Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to adopt ethics board sanction against PCOB member after closed‑session review
Summary
The Common Council voted against adopting an ethics board recommendation that would have barred a former Police Civilian Oversight Board member from appointment to city boards for 12 months and required ethics training. The board had found a violation in an incident involving the member and Madison Police Department officers.
The Common Council on Jan. 14 considered a recommendation from the city's Ethics Board to sanction Shajira Kilfoy Flores, a founding member of Madison’s Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB). Council members voted on the ethics board’s recommendation and the motion to adopt the sanctions failed by roll call: 9 in favor, 4 opposed and several abstentions.
The ethics board had recommended public sanctions that included a 12‑month bar on appointment to city boards, commissions or committees and mandatory ethics training, after reviewing a complaint alleging Ms. Kilfoy Flores had used her position during an interaction with Madison police officers. Assistant City Attorney explained the board’s process to the council: the board first met on jurisdictional questions, held a complaint hearing, reviewed video evidence and then deliberated in closed session before making its recommendation.
Public testimony and arguments In public comment and at the hearing, Ms. Kilfoy Flores and her attorney urged the council to reject the ethics board’s recommendation. Attorney Damon Italia Terrell argued the evidence did not meet the legal elements required for an ordinance violation: “If you look at the video, it’s clear that nothing was asked for and nothing was received,” he said, adding that the complaint imported inferences about intent that were not proven on the record.
Ms. Kilfoy Flores told the council she has served as a community volunteer and a PCOB founding member and asked that the council not adopt the proposed sanction: “I urge you to reject the ethics committee recommendation that I not be appointed to a city board, commission, or committee for the period of 12 months,” she said. Supporters who spoke on her behalf also pointed to a lack of formal ethics training for some public members and asked for remediation by the city rather than a punitive ban.
Council action and context Council discussion focused on the board’s jurisdiction, the standard of proof and whether the recommended sanction was proportional given the record. Assistant City Attorney summarized the ethics board procedure and noted the board considered, but did not recommend, filing municipal forfeiture charges in this case.
The motion to adopt the ethics board’s recommendation was moved and seconded. After debate on whether the complaint should be afforded sanction, the roll call resulted in a failure to adopt the recommended penalty. Several council members called for more consistent training and clearer procedures for volunteer board members as part of the broader policy takeaway.
Ending The ethics board’s findings remain part of the public record. Council members who opposed the board recommendation urged the city to pursue broader training and process improvements so volunteer members know ethics rules and what to expect. The decision leaves in place the board’s original report but without the council’s endorsement of the proposed sanctions.
