Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waukesha City HR committee approves updated vehicle collision reporting policy tied to pedestrian‑bridge grant
Summary
The Waukesha City HR committee on May 20 approved revisions to the E‑2 vehicle collision and accident‑reporting policy, adding prohibited‑conduct and distracted‑driving language required by a federal grant for two pedestrian bridges; the motion passed 3–1.
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Waukesha City HR committee on May 20 approved revisions to the E‑2 vehicle collision and accident‑reporting policy, adding prohibited‑conduct and distracted‑driving language that staff said is required by a federal grant for two pedestrian bridges.
Staff told the committee “the city was awarded a federal grant for the design of 2 pedestrian bridges over the Waukesha Bypass,” and said that federal grants carry language requirements that prompted the change. Staff said the revisions also remove the policy’s previous references to “preventable” and “non‑preventable” accidents; determinations about those distinctions will now be made by police staff when citations are involved.
The committee asked whether adding the language commits the city to accept the federal grant. Alderman Matthews said the change was being made to satisfy grant conditions only “if we decide to move forward,” and staff confirmed updating the policy does not obligate the city to accept the award.
Members raised questions about how the policy applies to police and fire personnel. Committee member Wells noted police and fire typically operate under separate rules or collective‑bargaining agreements that can supersede general HR policies. Staff agreed that routine operational tasks such as dispatch orders or manual data entry would generally not be treated as distracted driving and said the committee could ask staff to draft explicit carve‑outs for public‑safety roles.
The committee also pressed for clearer definitions and consistency. Members sought clarification about what qualifies as an “excellent driving record” and pointed out inconsistent wording about inspections of personal versus city‑owned vehicles; staff acknowledged those items require further editorial cleanup and said they will be addressed in a subsequent revision.
Committee members discussed employee consequences if a required license is suspended. Staff said some city positions require a commercial driver’s license and that a long‑term loss of license could prevent an employee from performing those duties, but noted that short suspensions have been handled by temporarily assigning other tasks.
Alderman Wells moved to approve the revised E‑2 policy as written; the motion was seconded and passed 3–1. Staff said the policy will be revised again to clarify carve‑outs, inspection language and other operational details and is expected to return to the committee in July.
