Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Background Checks And Hiring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police and Fire Commission reviews officer candidate backgrounds in closed session; three candidates advanced
Summary
In a closed session held Oct. 2 under Wisconsin open-meeting rules, the Police and Fire Commission reviewed eight police officer candidate backgrounds, rejected five (including self-withdrawals or background issues), and advanced three to the interview process; the commission later confirmed the outcome by recorded vote.
The Police and Fire Commission convened in closed session Oct. 2 to review police officer candidate backgrounds under Wisconsin open-meeting law and later confirmed the results in open session.
The commission cited state law permitting closed deliberations on employment and promotion matters before moving into closed session. After the closed meeting, the commission reported it had reviewed eight candidate backgrounds; five were removed from consideration either by self-withdrawal or because of issues identified in background checks, and three candidates were carried forward to the interview stage.
Commission Chair (name not specified) read the closed-session authority as part of agenda item F-4, saying the commission may convene in closed session "pursuant to sections 19 25 paragraph 1, sub CNF, Wisconsin statutes to consider employment, promotion, compensation, or performance evaluation data of any public employer over which the government body has jurisdiction or exercise responsibility, including interviewing, candidates for employment." Following a motion by Commissioner North, seconded by Commissioner Moore Norwalk, the commission voted to enter closed session. The chair later reported that the commission "reviewed 8 backgrounds. 5 of those, were rejected either through self withdrawal or, there was an issue that caused us to reject those. 3, we carried through to the interview process. We conducted those 3 interviews and chose to continue those 3."
Back in open session the commission moved to confirm the report of actions taken in closed session. The meeting record notes a motion to confirm the report, a second identified as coming via proxy from Mary Ann Boyle Rohloff, and that the motion passed with three recorded votes in favor; no further details of individual yes/no votes were recorded in the public minutes.
The commission did not discuss specific candidate names or the nature of the issues that led to rejection in the public record; those details remained confidential in closed session under the statutory authority cited.
