Alex Prochaska, Editorial Intern
At the Village of Arena Board of Trustees regular meeting held April 9, the board ended their automatic aid agreement with the Town of Arena and formed a new Public Safety Committee which will consist mostly of board members rather than residents.
The board also finalized a survey to residents for input on public safety, pledged to consult their municipal attorney about reimbursement for mutual aid the Arena Police provide to the county and voted to change the fire and EMS contract it holds with the town of Arena.
New Public Safety Committee
Trustee Jim Doerflinger was the first to suggest abolishing the current Public Safety Committee, which consisted of three Arena residents who were not board members. Doerflinger claimed he was unsure if the committee was effective, as communication between the committee and the board was lacking.
“I don’t want to make it sound like the board is trying to do some power grab here, but something needs to be done by someone. It might as well be us.”
“We obviously have a really big problem with our police. And they’re still not as bad as no communication with this committee,” said Doerflinger, referring to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Arena Police Department. Nick Stroik, Arena police chief, announced in November 2023 the entire department was changing from full-time to part-time and due to inadequate benefits and low morale due to disrespect from the board. Arena officers have since taken positions with the Iowa County Sheriff’s Department as the board has held a series of special meetings with closed sessions to plan how to move forward.
The “Handbook for Boards, Commissions, and Committees: Village of Arena”—a reference guide for board, commission and committee members concerning Wisconsin law—says the Public Safety Committee’s role is to counsel Arena police about community concerns and to advise the board about police operations. The handbook says the committee is to consist of three citizen representatives.
Kate Reimann, Arena village president, raised the possibility of having two board members and one citizen on the new committee, rather than three citizens.
“I don’t want to make it sound like the board is trying to do some power grab here, but something needs to be done by someone. It might as well be us,” said Doerflinger.
Reimann alleged she invited the chairperson of the committee to a meeting in March, and the chairperson didn’t respond. Reimann also alleged the committee held their last meeting in November 2023, even though they were supposed to have a meeting in January 2024.
The board passed a motion abolishing the old and forming the new Public Safety Committee. The new committee will be composed of two board members and one citizen. The new committee will meet once a month and report to the full board. Reimann said the board will have to redo ordinance 2.10.040(3), which defines the committee, its power and responsibilities. Reimann did not specify when the ordinance redo would be completed or if she considered the measure taken by the board to have completed that action.
Law Enforcement Response Agreement
In an ongoing discussion of public safety in the village, Trustee Melissa Bandell proposed rescinding a longstanding agreement the Village of Arena has with Iowa County that provides automatic mutual aid when a call comes in for the Town of Arena. The agreement saved minutes in response time where an Arena police officer may otherwise be waiting in limbo for a mutual aid request from the County. On a motion by Doerflinger the board rescinded the agreement.
While it wasn’t clear from the meeting notice ahead of the meeting what action the board was contemplating taking on the law enforcement response agreement, if any, Bandell said she wanted to rescind the agreement based on her interpretation of Wisconsin Statute §66.0513.
“Wisconsin Statute §66.0513 tells us that we should be reimbursed and it tells us how we should be reimbursed. So if there is a call for service from Iowa County to deputize our police, this says that we should get their wage, salary, pension—any other service—we get reimbursed for all that,” said Bandell. “So we are expected under state statute to pay our police officers when they leave the village. That is what statute says, that when they have a call for service they do lead, this is not mutual aid. This is deputizing our police. So that’s a misnomer. It is not mutual aid. Our police have been deputized when they leave. In that instance, they are paid employees, and then we are to be reimbursed. And that’s not currently happening. We need to be reimbursed. It’s under state statute that we need to be paid. So in this case we would be paid by the county.”
Legal Editor’s Analysis: Police can likely ignore Board’s action on agreement
I have been asked to briefly address the law enforcement mutual aid agreement between the Village of Arena and the Town of Arena, and also to address whether the public notice given by the Village Board of their taking up action on the agreement and on changes to its Public Safety Committee are sufficiently detailed under law.
