62.50(20)(20) Circuit court review; notice. Any officer or member of either department discharged, suspended or reduced, may, within 10 days after the decision and findings under this section are filed with the secretary of the board, bring an action in the circuit court of the county in which the city is located to review the order. Such action shall begin by the serving of a notice on the secretary of the board making such order and on the city attorney of such city, which notice may be in the following or similar form:

62.50(21)(21) Certification and return of record; hearing. Upon the service of the demand under sub. (20), the board upon which the service is made shall within 5 days thereafter certify to the clerk of the circuit court of the county all charges, testimony, and everything relative to the trial and discharge, suspension or reduction in rank of the member. Upon the filing of the return with the clerk of court, actions for review shall be given preference. Upon application of the discharged member or the board, the court shall fix a date for the trial which shall be no later than 15 days after the date of the application except upon agreement between the board and the discharged or suspended member. The action shall be tried by the court without a jury and shall be tried upon the return made by the board. In determining the question of fact presented, the court shall be limited in the review thereof to the question: “Under the evidence is there just cause, as described in sub. (17) (b), to sustain the charges against the accused?” The court may require additional return to be made by the board, and may also require the board to take additional testimony and make return thereof.

62.50(22)(22) Costs; reinstatement. No costs may be allowed in the action to either party and the clerks’ fees shall be paid by the city in which the department is located. If the decision of the board is reversed, the discharged or suspended member shall forthwith be reinstated in his or her former position in the department and shall be entitled to pay the same as if not discharged or suspended. If the decision of the board is sustained, the order of discharge, suspension or reduction shall be final and conclusive in all cases.

62.50(23)(23) Duties of chief. The chief engineer of the fire department and the chief of police of a 1st class city, shall be the head of their respective departments. The chief of police shall preserve the public peace and enforce all laws and ordinances of the city. The chiefs shall be responsible for the efficiency and general good conduct of the department under their control. The board may review the efficiency and general good conduct of the departments. A chief shall act as an adviser to the board when the board reviews his or her department. The board may issue written directives to a chief based on a review of the chief’s department. The chief receiving a directive shall implement the directive unless the directive is overruled in writing by the mayor. Each of the chiefs shall maintain and have custody of all property of their respective departments, including but not limited to, all books and records, which shall be available and subject to inspection by the board.

62.50(24)(24) Signal service department. All apparatus and all mechanical appliances requiring the use of telegraph or telephone wire or other wire for signaling purposes, with the consequent use of the public highways, together with such wire and all appurtenances to such apparatus and the constructional work therefor, may be placed under the management and control of a separate department. Such department shall be established and the compensation of the superintendent and all employees of such department shall be fixed by ordinance of the common council. The superintendent of the department shall be appointed by the board, and all other employees of the department shall be appointed in the same manner, and shall be subject to removal upon the same conditions as the members of the fire and police departments, and wherever applicable this section shall apply to such department the same as to the fire and police departments.

62.50(25)(25) Chief examiner. The board may appoint a chief examiner. The board shall prescribe the chief examiner’s duties and compensation, which shall be paid by the city on the certificate of the board. Such examiner is subject to removal at any time by a majority of the board, and the board may change such duties and compensation at any time as it deems proper. The board may fix and alter compensation for any other examiners appointed by the board, and such compensation shall be paid by the city on certificate of the board.

62.50(26)(26) Reservation of existing terms. Nothing contained in this section may be construed to affect the term of office of any person who is a member of any police or fire commission in any city of the 1st class nor to affect the term of office of any member appointed to fill out the unexpired term of any person who is a member of such commission at the time this section first applies to such city.

62.50(27)(27) Mayor to appoint additional members. A mayor of a city of the 1st class, whether acting under a general or special charter, shall appoint a sufficient number of members for the police and fire commission of such city so that the commission shall conform with this section, and such additional members and their successors shall be appointed for a term of 5 years.

62.50(28)(28) Engaging in political activity. Subject to the requirements of ch. 164, the common council of any 1st class city may enact an ordinance which regulates the political activities of its law enforcement officers, as defined in s. 165.85 (2) (c), including, but not limited to, providing for leaves of absence for members who are candidates for or who are elected to public office.

