County Administrator Goals Report Page Description

1 Pyramid of Strategic Planning Work Flow

2 Resolution 22 (2018) Establishing County Administrator Goals July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019

-Adopted July 9, 2018 by County Board

4 County Administrator Goals Report July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019

-Report on Success

8 Youth Justice Services Report

-Supporting document for Goal #2

11 CAP Team Report

-Supporting document for Goal #2

15 St. Croix County Sheriff’s Office Policy 341

-Supporting document for Goal #3

21 Joint Legislative Council’s Report of Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras

-Supporting document for Goal #3

40 Draft Resolution Approving County Administrator Goals Report July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 and Authorizing Discretionary Incentive Payment

-Administration Committee and County Board to approve report (June 4, 2019)

41 List of Strategic Initiatives

-Created by Committee of the Whole March 12, 2019

42 Resolution 17 (2019) Establishing Strategic Initiatives

-Adopted May 7, 2019 by County Board

44 Suggested Goals for County Administrator

-Administration Committee and County Board must approve by Resolution (July – August 2019)

-Administration Committee and County Board to complete County Administrator Performance Evaluation and Compensation Analysis (July – August 2019)

Department Work Plans Department Heads create work plans based on adopted budget in

support of task linked to Strategic Initiatives. Work plans are typically

reviewed by the Standing Committees.

County Budget Largest policy document annually adopted by the County Board. The spending decisions are based on support for Strategic Initiatives.

Administration Committee approves Budget Guidelines which are an early indicator of budget direction.

County Administrator Goals County Board by Resolution establishes goals for the County Administrator. They are guided by Strategic Initiatives and provide details and measurable goals.

Strategic Initiatives County Board establishes Strategic Initiatives annually for

current issues, providing direction for County priorities.

1

Resolution No. 22 (2018)

RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GOALS FOR JULY 1, 2018 - JUNE 30, 2019

WHEREAS, the St. Croix County wishes to provide guidance to the County Administrator by establishing 1 annual goals; and  2  3 WHEREAS, the Administration Committee has reviewed and recommended goals for the County 4 Administrator for the next year. 5  6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors does hereby set the 7 following goals for the County Administrator for the period of July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019: 8  9

1.  Work with newly established Transit Commission to establish strategic plan that matches the 10 goals of the County and falls within the funding ability of the County. 11

2.  Create policy and processes to prepare St. Croix County for the closing of Lincoln Hills Juvenile 12 Correction Facility. 13

3.  Create policy and establish best practices with the implementation of the Sheriff Department 14 body cameras.15

Legal – Fiscal – Administrative Approvals:

Legal Note:

Fiscal Impact: Setting of goals has no fiscal impact.

06/18/18 Administration Committee NO ACTION Next: 07/09/18

RESULT: NO ACTION Next: 7/9/2018 5:00 PM

07/09/18 Administration Committee RECOMMENDED

2

RESULT: RECOMMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Roy Sjoberg, Vice-Chair SECONDER: Shaela Leibfried, Supervisor AYES: Roy Sjoberg, Dan Fosterling, David Peterson, Shaela Leibfried EXCUSED: Tammy Moothedan

Vote Confirmation.

St. Croix County Board of Supervisors Action: Roll Call - Vote Requirement – Majority of Supervisors Present

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]

MOVER: David Peterson, Supervisor

SECONDER: Lynda Miller, Supervisor

AYES: Schachtner, Nordstrand, Miller, Coulter, Long, Moothedan, Fosterling, Feidler, Ostness, Larson, Hansen, Brinkman, Peterson, Anderson, Achterhof, Leibfried, Peavey

ABSENT: Roy Sjoberg, District 13

This Resolution was Adopted by the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors on August 7, 2018

Cindy Campbell, County Clerk

3

Goals Report July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019

4

Goal 1: Work with newly established Transit Commission to establish strategic plan that matches the goals of the County and falls within the funding ability of the County.

Accomplished: The Transit Commission identified Strategic Directions on April 9, 2019.

The Transit Commission concluded strategic planning at its meeting in May of 2019. The strategic plan lays out the vision and mission statement of the SCC transit commission as viewed by the appointed Transit Commission. The plan is also intended to set up and determine the path forward in regards to service possibilities and goals. These will be vetted through the Commission and eventually presented to the County Board. The strategic plan will highlight that services provided will have to be funded within the constraints that the County Board identifies, in collaboration with outside funding sources if available. The final strategic plan should be completed and available this summer.

Find and secure

funding

Procure staffing

Engage all stakeholders

Establish Operations Develop a

business plan Marketing Nuts and bolts

• Identify sustainable funding

• Identify funding sources

• Identify funding

• Take advantage of (proposed) new capital assistance program

• Establish annual budget

• Hire transit coordinator

• Staffing-hiring

• Participation from all concerned communities

• Get buy-in from cities, towns, villages, public and private

• Engage partner with county and other entities

• Educate businesses of current services available and participation

• Advocate community rideshare

• Determine long-term needs

• Determine service specs

• Determine which options to pursue

• Approve and implement service

• Educate on Jumpstart Program (Westcap)

• Define target markets

• Explore insurance options

• Runnings: provider of insurance and vehicles

• Establish an information bank

5

Goal 2: Create policy and processes to prepare St. Croix County for the closing of Lincoln Hills Juvenile Correction Facility.

Accomplished: Goal established due to 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, which was enacted on March 30, 2018. Brief overview of this Act includes:

1. Requires the Wisconsin Department of Corrections to close the Lincoln Hill and Copper Lakes Schools no later than January 1, 2021.

2. Requires counties to establish new secured residential care centers for children and youth (SRCCCY) by January 1, 2021.

3. Provides $80 million in funding for county secure residential centers, new state-owned juvenile correctional facilities and expansion of the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center.

