Statement from the City Attorney on the proposed PCOB ordinance update

Message from Madison City Attorney Michael Haas:

I am aware of social media posts and emails related to a pending ordinance proposal which would modify the method for choosing some members of the PCOB.  Those communications allege that Assistant City Attorney Andrew Schauer is using the ordinance proposal “as an opportunity to give some control of the PCOB to the police union by way of the Mayor.”  They further imply that Attorney Schauer was the driving force behind the ordinance proposal and that he seeks “to strip power from the community” in its oversight of the Police Department.

I am writing to clearly state that these claims are false attacks on the integrity and character of Attorney Schauer and they misstate the role that our office serves in representing the PCOB or in drafting ordinances.  I am writing not only as Attorney Schauer’s supervisor, but as the City employee who has attended more meetings of the PCOB than anyone else and who has assisted with its inception and organization since it was first proposed by the Common Council.  Furthermore, especially based on my experience in the administration of elections, it has become clear that misinformation and disinformation appearing on social media that are not promptly corrected too easily becomes part of a folklore of conspiracy theories that people come to accept as true.

Before being hired by the City in the fall of 2023, Attorney Schauer worked for the Wisconsin Professional Police Association (WPPA), a statewide association that represents police unions and sworn officers in their negotiations and in disciplinary matters.  As part of our vetting process, the interview team questioned Andrew about transitioning to a role with the City in which he would be on “the other side” representing the Police Department in disciplinary matters.  He is not involved in collective bargaining with the police union, as that is handled by the Human Resources Department.  Andrew clearly articulated what is second nature for attorneys, that we have an ethical obligation to represent and advocate for our current clients, and continuing to hold a law license depends on whether we uphold that responsibility and oath. If we encounter a conflict of interest due to past representations of former clients, we have a professional obligation to advise both parties and to offer to withdraw from representation in a matter.  

Attorney Schauer’s transition from working for the WPPA to representing the City is no different than the common practice of attorneys switching career paths from, say a prosecutor to a defense attorney, or from a plaintiff’s attorney to an insurance defense attorney. It happens all the time and there is nothing unusual or nefarious about it. In fact, Andrew’s experience with WPPA has been a benefit to the City, in that he brings a well-rounded understanding of the perspective of police officers and the police union when it comes to disciplinary matters, and he is a credible voice in communicating with the WPPA.

Over the last year and a half, we have transferred the primary duties of staffing the PCOB meetings and representing the Office of Independent Monitor from myself to ACA Schauer, as my primary interest was to see the Board through its initial organizational stages and hiring of an Independent Monitor. ACA Schauer has done a commendable job of representing and supporting both the PCOB and the OIM. Andrew’s role with the ordinance at issue has been no different than what I would have done or expected any attorney in our office to do in effectively assisting the PCOB and OIM. Ordinance proposals must be drafted by the Office of the City Attorney and we do so at the request of City staff, elected officials or City boards, commissions and committees. In this case, Attorney Schauer worked with members of the PCOB, IM Copley and Ald. Figueroa Cole on a draft ordinance amendment modifying the process of appointing Board members due to difficulties at the time in obtaining the required nominations from designated nonprofit organizations. Andrew did as he was asked, working with the Independent Monitor and the lead sponsor to resolve any procedural issues.  

In drafting ordinances, our office may identify legal issues or policy questions to be addressed but we do not take positions on whether the ordinance should be passed, unless the ordinance has to do with a subject matter under our jurisdiction. We simply draft the ordinance language to accomplish what was requested and leave it to the elected and appointed policymakers to determine whether it should be adopted. That is the approach followed by Attorney Schauer. Practical questions arose about the proposed appointment process and he consulted with appropriate staff and officials to resolve them so that the ordinance would be workable.  

To put it bluntly, neither ACA Schauer nor the Office of the City Attorney has a position regarding whether the proposed ordinance is good policy or whether it still addresses a need at this point.  That is for the Council to decide. We simply do not care about the fate of the proposed ordinance. To suggest that we do, and that Attorney Schauer would use his position to undermine the purpose of the Board that he is charged with representing, without any hint of evidence, is unfortunate and uninformed, to say the least. If there were any such evidence, I would expect it to be brought to my attention so that I could address it, rather than simply posting unfounded allegations on social media or in emails to City officials. As the individual who manages our office, I feel I must correct those false statements so that City officials and members of the public are not left with questions about our role in the process and are confident in the representation our office provides.

The proposed ordinance is Legistar item 85327.  At the request of the PCOB, the Common Council has re-referred it to the PCOB’s Policy and Procedures Subcommittee for consideration at its meeting on February 26th before returning to the Council at its meeting on March 11th. It is not on the agenda for this evening’s meeting of the PCOB. Members of the public may provide comments regarding any topic regardless of whether it appears on the agenda.  While the public may comment on the proposed ordinance, members of the Civilian Oversight Board or its subcommittees may not discuss it at a meeting until it appears on its agenda.