“We hire the Police Chief. In our role of hiring the City of Madison Police Chief, we expected our Police Chief, as the leader of the Department to serve as an example for the entire Department, and always be beyond reproach no matter how frustrated or how harassed he or she may feel.
Respondent failed in this instance.”
These words of the Madison Police and Fire Commission comprise their decision to find MPD Chief Mike Koval guilty of misconduct but free from any punishment. Normally, the commission demands evidence to prove claims made about a defendant, but for some reason this time they felt they could extend their Chief, the one they hired, an exception to the standard when they go on to say:
“However, we regard the comments as isolated and literally unique within the Respondent’s record of service.”
What? How can they know this? It was never stipulated as a fact of the case and no research was ever conducted to eliminate reasonable doubt about the factuality of this statement.
Why would the PFC come to the Chief’s defense by concluding that his comments, but more accurately, his misconduct, was “isolated and literally unique” from the standpoint of MPD policy absent any research? There is a Latin phrase, argumentum ad ignorantiam, that means “arguing from ignorance” and it is exactly what the PFC did here.
For some reason, the PFC felt comfortable asserting on their own, without the backstop of proof provided either by Koval’s defense or any investigation revealed during the trial, that the Chief’s behavior towards Sharon Irwin was an anomaly. The members of the PFC seem to have fallen prey to a fallacy whereby absence of evidence of prior bad behavior is evidence of absence of prior bad behavior. This is, however, far from the case.
If the PFC hadn’t been so eager to reassure the Chief they hired that they still had his back, they could have easily reviewed the most recent public examples he set for his department on his professional blog. They might have found themselves reading a post he issued on June 5th, 2016 where he mocked outspoken Madison citizens (“the perpetually offended”) upset over recent officer-involved killings and admonished the city’s alders for daring to request a review of MPD’s policy, culture and training threatening: “To the Common Council: You are being watched. And be on notice: this is a pre-emptive first strike from me to you.”
They might have then watched the entire recorded June 7th Common Council meeting submitted as evidence, and not just the brief snippet framed by Attorney Pines, where Koval huffs in his seat, stomps out of council chambers more than once, and literally goads multiple alders into remarking on the threatening, disruptive and out-of-order nature of his behavior. They had it all right there, but they never looked. It’s almost as if they didn’t want to.
They could have gone back a little further, to a March 2015 letter Koval wrote to the alders shortly after Tony Robinson’s killing and the resulting public outcry, and found themselves wondering what he meant when he charged: “your collective silence is DEAFENING,” “It is unacceptable for elected officials to remain silent while an institution like the MPD is sullied with drive-by disrespect”. How loudly does he have to blow his dog whistle to signal to his white, “blue lives matter” supporters that Black people criticizing his department is akin to gang activity and will not be tolerated?
Is this what the PFC considers “beyond reproach”?
Or, how about when the chief responded to the civil disobedience activities of a group of Black, queer, human rights activists comprised of some of our city’s most economically and racially discriminated against by comparing them to undisciplined children: “When I was recently watching the dynamics of a 5-year-old pawing through the various candies at the checkout section of a grocery store, the parent involved must have warned the child at least a half-dozen times to stop the behavior. All of the threats to punish went unheeded; in fact, the parent allowed the activity to persist and then surrendered and bought the child some candy in order to cease and desist! I cannot let the same be said for understanding that there are consequences for foreseeable behavior which exceed the bounds of reasonableness.”
Is this supposed to “serve as an example for the entire Department”?
Despite the PFC’s strong claim that the chief must “always be beyond reproach no matter how frustrated or how harassed he or she may feel,” these compelling but by no means exhaustive examples prove that the Chief’s behavior towards Sharon Irwin was in no way isolated or unique.
“Respondent failed in this instance.”
No, in this instance, the PFC failed.
It failed Sharon Irwin, it failed the city’s elected officials, and, most importantly, it failed all of you, the City of Madison.