After review and consideration of available options for counties, St. Croix County has engaged in work with existing regional detention centers (Eau Claire and La Crosse) towards implementation of a hub and spoke model. This model would include contracting for services and outline roles, responsibilities, and operational and financial obligations.

Since initial planning, Eau Claire County has opted not to pursue the SRCCCY. Eau Claire County is still operating long term and short-term detention services and St. Croix County maintains a contract for both of these regional services.

La Crosse County continues planning with several regional counties, including St. Croix County. Facility design, programming and budget have been points of discussion. Discussion has also included needed adjustments to 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, some of which include:

• Counties need additional time to design and construct SRCCCY’s. • Additional bonding authority. • Medical Assistance to cover treatment needs for children.

Additional supporting material from CAP Team and the Wisconsin Counties Association are attached.

6

Goal 3: Create policy and establish best practices with the implementation of the Sheriff Department body cameras.

Accomplished: Policy 341 Portable Audio/Video Recorders has been created and implemented in the Sheriff Department. Copy of policy attached. The policy represents the current best practices.

St. Croix County Captain Jeff Klatt is a member of the State Legislative Council Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras. With a voice at the table, 2019 Senate Bill 50 is in conformity to our existing policy. A copy of the Joint Legislative Council’s Report of the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras is attached.

Timeline:

June 18, 2018 – Administration Committee reviews proposed goals

July 9, 2018 – Resolution 22 (2018) Establishing County Administrator Goals 7/1/18 - 6/30/19

May 20, 2019 – Administration Committee reviews draft of goals report

June 4, 2019 – County Board receives final goals report for 7/1/18 – 6/30/19

Summary:

County Administrator Contract Section II(B) “Employer at its discretion shall review and evaluate the performance of the Employee from time-to-time, at least on an annual basis and may consider discretionary bonuses.”

Please accept this report as part of my annual evaluation. I look forward to your feedback on my performance and how together we can make St. Croix County a better place.

7

YOUTH JUSTICE SERVICES

Secured Residential Care Centers for Children and Youth 2017 Wisconsin Act 185 (Act 185) significantly changes the juvenile corrections system in Wisconsin. Act 185 closes Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake schools effective January 1, 2021, and replaces them with two types of facilities:

• State-operated Type 1 facilities for serious juvenile offenders and youth with adult convictions;

• County-operated secured residential care centers for children and youth (SRCCCY) for all other youth with a correctional disposition.

Since its enactment, counties have reviewed 2017 Wisconsin Act 185 and identified several technical concerns with the legislation. Counties also need additional time to design and construct SRCCCYs. Failure to resolve these issues in a timely manner may result in counties choosing not to submit grant applications to operate secured residential care centers for children and youth. On the fiscal side, Act 185 provides state bonding authority of $40 million for the construction of SRCCCYs. Counties have indicated additional bonding authority will be needed. Counties also identified the need for the state to provide counties with start-up costs for the operation of SRCCCYs. 17-Year-Olds Wisconsin state statutes require county governments to operate and fund the juvenile justice system. County boards are required to authorize human services departments to provide intake and dispositional services to juveniles who are accused of violating, or have violated, a state law. Wisconsin law defines a juvenile as any person under the age of 18 years. Prior to January 1, 1996, 17-year-olds were treated as juveniles. Under 1995 Wisconsin Act 27, 17-year-olds are treated as adults. Since that time, research has indicated that juveniles are best served, and the interests of the community are best protected from juvenile criminal behavior when the presumptive age for circuit court jurisdiction is age 18 years. Counties support the inclusion of 17-year-olds in the youth justice system; however, county support is contingent on full state funding for the provision of services provided to 17-year-olds.

8

Youth Justice Services Page 2

CURRENT STATUS: SRCCCYs: The Governor’s budget provides $100 million for SRCCCY grants to counties. The Governor’s budget changes the deadline for counties to submit SRCCCY grants from March 31, 2019 to July 1, 2019 and changes the date that the Juvenile Corrections Grant Committee must submit SRCCCY recommendations to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) from July 1, 2019 to October 1, 2019. The budget also allows counties to submit grants prior to the deadline and allows the committee to forward early applicants to the JCF prior to the deadline under 14-day passive review to ensure that counties that are ready to move forward are able to do so without delay. The Governor’s budget removes the deadline for closing Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake schools and for constructing the new SRCCCYs and new state-run juvenile correctional facilities. The Governor’s budget provides $3.5 million GPR in FY21 to reimburse one-time start-up costs for counties that create SRCCCYs. Expenses eligible for reimbursement will be determined by the Department of Children and Families in consultation with representatives of the counties. Separate legislation (LRB-1117) is also in the works to make technical corrections to 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, as well as provide counties with an additional six months to get SRCCCYs constructed and operational. 17-Year-Olds: The Governor’s budget reverts jurisdiction of 17-year-olds from adult court to juvenile court for acts committed on or after January 1, 2021 and provides sum sufficient funding to Wisconsin counties to cover eligible costs associated with returning these youth to the juvenile justice system. The sum-sufficient appropriation will start with a base of $5 million GPR in FY21 and will be used to reimburse counties for the increased costs associated with raising the age. Expenses eligible for reimbursement will be determined by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) in consultation with representatives of the counties. The change applies to violations under the criminal code, as well as violations of civil law or municipal ordinances. REQUESTED ACTION: SRCCCYs:

• Support LRB-1117, the technical correction legislation. • Support the increased bonding authority included in the Governor’s budget, as well as the

$3.5 million in start-up funding. 17-Year-Olds:

• Support the public policy change, as well as the creation of a sum sufficient appropriation to reimburse counties for services provided to 17-year-olds in the juvenile justice system.

