City attorney and deputies defend termination of IT employee over CJIS access during commission hearing

The City Service Commission on April 8 heard testimony about the December 2024 separation of Antoine Young from the Office of the City Attorney, focused on whether Young could lawfully continue as the office’s IT administrator given requirements of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) security policy.

City Attorney Evan Goike told the commission he felt compelled to place Young on administrative leave and later separate him because the office could not truthfully certify compliance with a CJIS audit. “I could not check yes because that would be a lie,” Goike said, explaining the office faced a near-term audit deadline and that the Milwaukee Police Department’s prior denial of clearance in 2022 left the office unable to represent that staffers with CJIS access had passed required background checks.

The hearing considered three types of evidence: testimony from deputy and HR witnesses about how the office supervised Young and learned of his background; the CJIS security policy and audit questionnaire; and internal options City Hall explored, including reassigning IT work or seeking a second IT position. Commissioners questioned whether the office pursued all available alternatives before terminating Young and whether the City Attorney’s office should have requested a CJIS reconsideration by the designated security officer.

Deputy city attorney Mary Channing (testifying as the chief deputy assigned to supervise support staff) said the office had considered a performance improvement plan and other accommodations but was overtaken by the audit. Channing testified she had known Young lacked unescorted CJIS clearance and that once she reviewed the CJIS requirements she concluded he could not meet essential duties requiring system access. She said she had explored rerunning a background check and discussed the situation with Human Resources and DER staff but that the audit deadline accelerated the decision-making timeline.

Acting HR administrator Janine (listed in the record as the acting HR administrator who reviewed personnel documents) testified she reviewed relevant portions of the CJIS security policy and staff records and identified job functions Young could not perform without clearance. She told commissioners she highlighted sections of the CJIS policy for later reference and that prior CJIS audits had been completed in 2021 and 2024; the 2024 audit was the first performed during Young’s tenure.

Commissioners asked why the office did not (1) attempt to obtain a CJIS variance or request a review by the CSO designee, (2) re-run Young’s background check before deciding, or (3) move IT support to a different city department temporarily. Goike said the office explored transfers and shared-service options with other departments but those departments reported they lacked capacity and the office lacked budget authority to add a second IT position. He added he had reviewed expungement law and told the commission that, based on Young’s record and Wisconsin law, expungement or other remedies were not realistic in the timeframe at issue.

Defense counsel and commissioners pressed whether the office had actually asked the CJIS security officer or the Milwaukee Police Department’s named CSO to reconsider a 2022 denial. Goike and Channing said the Milwaukee Police Department had been consulted and that their understanding was the prior denial would not change; commissioners noted the CJIS policy allows an interface agency to request a CSO review and asked why the office had not pursued that path in November. Channing testified she later consulted Assistant Chief Sarno of the Milwaukee Police Department for technical interpretation but said some consultations occurred after the termination and appeal were already underway.

Several commissioners requested additional documentary evidence and clearer timelines. The commission set further process dates for continuation of the hearing and indicated the city attorney would be called to testify at the next session to clarify steps taken before and after the audit.

The hearing record contains repeated references to the CJIS security policy, the audit questionnaire and prior MPD determinations denying Young access in 2022; commissioners asked that the City Attorney’s office provide the commission with copies of the audit response, any correspondence with the Milwaukee Police Department about CSO review, and documentation of steps taken to seek alternative IT arrangements.

No final commission decision is recorded in the April 8 transcript excerpt. The appeal process will continue with additional testimony scheduled at a later session.