62.50(29)(29) Officers’ rights. In case of a conflict with ch. 164, the provisions of ch. 164 supersede the provisions of this section.

62.50 AnnotationThe finding of the City of Milwaukee Board of Fire and Police Commissioners was insufficient in failing to specify what particular wrongful acts the officers performed or why those acts constituted conduct unbecoming an officer under the circumstances, and in failing to make separate findings as to each officer, because in making its determination the board is required to state specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in the manner required of state agencies under this section. Heffernan, 247 Wis. 77 (1945), is overruled. Edmonds v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 66 Wis. 2d 337, 224 N.W.2d 575 (1975).

62.50 AnnotationAn arbitrator exceeded the arbitrator’s power by directing that the grievant be transferred when the contract reserved transfer authority to the city and chief of police. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee Police Ass’n, 97 Wis. 2d 15, 292 N.W.2d 841 (1980).

62.50 AnnotationA circuit court may sua sponte address constitutional issues not presented by the parties but must allow the parties to develop a factual record pursuant to sub. (21). Slawinski v. Milwaukee City Fire & Police Commission, 212 Wis. 2d 777, 569 N.W.2d 740 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1347.

62.50 AnnotationWhen multiple disciplinary charges and suspensions arise from a single transaction, the length of the suspension for purposes of sub. (13) must be measured by aggregating the suspensions. Parker v. Jones, 226 Wis. 2d 310, 595 N.W.2d 92 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-3218.

62.50 AnnotationIt is unconstitutional to condition continued public employment upon a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination. An employee may be required to answer questions in a disciplinary hearing when granted immunity from criminal prosecution. There is no immunity for uncoerced false statements made during a disciplinary investigation. There also is no requirement for Miranda, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)-like warnings, which in their absence would require the suppression of all statements made in the disciplinary proceedings. Herek v. Police & Fire Commission, 226 Wis. 2d 504, 595 N.W.2d 113 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1927.

62.50 AnnotationSub. (9) only designates who must fill vacancies and new appointments in the department, not when the vacancies must be filled. It does not create a positive duty to fill vacancies as they occur. If the chief determines that vacancies can be filled by promotion with safety to the department, the chief must fill these positions by promotion, but the chief is not required to fill those positions at any certain time. Pasko v. City of Milwaukee, 2002 WI 33, 252 Wis. 2d 1, 643 N.W.2d 72, 99-2355.

62.50 AnnotationThe board of fire and police commissioners has express and implied authority to promulgate a rule implementing sub. (19) pertaining to complaints by aggrieved persons against a member. Sub. (19) implicitly conveys some powers to the board because it leaves open some of the methods by which the board should operate. State ex rel. Castaneda v. Welch, 2007 WI 103, 303 Wis. 2d 570, 735 N.W.2d 131, 04-3306.

62.50 AnnotationPolice officers who are discharged have a right to a trial before the board that comports with due process. The legitimacy of a discharge is not “disposed of by the board” under sub. (18) until the board provides such a trial. Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. City of Milwaukee, 2008 WI App 119, 313 Wis. 2d 253, 757 N.W.2d 76, 07-2433.

62.50 AnnotationSubs. (11) to (19) require a just cause due process hearing only when a police officer or firefighter has been disciplined. There is nothing in the statute’s language or context that suggests that this section applies to an officer placed on unpaid Family Medical Leave Act leave. Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. Flynn, 2011 WI App 112, 335 Wis. 2d 495, 801 N.W.2d 466, 10-2254.

62.50 AnnotationCorrecting a mistake of law is neither specifically authorized nor specifically prohibited, but compliance with the specific standards imposed on the board by statute is certainly expected by the legislature. The board is a quasi-judicial body and was functioning as such when it held hearings into the alleged infractions of the rules and regulations of the Milwaukee Police Department in this case. The authority to reconsider a decision based on an error was implicit in the grant of authority to the board as a quasi-judicial body. Schoen v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 2015 WI App 95, 366 Wis. 2d 279, 873 N.W.2d 232, 14-2821.