• Specify that counties shall be reimbursed for all costs eligible to be reimbursed under the youth aids program.

9

Youth Justice Services Page 3

TALKING POINTS:

• Absent technical changes to 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, including a change to the timeline, counties may choose to forego SRCCCY operation.

• The technical changes represent clarifications to legislative intent. • The costs associated with moving 17-year-olds to the juvenile justice system are too great

for counties to absorb within current resources. A sum sufficient appropriation is necessary for counties to have the ability to financially support such a significant policy change.

• In 2010, counties reported spending over $217.6 million on juvenile justice services. Of that amount, $100.6 million was funded by youth aids and $116.9 million came from other county funding sources, primarily property tax revenue. Since that time, state youth aids funding to counties was cut by 10 percent, or approximately $10 million annually.

• If the primary purpose for bringing 17-year-olds back to the juvenile justice system is to provide them with the treatment and services they do not receive in the adult system, then it only makes sense for the state to provide the funding needed to offer such treatment and services.

• Failure to fund these costs places the whole juvenile system at risk, as the limited resources available to counties will have to be utilized on an increased number of juveniles.

Contact: Sarah Diedrick-Kasdorf, WCA Deputy Director of Government Affairs 608.663.7188 diedrick@wicounties.org

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Joint Legislative Council’s Report of the Study Committee on the Use of Police

Body Cameras

[2019 Senate Bill 50]

March 12, 2019

JLCR 2019-02

Wisconsin Legislative Council One East Main Street, Suite 401

Madison, WI 53703-3382 Phone: (608) 266-1304

www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lc 21

STUDY COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF POLICE BODY CAMERAS

Prepared by:

Dan Schmidt, Principal Analyst, and Steve McCarthy and Ethan Lauer, Staff Attorneys

March 12, 2019

CONTENTS

PART I: KEY PROVISIONS OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ................................................................. 3

2019 Senate Bill 50, Relating to Body Cameras on Law Enforcement Officers ................................... 3

PART II: COMMITTEE ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Assignment ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Summary of Meetings ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Policy Requirements ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Retention .................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Release ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

PART III: RECOMMENDATION INTRODUCED BY THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL .......................................................... 11

2019 Senate Bill 50 ................................................................................................................................................... 11

Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 11

Description ........................................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX 1 -- Committee and Joint Legislative Council Votes ........................................................................... 15

APPENDIX 2 -- Joint Legislative Council ........................................................................................................................ 17

APPENDIX 3 -- Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras ............................................................... 19

APPENDIX 4 -- Letter to Members From Chair Testin ............................................................................................. 21

APPENDIX 5 -- Committee Materials List...................................................................................................................... 23

22

PART I KEY PROVISIONS OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

RECOMMENDATION The Joint Legislative Council introduced the following bill in the 2019-20 session of the

Legislature.

2019 SENATE BILL 50, RELATING TO BODY CAMERAS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT

OFFICERS

Senate Bill 50 addresses various privacy and public records issues that may arise as a result of the use of a body camera by a law enforcement officer. Key provisions include:

A requirement that a law enforcement agency that deploys a body camera on a law enforcement officer adopt and administer a written policy governing the use, maintenance, and storage of the camera.

A requirement that a law enforcement agency train an officer who wears a body camera on the use of the body camera, and train an employee who handles body camera data on proper storage, retention, and release of that data.

The establishment of a minimum retention period by a law enforcement agency for “routine” body camera data.

A requirement for longer retention by a law enforcement agency for certain “critical incident” body camera data or data that is relevant for administrative or judicial proceedings.

The establishment of a public policy presumption against release of body camera data that shows certain victims, minors, or those having a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Authority for a law enforcement agency to redact identifying images or sounds from certain body camera data before public release, and clarification that such a redaction may be challenged as a denial of release.

23

PART II COMMITTEE ACTIVITY

ASSIGNMENT

The Joint Legislative Council established the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras and appointed the chairperson by an April 9, 2018 mail ballot. Appendix 2 identifies the membership of the Joint Legislative Council at the time the mail ballot was approved. The committee was directed to review law enforcement policies regarding the use of body cameras and recommend legislation to establish uniform procedures regarding the retention and release of body camera video for state and local law enforcement agencies.

Membership of the study committee was appointed by a June 4, 2018 mail ballot. The final committee membership consisted of two representatives, two senators, and six public members. A list of committee members is included as Appendix 3 to this report.

SUMMARY OF MEETINGS

The committee held four meetings on the following dates:

July 26, 2018.

September 13, 2018.

October 17, 2018.

November 13, 2018.

At the committee’s July 26, 2018 meeting, the study committee heard testimony from several invited speakers.

Amanda Essex, criminal justice senior policy specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures, provided the committee with an overview of other states’ consideration and action on police body camera and data management legislation, including proposals on written body camera usage policies, studies on body camera best practices, and funding for the use of body cameras. She noted best practice recommendations by national organizations for data storage, retention, and disclosure. Following the presentation, Ms. Essex answered committee members’ questions about the cost of body camera data storage, whether states have included criminal penalties in their legislation for violation of body camera policies, the application of public records laws, and body camera auditing laws.

Paul Ferguson and Spencer Gustafson, Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ), provided the committee with a detailed overview of the Wisconsin public records law, noting in particular its presumption of complete public access to public records except in exceptional cases. Mr. Ferguson

24

described the roles of various individuals involved in a public records request and provided an overview of what constitutes a record. He outlined how DOJ processes a public records request, including an explanation of the balancing test by which an authority weighs the public interest in disclosure of the record against the public interest and public policy against disclosure. Mr. Gustafson provided the committee with a demonstration of video and audio redaction techniques utilized by DOJ. Following the presentation, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Gustafson answered committee members’ questions about the feasibility of DOJ storing local law enforcement police body camera data, the adequacy of current public records law for body camera data retention and disclosure, and an individual’s right to privacy, including an individual accused of a crime.