I’ll address the notice issue first. The most important case in this area is Buswell v. Tomah Area School District. In that case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that notice was expected under the statute to be reasonable, which is a complicated question: “The reasonableness standard requires taking into account the circumstances of the case in determining whether notice is sufficient. This includes analyzing such factors as the burden of providing more detailed notice, whether the subject is of particular public interest, and whether it involves non-routine action that the public would be unlikely to anticipate.”
These are typically cited factors but not the only possible ones. The goal of the statute is to give the public access to the greatest possible information, and notice may be insufficient merely for failure to note that action on an item is anticipated—in this case, the law enforcement response agreement item on the agenda failed to note any specific action was being contemplated by the board, including the resulting action of scrapping the agreement. It’s not easy to assess without context. Someone more interested in this is likely to have more information which might make a notice that is otherwise vague sufficient for those who have the greatest interest. I don’t think this action is completely unanticipated, but otherwise I think the notice is arguably insufficient. The big factor for me is always burden. Would it really have been so hard to spell things out a little more closely? I think secretaries and clerks try to make notices very brief and succinct just because that’s a style many people like, but the statute doesn’t care about saving paper. It would have been fairly easy to put a couple of lines of explanation there and there would be no issue.
Regarding the automatic aid agreement, I think the first thing you need to look at is Wisconsin Statute 175.46. State statutes authorize police agencies to enter into mutual aid agreements. So you may need to ask, if the police departments want to reach an agreement authorized under this statute, does the village even have the authority to stand in the way? Supposedly the only limitation is that the Department of Justice receives a copy for review. Of course the statutes also give plenary power to village boards, so there is a conflict here, but a court might say that because specific statutes are deemed to control over more general ones, there is a strong indication that the state legislature intended to give this as an unhindered power to police agencies to promote and facilitate mutual aid as a public good.
The Village is obviously concerned with payment for police services because it cites Wisconsin Statute 66.0513. That statute basically says, the police get paid for work lawfully ordered from outside their jurisdiction exactly as they would otherwise, but the ordering jurisdiction fully reimburses. There’s a little detail on what kinds of benefits are covered, and what orders to work cause the statute to kick in, but it’s basically: your boss still pays you and your boss gets reimbursed. The statute is silent on how this happens. It is implied that the jurisdictions and officers will perform the necessary communication upon which the mandatory transactions are predicated. If I were advising a reimbursing jurisdiction, I would suggest paying an estimated amount even if no invoice were received, because the statute says shall. On the other hand, if they wanted to pass an ordinance making the mandatory payment contingent on getting a bill within 30 days, it’s not so obviously wrong that I wouldn’t defend it.
In terms of its interaction with payment, a key part of section 66.0513 is that it only creates payment obligations for the work of an officer “required by command of the governor, sheriff or other superior authority to maintain the peace, or who responds to the request of the authorities of another municipality.” Nothing in this suggests a request or command must be case-by-case. There could be a standing request for assistance whenever certain conditions are met. A mutual aid agreement may stand as a kind of general request. If one department promises aid and the other department gives some consideration for that, it at least suggests that the aid is desired. One could say, “you requested these services when you made an agreement to obtain them.”
Without an agreement, what would happen? I don’t think there’s any way for the village to prevent the town from simply issuing a standing request that calls from its citizens be answered as they would if they came from Arena whenever law enforcement services are required.
An officer who responds to a request would ordinarily only do so as authorized by their own department. The statute appears to say that they get paid for any response to a request from another municipality. It appears that theoretically, if say the Kenosha county sheriff were to issue an open call for assistance, an Arena officer would be entitled to pay for responding, even without authorization from the Arena PD. Of course, Arena is entitled to control its officers and could forbid this and penalize an officer (note that when I say “Arena” I do not necessarily mean the village board: penalization of officers is not a responsibility of the board), but it does not appear under the statute that they could avoid payment, at least not if it is interpreted literally.
