, as a law unto himself. Did no one have enough self-respect to ask that the law be applied properly? At other committees and boards, the smallest irregularity is a subject of great debate. On the Police and Fire Commission, one of the most important oversight roles in the community, the clear requirements of the law (“subject to approval”) were apparently ignored.
More of my assessment of our Police and Fire Commission can be found at posts entitled, “Police and Fire Commission: Importance and Authority, “Police and Fire Commission: Reasonable Standards,” “Police and Fire Commission: Minutes,” “Police and Fire Commission: Performance Generally,” and “Police and Fire Commission: Citizen Complaints.”