Laken Ferreira, associate government affairs manager, Axon, provided the committee with an overview of her company, Axon, which sells body cameras, other hardware, and corresponding software and allowed committee members to inspect a sample body camera. Following the presentation, Ms. Ferreira answered committee members’ questions about the structure of Axon contracts with its customers, the operation of its body cameras, the security of its hardware and software, and its training of officers in the technology.

Hector de la Mora and Andrew T. Phillips, attorneys, von Briesen & Roper, described their experience representing local governments and law enforcement agencies in matters relating to police body cameras. They reviewed previous legislative proposals and advocated for legislation to prevent the absence of body camera data from being a presumption against a law enforcement agency in a court proceeding. Following the presentation, Attorneys de la Mora and Phillips answered committee members’ questions about potential abuse of data collection, advisable limits on public access to body camera data, and the practicality of their favored legislative proposals.

After the conclusion of the presentations, Chair Testin facilitated a preliminary discussion of various options for consideration. The committee discussion addressed such issues as the activation of body cameras, the need for statewide policies, unforeseen implications of future technology, civil liberties, and the desire not to discourage law enforcement from deploying body cameras.

At the September 13, 2018 meeting, the study committee heard testimony from several invited speakers and discussed topics summarized in the Legislative Council Study Committee Memorandum, Potential Discussion Points for September 13, 2018 Meeting (August 30, 2018).

Doug Wiorek, sergeant, and Terrence Gordon, inspector, Milwaukee Police Department (MPD), described MPD’s experience implementing police body cameras. Sergeant Wiorek demonstrated MPD equipment, explained data storage costs, discussed MPD policy regarding activation of cameras, and described length of data retention by MPD. Inspector Gordon discussed the administrative policies associated with retention, redaction, and release of MPD records in response to thousands of requests per year. Following the presentation, Sergeant Wiorek and Inspector Gordon answered committee members’ questions about access to and release of MPD records, maintenance and retention of video records, and procedures for activating MPD body cameras and notifying an individual being recorded.

Heath Straka, president, Wisconsin Association for Justice, presented the position of his organization on the use of police body cameras. Mr. Straka emphasized that body camera data should remain a public record, access to the data fosters accountability and dispute resolution, and

25

body cameras do not lead to increased legal exposure for law enforcement agencies. He also made several legislative recommendations on behalf of his organization in the areas of veto power over release, retention periods, contemplation of civil litigation, and privacy protections. Following the presentation, Mr. Straka answered committee members’ questions about a victim’s ability to prevent release of data and about maintenance of video footage.

Following the presentations, Chair Testin and Legislative Council staff facilitated committee discussion regarding the following areas broached by the Legislative Council memorandum: law enforcement body camera policy requirements, retention of body camera data, and release of body camera data.

Policy Requirements

Committee members generally agreed that body camera policies prescribed by state law should preserve local government discretion in addressing the needs of local law enforcement. Some members preferred merely requiring that a local policy be in place and available to the public, while others wanted to provide guidance in state law as to when a camera would be activated. Members discussed funding for camera acquisition and data storage.

Retention

Committee members generally agreed that a retention period of 120 to 180 days is minimally sufficient for noncritical incident data, with several members indicating that they would like permanent retention. Members also indicated that critical incident data should be retained at least three or four years, pending legal or administrative proceedings on the footage.

Release

Committee members were divided on whether to maintain the current presumption of disclosure of body camera footage when the balancing test was applied under the open records law or to provide a specific release exemption in order to protect the privacy of a victim or witness. Members debated whether redaction technology affords sufficient privacy. Several members indicated that an individual should have the right to refuse to be recorded. Some members indicated that the open records law is sufficient to handle sensitive information like body camera footage, but others expressed concern with a lack of uniformity in release by different record holders under existing law.

Following discussion, Chair Testin indicated that he would work with Legislative Council staff to draft a bill that reflected the committee’s discussion.

At the October 17, 2018 meeting, the study committee reviewed the preliminary bill draft, LRB-0396/P2, relating to police body cameras, which includes portions of both 2017 Assembly Bill 351 and 2017 Assembly Bill 557, and new material. Among the new material is a provision that incorporates aspects of current law related to the so-called “Woznicki fix,” which provides that certain specified individuals have a right to be notified and seek judicial review of an authority’s decision to release certain records that may be considered to be of a highly personal nature. A robust discussion followed the explanation of the bill draft by Legislative Council staff.

26

The committee unanimously agreed to change the bill draft in the following areas: (1) removal of privacy protection for witnesses of a sensitive or violent crime; (2) removal of language regarding the “Woznicki fix”; (3) removal of categorical exclusion on release of “routine” footage, nudity, and matter subject to certain legal privilege; (4) addition of express authority for a requester to challenge a redaction or refusal to release; and (5) removal of express authority to destroy “routine” data after the 120-day retention period.

Members discussed minimum retention periods for body camera data that records a custodial arrest, death, or injury, “Terry stop,” or use of force, particularly with regard to whether the requirement that such data be retained until final disposition of any case or complaint to which the data pertain would be sufficient in all circumstances. Some members felt that a case or complaint might not be initiated until after the 120-day retention period and expressed the desire for a period of the lesser of three years or final disposition of any case or complaint. The committee rejected by roll call vote a motion to modify the bill draft to reflect that three-year period (Ayes, 4; Noes, 5; Absent, 1).

Members discussed whether the bill draft should require a law enforcement agency’s written policy to include situations in which it was presumed that a body camera would be activated. A motion to modify the bill draft in that regard was offered, but then withdrawn.