One other factor that floats over this is that officers are obviously directed by their own department, and their powers outside their jurisdiction might be limited. Common law gives them the same powers as citizens to arrest, and state statutes both give them broader powers when outside their jurisdictions, including emergency response powers, and also offers their departments the opportunity to expand those powers in specified ways by adopting departmental policy. All of this is in section 175.40. Just because police have powers does not mean that using them is required or requested, but having those powers in the first place is a precondition to exercising them, so that limits the range of police actions that we should be talking about in the first place.
This is my hot take on relatively short notice. It’s not intended as legal advice.
—Gary Ernest Grass, esq., Legal Editor
Reimann agreed Arena should be reimbursed. When the board asked Bandell if she had verified her interpretation of the statute with Municipal Attorney Paul Johnson, Bandell said no—but she insisted other municipalities got reimbursed like she was proposing.
Due to questions of interpretation, the board passed a motion stating they will consult with Johnson about the statute.
Iowa County regularly provides police services to the Village of Arena, with Doerflinger himself being arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct-Domestic and Battery on April 13 by the Iowa County Sheriff’s Office (with assistance from the Dane County Sheriff’s Office), according to a release by the Iowa County Sheriff’s Office.
Citizen Survey
The board also finalized a survey for Arena residents, which the board said they will use to guide their future decisions about police employment and budgeting.
The mailed survey will present three options for residents, along with the estimated budget and tax burdens of each option.
Option A says “Maintain Current Structure: We continue with two full-time and one part-time officers. (includes salaries, benefits, equipment, two vehicles, police dog and drone) … Annual budgeted amount: $195,968 … Tax amount per $100,000 of assessed value: $331.23.”
Option B says “One Full-Time Officer: Reduce to one full-time village of Arena officer. (includes salary, benefits, equipment, one vehicle) … Annual budgeted amount: $123,137 … Tax amount per $100,000 of assessed value: $208.13.”
Option C says “No Village of Arena Police Department: Arena would not maintain a local police department (police matters will be serviced by Iowa County). Arena will contract/hire for ordinance enforcement. (includes compensation for a maximum of 4 hours per week) … Annual budgeted amount: $12,480 … Tax amount per $100,000 of assessed value: $21.09.”
“…if nothing else, [the survey will] determine how many torches and pitchforks are waiting for us outside, when we do this thing.”
The tax burden for each option is calculated on the assessed value of a citizen’s property, meaning for every $100,000 a citizen’s property is worth, they will pay the listed estimated tax amount each year. For example, for option C, the cheapest option on the survey, a citizen with a house worth $200,000 will pay approximately $42.18 annually for the service.
The board decided to include a budget section on the survey where residents can rank basic public services they want prioritized over others. The five categories to be prioritized are police, fire/EMS, infrastructure (which includes water and sewer, roads and stormwater control), business development and parks and recreation.
There will also be a box on the survey where residents can make comments to the board.
The survey will be mailed April 19 and must be returned by May 17. Each household in the village will receive one survey.
“[The survey] is going to give us a ton of valuable information. And if nothing else, it’ll determine how many torches and pitchforks are waiting for us outside, when we do this thing,” said Doerflinger, alluding to possible future actions of the board.
Fire and EMS agreement
The board also discussed the contract it shares with the Town of Arena to provide joint fire and EMS services to residents, the discussion focused on whether to renew the 2007 contract as is, or negotiate a new agreement between the two entities.
The board ultimately voted to negotiate a new contract, after determining a variety of concerns with the current contract. However, Doerflinger originally made a motion to renew the existing contract, but rescinded later, citing a lack of information on the contract.
The board discussed concerns that the EMS budget was not being done according to statute, and suggested there should be separate budgets for fire services and EMS services, which includes all revenue from each.
Make up of fire board voting power was also an issue for the board. Under the current agreement, the joint fire board meets monthly and consists of two members from the township, one member from the village and one member from the fire department.
In the joint agreement, the village holds 30% ownership of the department, with the town holding 70%.
The village will work with their attorney to suggest a new contract, and is required to have notice of changes to the town by May 1. The agreement must be reviewed and renewed by August 1 of each year.
The board will hold a special meeting at 6 p.m. April 22 at the Village Hall to discuss the fire and EMS contract.
