City Service Commission pauses Antoine Young separation hearing after testimony on CJIS access, DER records show replacement IT hire

The City Service Commission on April 21 paused its hearing on the separation of city employee Antoine Young from the City Attorney’s Office after hours of testimony focused on a CJIS (Crimi nal Justice Information Services) audit and whether Young’s lack of clearance made his continued employment feasible.

Commissioners did not decide whether to uphold the department’s separation decision; they left the record open and directed the Department of Employee Relations (DER) to schedule a follow‑up session. DER records presented during the hearing show Jonathan Stepner was rehired to the single IT position in the City Attorney’s Office effective Feb. 3, 2025.

Why it matters: prosecutors and code‑enforcement attorneys in the City Attorney’s Office rely on access to CJIS databases for case preparation and municipal prosecutions. Testimony in the hearing centered on whether the office had alternatives to separating Young to maintain CJIS compliance without losing capacity to operate municipal court and enforcement functions.

City Attorney office testimony City Attorney management testified that a periodic CJIS audit brought the issue to the fore in 2024 and left the department with limited options. "When we received it and reviewed it ... it became clear to me that Mr. Young could not continue in his position with access to the PA B and the machines that the OED attorneys and staff use, and that I did not have an alternative ... and it was I really believed and still believe today I had no other option but to separate Mr. Young's employment," City Attorney Goike testified.

Goike and other department witnesses described the office as having only a single IT/business systems coordinator position whose duties include maintaining hardware and software used by attorneys to access criminal justice information. They said the CJIS rules and the office’s need for an employee who could pass background checks made the staffing problem urgent.

DER and other testimony Harper Donahue, director of the Department of Employee Relations, testified about management conversations he had with City Attorney staff. Donahue said he questioned "whether or not that was necessary for that position" but said his recollection of specific meetings and dates was limited. He described conversations with the City Attorney’s Office and staff as centered on the audit’s implications and on how to comply with CJIS requirements.

DER produced a payroll/rehire record during the hearing showing Jonathan Stepner’s reinstatement as business systems coordinator, effective Feb. 3, 2025. Commissioners and attorneys referenced that record as part of testimony about whether the office had a trained, CJIS‑cleared IT person available after Young’s separation.

Appellant's procedural objections Appellant counsel Ben Hitchcock Cross repeatedly objected to the availability of planned department witnesses and said that subpoenas and witness notice procedures had not been handled as expected. Cross argued the appellant had relied on the list of witnesses provided at the prehearing and that two expected witnesses were unavailable when the hearing resumed. The commission accommodated cross’s procedural requests during the hearing but also pressed parties to move forward.

Scope and limits of evidence Witnesses and counsel repeatedly distinguished between two kinds of issues: (1) personnel or performance problems that had been discussed informally in the office (which commissioners said they would not treat as the central issue in this civil‑service appeal) and (2) the discrete question presented to the commission: whether the separation was "reasonable" based on Mr. Young’s inability to meet CJIS clearance requirements and the effect on the office’s mission.

Several witnesses, including City Attorney staff and HR administrators, described prior conversations about a possible performance improvement plan (PIP) and later decisions. Commissioners repeatedly limited testimony to matters that directly bore on the separation notice and CJIS access rather than broader grievances or personnel disputes.

Municipal court and IT context Charles Hughes, deputy court administrator for Milwaukee Municipal Court, testified that the court began a formal push in early 2025 to ensure CJIS clearance for staff who need it, and that the court was moving staff through the clearance process. He said systems administrators had advised that staff who lack CJIS clearance should have escorted access to CJIS systems.

Next steps The commission recessed and then adjourned the hearing with no final decision. President Bach said DER would work with the parties to schedule the remaining testimony and any closing arguments. The commission told attorneys it expected the record to be completed and the hearing resumed at a later date so commissioners could deliberate on the separation.

Votes at a glance - File 241972 — Approval of the April 14, 2025 meeting minutes: approved by roll call (Commissioner Miller — yes; Commissioner Smith — yes; Commissioner Clary — yes). The motion was moved and seconded; explicit mover/second were not specified in the public roll call recorded in the minutes.

What the commission heard — key factual points - Department testimony: A CJIS audit in 2024 prompted the office to review who had access to systems; department leaders said they lacked a non‑cleared position to which to move Mr. Young and therefore concluded separation was necessary. - DER testimony: DER staff said they had been involved as advisors and that the audit raised urgent compliance questions; the DER director could not recall all details from months‑old meetings. - Rehire record: DER provided a reinstatement/payroll report showing Jonathan Stepner was reinstated effective Feb. 3, 2025, as business systems coordinator for the City Attorney’s Office. - Municipal court context: Municipal Court managers said the court began a formal program in early 2025 to obtain CJIS clearance for staff who require access and to control unescorted access for staff who are not cleared.

What the commission did not decide - The commission did not issue a ruling on whether the separation was upheld or overturned. Commissioners left the record open and scheduled a follow‑up session to finish testimony and receive any additional exhibits.

The commission hearing will reconvene at a date arranged by DER so both sides can complete evidence and closing arguments. The commission’s decision will depend on its review of the record and whether the department’s reasons meet the standard the commission applies for reviewing separation actions.