Members discussed whether the bill draft should require a law enforcement agency’s written policy to include disciplinary measures for violations of the policy. The committee rejected by roll call vote a motion to modify the bill draft in that regard (Ayes, 3; Noes, 6; Absent, 1).

Chair Testin directed Legislative Council staff to prepare a new bill draft that reflected the decisions of the committee.

At the final committee meeting on November 13, 2018, the study committee reviewed the preliminary bill draft, LRB-0396/P4, relating to police body cameras, which incorporated the changes adopted by the committee at its last meeting.

Members discussed whether to insert the term “investigation” on page 4, line 13, between “any” and “case” so that body camera data would be retained to the conclusion of an investigation, without regard to whether a case or complaint had been filed. The committee was unsure whether “investigation” was already implicit in the bill draft and whether there would be confusion regarding when an investigation was complete. A motion to modify the bill draft to accomplish the insertion was offered but then withdrawn.1

The committee discussed whether to replace all forms of the term “censor” with the more commonly used statutory term “redact.” A motion was offered and approved by voice vote to effectuate those replacements.

The committee discussed the sufficiency of the change it had approved at the last meeting to insert a provision granting express authority for a requester to challenge a redaction or refusal to release. Because the bill draft, in the event of data showing a minor, a victim, or an individual in a location with a reasonable expectation of privacy, allows a record custodian only the binary option

1 See Appendix 4.

27

of refusing release or redacting, the members thought it was not clear that a requestor would be afforded the opportunity to challenge for unredacted data. A motion was offered and approved by voice vote to merely authorize (“may”) rather than dictate (“shall”) that binary option.

With regard to data that was used in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, the committee discussed whether the three prerequisites for destruction of such datafinal disposition of the proceeding, a determination from the court or hearing examiner that the data is no longer needed, and an order from the court or hearing examinershould be stated instead in the alternative. The committee also discussed whether to clarify that “final disposition” included the appeals process. A motion was offered and approved by voice vote to modify the bill draft in both regards.

Chair Testin thanked committee members and staff for their service, directed Legislative Council staff to produce a revised bill draft reflecting the committee’s actions during the meeting, and notified the members that they would be sent a mail ballot to approve the final draft.

28

PART III RECOMMENDATION INTRODUCED BY THE JOINT

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL This Part of the report provides background information on, and a description of, the bill as

recommended by the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras and introduced by the Joint Legislative Council.

2019 SENATE BILL 50

Background

Open Records Law in General

Wisconsin’s open records law is contained in ss. 19.31 to 19.39, Stats. Section 19.35, Stats., essentially codifies case law and generally requires that a record held by an authority remain open for inspection and copying. Broadly speaking, an “authority” is a state body, local body, or elected official having custody of a record. Further, an authority usually delegates to a named individual the responsibilities of acting as a legal custodian who will respond to requests for access to records. [ss. 19.32 (1) and 19.33, Stats.]

Wisconsin’s open records law provides that a record must remain open for inspection and copying unless:

1. There is a clear statutory exception to this requirement;

2. There exists a limitation on inspection and copying under the common law; or

3. On a case-by-case basis, a record custodian decides that the harm done to the public by disclosure of a record outweighs the public’s interest in access to the record.

Release of Records

An authority receiving a record request must either fill the request or notify the requester of the authority’s determination to deny the request in whole or in part, including specific reasons for the denial. Every written denial of a request by an authority must inform the requester that if the request for the record was made in writing, then the determination to deny the request is subject to review by mandamus or upon application to the attorney general or a district attorney. [ss. 19.35 (4) (a) and (b), and 19.37 (1), Stats.]

Law Enforcement Records

Wisconsin courts have generally held that while there may be a strong presumption of openness under the open records law, law enforcement investigative records are of a category of records that are particularly sensitive and may have a greater adverse effect on public interests if

29

they are released.2 Despite this recognition, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that decisions against release must be made on a case-by-case basis.3 With this in mind, the Wisconsin attorney general has indicated that the following policy interests represent some of the arguments against disclosure of law enforcement records:

Interference with police business.

Privacy and reputation.

Uncertain reliability of “raw investigative data.”

Revelation of law enforcement techniques.

Danger to individuals identified in the record.

Record Retention in General

Section 19.21 (4) (b), Stats., generally permits a town, city, or village to establish records retention periods by ordinance unless a specific period of time is required by statute. With the exception of certain public utility records, the retention period established by ordinance may not be less than seven years, unless a shorter period is fixed by the Public Records Board (PRB). Section 19.21 (5) (c), Stats., establishes a similar seven-year general retention provision (and exception for retention periods fixed by the PRB) for counties.

Law Enforcement Record Retention

Section 16.61 (3) (e), Stats., permits the PRB to establish the minimum period of time for retention of records for any county, city, town, or village (local governmental units) in Wisconsin. In the case of police body camera video recordings, the PRB has not established a specific minimum retention period. Rather, the board has encouraged local governmental units to seek appropriate legal counsel when establishing a retention schedule for PRB approval and directed the local governmental unit to the state agency retention requirement for monitoring and surveillance recordings for basic policy guidance.

The monitoring and surveillance recordings schedule requires a minimum retention of 120 days before destruction, but generally permits the retention of such records as long as needed for legal or program purposes. The 120-day retention period is generally required because this is the time limit for an individual to file a claim against a governmental body or state employee.4 Legal counsel is specifically recommended because claims for federal civil rights violations, including excessive use of force, in particular, may be filed for up to three years after an incident.5

2 See Linzmeyer v. Forcey, 2002 WI 84, ¶ 30. 3 See Id. at ¶ 42. 4 See ss. 893.80 and 893.82, Stats. 5 See 42 U.S.C. s. 1983 and s. 893.53, Stats.

