Board upholds discharge of former Milwaukee bridge operator after contested hearing

The Board of City Service Commissioners voted on March 27, 2026 to deny the appeal of former bridge operator Anthony S. Bass and uphold his October 27, 2025 discharge, after a multi‑witness hearing that included testimony from a tour-boat captain, bridge‑department managers and human-resources staff.

The commission’s president, Frank Bach, explained the hearing procedure at the start of the session and guided the board through admission of stipulated and unstipulated exhibits. Department counsel Andrew Simons told the board the Department of Public Works had shown Bass had committed multiple safety violations and had not cooperated with the department’s investigation, and argued the disciplinary action was appropriate to protect public safety. “The appellant violated various rules and had multiple major safety violations,” Simons said in his opening and closing remarks.

Why it matters: the department’s case centered on an incident on Aug. 22, 2025 at the Wisconsin Avenue Bridge, where a captain for the Vista King tour boat reported a pedestrian in the bridge area while the span was moving. The city’s witnesses testified the event posed a serious safety risk and that Bass had previously been disciplined after a separate 2024 safety incident.

Key evidence and competing accounts: Vista King captain Nicholas Doney testified he observed a pedestrian on the movable span and radioed bridge operations; he said the pedestrian jumped off the span as it moved. Bridge maintenance manager Nick Goodwin testified that department records and subsequent investigation supported the department’s view that a pedestrian had been on or very near the bridge while the span was actuated and that standard operating procedures require a bridge operator to ensure all pedestrians and vehicles are clear before raising the span. By contrast, Bass told the commission he did not see anyone on the movable deck and said the person reported by the boat captain had been in a sidewalk area near a flower planter that creates a visibility blind spot on the southwest corner. Bass testified he raised the span only a few inches, then stopped and lowered it when informed; he said he entered an incident report in the bridge log and later attempted to cooperate with the department.

Administrative context: Dan Thomas, administrative services director for DPW, and Ayesha Hendry of the Department of Employee Relations described the city’s reporting, investigation and preplacement medical testing procedures. Hendry testified the city’s preplacement vendor (Froedtert) placed Bass on hold while awaiting medical paperwork for an alternate city-labor position the department offered; she said Bass was not responsive to follow-up contact during part of the September–October timeframe. DPW witnesses said the department had attempted to preserve Bass’s employment by offering alternate placement but concluded Bass represented an unreasonable safety risk in the bridge‑operator role.

Board action and vote: After witnesses and closing statements, the board met in closed session under Wis. Stat. § 19.85 to deliberate. Returning to open session the board first voted that the department had cause to take disciplinary action (roll call: Commissioners Miller, Smith, Cleary, Wicksboro and President Bach — yes). The board then voted to approve a discharge action; President Bach announced, “What that means, Mister Bass, is your appeal was denied and the discharge stands.”

What the decision does not resolve: The board’s ruling upholds the department’s disciplinary decision; it does not, and the board did not purport to, adjudicate or criminally charge outside conduct. The record shows factual disagreements about whether a pedestrian stood on the movable deck or slightly inside the sidewalk area at the time the span moved; the commission relied on the department’s witness testimony and documentary exhibits in reaching its conclusion.

Next steps: The commission adjourned after announcing the decision. The discharge remains in effect; any further appeal rights or review steps would be governed by the applicable personnel rules and statute, and are not addressed in this hearing record.