Commission hearing continues in appeal over city attorney office IT worker’s termination; testimony centers on CJIS clearance

The City Service Commission in Milwaukee resumed a continuation of an appeal hearing on April 8 that concerns the December 2024 separation of an IT staff member in the Office of the City Attorney. City Attorney Evan Goike told the commission that the office placed the employee on administrative leave in November after a Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) audit raised compliance questions, and that the employee was discharged on Dec. 11 following a pre-discharge meeting.

The hearing’s testimony centered on whether the employee’s lack of CJIS clearance prevented him from performing essential IT duties in the Ordinance Enforcement Division, which operates in the Police Administration Building and provides access to CJIS-governed databases. Deputy City Attorney Mary Channing testified that, after reviewing the relevant CJIS provisions and the job description for the IT position, she concluded the employee could not fulfill certain essential functions without access. Channing told the commission she reviewed portions of the CJIS policy and highlighted sections she considered applicable. "I did not feel that he could adequately meet that job or job function as well," she testified.

Channing said she first learned the employee did not have unescorted access to the Police Administration Building in May, and that the CJIS audit received in November made the matter urgent because a binary audit form required a truthful certification on whether staff with access had passed the required background checks. "There was a deadline to submit that audit," she said, describing the Nov. 23 audit deadline recorded in the meeting material.

City Attorney Evan Goike described operational constraints and alternatives the office explored after the audit. He told commissioners the office considered whether other city departments could provide an IT resource for the Ordinance Enforcement Division but that those departments reported either capacity limits or incompatibility with the city attorney office’s case-management systems. Goike said the office had two options to meet the audit: certify compliance (which he said would have been false) or remove the employee’s access. "I could not check yes that we have complied with the background checks required," Goike said. "I was placed in a box and had no other option and felt the only course I could take was to terminate Mister Young."

The witness testimony explored several related points Commissioners pressed for clarity on, including (1) how the employee had been working in the office for years without CJIS clearance, (2) whether escorted access was permissible under CJIS policy for the employee’s duties, and (3) whether the city attorney’s office should have sought a review from the CJIS systems officer or another designated official to challenge a denial of access. Channing testified that, after reading the policy sections she relied on, she believed escorted access would not permit the employee to use the computers that host data governed by CJIS and that IT staff supporting those computers require clearance.

Both Channing and Goike acknowledged they had considered performance-improvement alternatives for the employee at earlier stages; Goike and Channing said performance concerns may have been addressable by a performance improvement plan but that the compliance issue presented a separate, disqualifying constraint. Goike said he discussed possible remedies with the employee and that the employee had inquired about expungement; Goike testified that, under Wisconsin law as he understood it, the employee’s convictions did not appear subject to expungement as a practical remedy.

The hearing record includes exchanges about who is the authorized CJIS systems officer (sometimes cited as the CSO or LASO in the policy), whether the city attorney’s office pursued direct review with the police department’s CJIS officer, and whether the office re-ran background checks in 2024. Goike said the Milwaukee Police Department had declined to change the 2022 determination that denied the employee access and that the office had not re-run a full background check before making the termination decision.

The commission did not issue a decision during the April 8 session; attorneys and commissioners set a future hearing date to continue the proceedings. The record at the hearing included the Criminal Justice Information Services Security Policy and related exhibits, personnel records and the city attorney’s correspondence about the audit and operational options.