30

Description

The bill addresses various issues related to the use of body cameras by law enforcement officers, including policies on the use of the cameras, retention by the law enforcement agency of data collected by the cameras, and release of such data to the public.

Law Enforcement Agency Policies, Training, and Compliance Related to Body Cameras

The bill does not require a law enforcement agency to deploy body cameras on its officers, but if an agency deploys such cameras, the bill requires the agency to adopt and administer a written policy addressing the use, maintenance, and storage of the cameras and their data. The policy must include any limitations imposed by the agency on situations, persons, or encounters that may be recorded by a body camera. The bill also requires the agency to train officers who wear body cameras, and employees who handle body camera data, on the proper use of the cameras and the proper storage and release of the data. The agency must post the policy on the agency’s website and must periodically review the agency’s compliance with the policy.

Retention of Body Camera Data

The bill establishes 120 days from the date of recording as the default amount of time during which body camera data must be retained by a law enforcement agency and clarifies that such agency is the custodian of data obtained by its body cameras for purposes of the open records law. Unless the data is the subject of an open records request, the agency is not required to retain the data beyond the minimum 120-day period except under specific circumstances.

Data that depicts any of the following must be retained until the final disposition of any investigation, case, or complaint to which that data relates:

The death of an individual;

Actual or alleged physical injury to an individual;

A custodial arrest;

A search during an authorized temporary questioning (known as a “Terry stop”); or

The use of force by an officer (other than the use of a firearm to dispatch an injured wild animal).

Data must be retained if directed by a law enforcement officer or agency, a board of police and fire commissioners, a prosecutor, a defendant, or a court that determines that the data has evidentiary value in a prosecution. An entity making the directive must submit a preservation order within 120 days from the date of the recording.

Data that is used in a criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding must be retained until final disposition of such proceeding, including appeals, or until a determination or an order by the court or hearing examiner that the data is no longer needed.

31

Release of Body Camera Data

The bill provides that body camera data is generally subject to release in response to an open records request, but includes exceptional treatment favoring privacy over public release for data on certain individuals. To qualify for exceptional treatment, the individual must be: (1) the victim of a sensitive or violent crime; (2) a minor; or (3) in a location in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and must be: (1) visible or audible in the recording; (2) known to the law enforcement agency; (3) not suspected of committing a crime or violation of law in connection with the officer’s presence at the location that was recorded; and (4) not a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity (unless the officer is a victim or alleged victim of a crime or violation of law while present at the location that was recorded). For such an individual, the law enforcement agency may refuse to release the body camera data or may redact the individual’s face or other information that would allow the individual to be identified. The bill clarifies that the decision to redact or to refuse to release data may be challenged under the open records law.

32

APPENDIX 1

COMMITTEE AND JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTES The following recommendation was introduced by the Joint Legislative Council in the 2019-

20 session of the Legislature after being recommended by the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras.

STUDY COMMITTEE VOTE

The study committee voted by a November 20, 2018, mail ballot to recommend the following bill draft to the Joint Legislative Council for introduction in the 2019-20 session of the Legislature. The vote on the bill draft was as follows:

LRB-0396/2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers, passed by a vote Ayes, 9 (Sen. Testin; Reps. Spiros and Taylor; and Public Members Croninger, Dorl, Friedman, Hart, Kass, and Klatt); and Noes, 1 (Sen. Larson).

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL VOTE

After the final meeting of the study committee, Chair Testin notified members that he would recommend to the Joint Legislative Council the adoption of an amendment that was offered and withdrawn during the November 13, 2018 meeting. The letter from the chair to members describing this amendment was included in the materials sent with the mail ballot and is reproduced in Appendix 4. The amendment, WLC: 0007/1, was introduced before the Joint Legislative Council by Representative Taylor.

At its February 13, 2019 meeting, the Joint Legislative Council voted as follows on the recommendation of the study committee:

Rep. Taylor moved, seconded by Rep. Spiros, that WLC: 0007/1 be adopted by the Joint Legislative Council. The motion passed on a roll call vote as follows: Ayes, 20 (Sens. Roth, Erpenbach, Fitzgerald, Jacque, Marklein, Miller, Olsen, Risser, and Shilling; and Reps. Brooks, August, Ballweg, Billings, Hesselbein, Hintz, Nygren, Spiros, Steineke, Taylor, and Vos); Noes, 0; and Absent, 2 (Sens. Darling and Petrowski).

Rep. Taylor moved, seconded by Rep. Spiros, that LRB-0396/2, as amended, be approved for introduction by the Joint Legislative Council. The motion passed on a roll call vote as follows: Ayes, 20 (Sens. Roth, Erpenbach, Fitzgerald, Jacque, Marklein, Miller, Olsen, Risser, and Shilling; and Reps. Brooks, August, Ballweg, Billings, Hesselbein, Hintz, Nygren, Spiros, Steineke, Taylor, and Vos); Noes, 0; and Absent, 2 (Sens. Darling

33

and Petrowski). [LRB-0396/2, and amended, became LRB-0396/3. LRB-0396/3 was introduced as 2019 Senate Bill 50.]

34

APPENDIX 2

JOINT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

SENATE MEMBERS ASSEMBLY MEMBERS

Roger Roth, Co-Chair Senate President Appleton

Robert Brooks, Co-Chair Assistant Majority Leader

Saukville

Alberta Darling JFC Co-Chair River Hills

Tyler August Speaker Pro Tempore

Lake Geneva

Scott Fitzgerald Majority Leader Juneau

Joan Ballweg Markesan

Howard Marklein President Pro Tempore Spring Green

Peter Barca Kenosha

Mark Miller Monona

Dianne Hesselbein Assistant Minority Leader

Middleton

Terry Moulton Chippewa Falls

Gordon Hintz Minority Leader

Oshkosh

Jerry Petrowski Marathon

John Nygren JFC Co-Chair

Marinette

Fred A. Risser Madison

John Spiros Marshfield

Jennifer Shilling Minority Leader La Crosse

Jim Steineke Majority Leader

Kaukauna

Lena Taylor JFC Ranking Minority Member Milwaukee

Chris Taylor JFC Ranking Minority Member

Madison

Van Wanggaard Racine

Robin Vos Speaker

Rochester

This 22-member committee consists of the majority and minority party leadership of both houses of the Legislature, the co-chairs and ranking minority members of the Joint Committee on Finance, and 5 senators and 5 representatives appointed as are members of standing committees.

35

APPENDIX 3

Committee List Joint Legislative Council Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras

Chair Patrick Testin, Senator 5369 Fairview Drive Stevens Point, WI 54482

Vice Chair Chris Taylor, Representative Madison, WI 53704

Kevin Croninger, District Attorney Monroe County Courthouse 112 South Court Street, Room 2400 Sparta, WI 54656

Catherine Dorl, Attorney Manager Office of the State Public Defender 17 S. Fairchild, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 7923 Madison, WI 53707

James Friedman, Attorney Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. 1 East Main Street, Suite 500 Madison, WI 53703

Ben Hart, News Director WISN-TV 759 N. 19th Street Milwaukee, WI 53233

Mike Kass, Chief of Police Brown Deer Police Department 4800 West Green Brook Drive Brown Deer, WI 53223

Jeff Klatt, Captain St. Croix County Sheriff’s Office 1101 Carmichael Road Hudson, WI 54016

Chris Larson, Senator 3233 South Herman Street Milwaukee, WI 53207

John Spiros, Representative 1406 E. Fillmore Marshfield, WI 54449

STUDY ASSIGNMENT: The Study Committee is directed to review law enforcement policies regarding the use of body cameras and recommend legislation to establish uniform procedures regarding the retention and release of body camera video for state and local law enforcement agencies.

10 MEMBERS: 2 Representatives; 2 Senators; and 6 Public Members.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF: Dan Schmidt, Principal Analyst; Steve McCarthy and Ethan Lauer, Staff Attorneys; and Miranda Machgan, Support Staff.

36

APPENDIX 4

LETTER TO MEMBERS FROM CHAIR TESTIN

37

APPENDIX 5

COMMITTEE MATERIALS LIST

[Copies of documents are available at www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lc]

July 26, 2018 Meeting

Presentation, Police Body Cameras: Public Records Law and Retention Considerations, by Paul Ferguson and Spencer Gustafson, Wisconsin Department of Justice (July 26, 2018).

Presentation, Axon Presentation for the Wisconsin Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras, by Laken Ferreira, Associate Government Affairs Manager (July 26, 2018).

Handout, Police Body Cameras, by Doug Wiorek, Milwaukee Police Department (July 26, 2018).

Presentation, State Activity Addressing Police Body Cameras and Data Management Practices, by Amanda Essex, Criminal Justice Senior Policy Specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures (July 26, 2018).

Handout, Police Body Camera Follow-Up Information, from Amanda Essex, Criminal Justice Senior Policy Specialist, National Conference of State Legislatures (September 10, 2018).

Staff Brief 2018-03, Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras (July 18, 2018).

Presentation, Regulation of Use of Body Cameras and Their Data by Law Enforcement, by Andrew T. Phillips and Hector de la Mora, Attorneys, von Briesen & Roper (July 26, 2018).

Minutes of the July 26, 2018 meeting.

September 13, 2018 Meeting

Handout, Body Worn Cameras Standard Operating Procedure, Milwaukee Police Department (September 14, 2018).

Presentation, Police Body Cameras, by Doug Wiorek, Milwaukee Police Department (September 13, 2018).

LC Study Committee Memorandum, Potential Discussion Points for September 13, 2018 Meeting (August 30, 2018).

38

Presentation by Heath Straka, President, Wisconsin Association for Justice (September 13, 2018).

Minutes of the September 13, 2018 meeting.

October 17, 2018 Meeting

LC Study Committee Memorandum, Description of LRB-0396/P2, Relating to Police Body Cameras (October 10, 2018).

LRB-0396/P2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.

Minutes of the October 17, 2018 meeting.

November 13, 2018 Meeting

LRB-0396/P4, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.

Minutes of the November 13, 2018 meeting.

November 20, 2018 Mail Ballot

LRB-0396/2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.

Results of the November 20, 2018 mail ballot.

Letter to Members of the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras, from Senator Testin, Chair of the Committee (November 19, 2018).

Recommendation to the Joint Legislative Council

WLC: 0007/1, an Amendment to LRB-0396/2.

Report to the Joint Legislative Council, LCR-2019-02, Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras (January 7, 2019).

LRB-0396/2, relating to body cameras on law enforcement officers.

Joint Legislative Council Recommendation to the 2019-20 Legislature

2019 Senate Bill 50

Joint Legislative Council’s Report of the Study Committee on the Use of Police Body Cameras.

39

Resolution No.

RESOLUTION APPROVING COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GOALS REPORT FOR PERIOD JULY 1, 2018 - JUNE 30, 2019

  WHEREAS, the St. Croix County Board has provided guidance to the County 1 Administrator by establishing annual goals for the rating period July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019; and 2 3 WHEREAS, the County Administrator has prepared a report highlighting the completion 4 of said goals (attached); and 5 6 WHEREAS, Section II (B) of the County Administrator’s employment agreement 7 (approved December 6, 2016) “Employer at its discretion shall review and evaluate the 8 performance of the Employee from time-to-time, at least on an annual basis and may consider 9 discretionary bonuses.” 10 11 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Croix County Board of 12 Supervisors does hereby approve the County Administrator's Goals Report; establish the next 13 rating period of the County Administrator of July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020, and approves 14 discretionary non base incentive compensation payment of $4,000 (2.5%) as budgeted for the 15 County Administrator to be paid on the anniversary of his contract July 1, 2019.16 Legal – Fiscal – Administrative Approvals:

Legal Note:

Fiscal Impact: Any compensation adjustments would be budgeted for in the 2020 budget. We have $4000 budgeted for discretionary incentive award in 2019.

05/13/19 Administration Committee No Action

Vote Confirmation.

St. Croix County Board of Supervisors Action:

DRAFT

40

St. Croix County Strategic Directions Pursuing innovative strategies to address health and wellbeing issues

Evaluating and prioritizing County services

Adopting effective policies for retention and recruitment

Maintaining and providing for future infrastructure

Adopting zoning ordinance by March 2020

Achieving financial sustainability

• Mental health crisis • Address mental health

issues and prevention (continue to…)

• Drug abuse/family issues and child welfare

• Mental health issues and opioid/drug problems

• Impact of drug abuse • Health and wellness

o Addiction o Mental health o Water quality

• System wide impact of drug & alcohol (ab)use

• Public Safety • Aging population –

Everything • Re-evaluate long-

term care facility and fiscal deployment

• Child protective services

• Prevention programming

• Data integration and automation

• Public safety • Emergency

management • Expand recreation

opportunities for better health

• Services: what to provide and how to provide it

• Plan domestic violence court

• Productivity and focus on improvement of core services

• Improve customer service delivery

• Affordable housing

• Retention of quality employees

• Recruitment and retention

• Labor – how to effectively recruit and retain staff

• Develop innovative initiatives to assist with recruitment and retention efforts

• Wage: benefits study for retention

• Infrastructure – keeping up

• Plan courts expansion • Roads – infrastructure • Growth preparation –

infrastructure o Jail o Roads o Water

• Develop creative way to assist the public with transportation

• Adopt land use ordinances

• Natural resource protection

• Land use regulations vs. landowner rights

• Water quality • Landowner rights

• Fiscal responsibility to afford services and infrastructure

• Financial – budgeting. How to pay for services

• Fill nursing home • Re-evaluate long-

term care facility and fiscal deployment

41

Resolution No. 17 (2019) RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

WHEREAS, the St. Croix County Board holds strategic planning as a top priority; and 1 2 WHEREAS, updating the Strategic Initiatives is the first of four steps in the process of 3 establishing policy direction for St. Croix County: 4

1. Strategic Initiatives 5 2. Budget Guidelines 6 3. County Administrator Goals 7 4. Department Work Plans; and 8

9 WHEREAS, the St. Croix County Board wishes to establish the broad Strategic 10 Initiatives of the County to give guidance to employees and policy decisions; and 11 12 WHEREAS, a process for updating the strategic initiatives was implemented with 13 assistance from UW-Extension. 14 15 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Croix County Board of 16 Supervisors that it hereby approves the following 2019 Strategic Initiatives. 17 18

Pursuing innovative strategies to address health and wellbeing issues 19 Evaluating and prioritizing County services 20 Adopting effective policies for retention and recruitment 21 Maintaining and providing for future infrastructure 22 Adopting zoning ordinance by March 2020 23 Achieving financial sustainability24

Legal – Fiscal – Administrative Approvals:

Legal Note:

Fiscal Impact: Establishing Strategic Initiatives gives guidance for future financial impacts, but the approval of this resolution does not have a direct financial impact.

04/15/19 Administration Committee RECOMMENDED

42

RESULT: RECOMMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dan Fosterling, Supervisor SECONDER: Nancy Hable, Supervisor AYES: Roy Sjoberg, Dan Fosterling, David Peterson, Nancy Hable ABSENT: Tammy Moothedan

Vote Confirmation.

St. Croix County Board of Supervisors Action: Roll Call - Vote Requirement – Majority of Supervisors Present

RESULT: ADOPTED [14 TO 3]

MOVER: David Peterson, Supervisor

SECONDER: Tammy Moothedan, Supervisor

AYES: Schachtner, Miller, Coulter, Sjoberg, Malick, Moothedan, Fosterling, Feidler, Ostness, Larson, Brinkman, Peterson, Anderson, Peavey

NAYS: Daniel Hansen, Judy Achterhof, Nancy Hable

ABSENT: Jim Endle, District 13

This Resolution was Adopted by the St. Croix County Board of Supervisors on May 7, 2019

Cindy Campbell, County Clerk

43

Suggested Goals for County Administrator Evaluation Period July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 Based on Board Adopted Strategic Initiatives

Initiative: Pursuing Innovative Strategies to Address Health and Wellbeing Issues:

1. Complete Nitrate Source Analysis (water quality study recommendations 1B).

Initiative: Evaluating and Prioritizing County Services:

1. Complete mandate service analysis to educate the County on the required services the County provides, and services the County has elected to provide.

Initiative: Adopting Effective Policies for Retention and Recruitment:

1. Implement findings of McGrath Compensation Study.

2. Create an employee survey to create a metric for employee satisfaction and identify trends in issues.

Initiative: Maintaining and Providing for Future Infrastructure:

1. Prepare a Space Needs Study for the Government Center Campus to identify future space requirements and options.

Initiative: Adopting Zoning Ordinance by March 2020:

1. Have zoning ordinance ready for adoption by March 2020.

Initiative: Achieving Financial Sustainability:

1. Increase Health Center Campus bed utilization rate from 68% to 80%.

2. Review and recommend the benefits/feasibility of an on-site or near-site health clinic as part of our health insurance service offerings.

44