Some Milwaukee aldermen are still smarting over Mayor Tom Barrett's end-run to get $597,000 to pay for 20 surveillance cameras for high-crime neighborhoods.

A Common Council committee rejected Barrett's request for the money this summer after complaining that Barrett's office had misled aldermen on how much the cameras would cost.

Barrett responded by unilaterally shifting money from the police and public works budget to pay for the pole-mounted cameras, which did not need the council's approval.

An attempt by aldermen to block the money shift failed. The federal government chipped in some $400,000 for the cameras as well.

At a Finance Committee meeting this week considering the 2008 city budget, Ald. Mike D'Amato tried to take $250,000 slated for staff to watch camera monitors and put it towards hiring more cops on the street.

"This was ill-advised ... back-doored and sidewaysed in," he said of the cameras. "It's time to cut bait."

D'Amato reiterated arguments that the cameras don't reduce crime, but move it to areas without surveillance. "Criminals aren't stupid."

He added that promised payroll savings from the cameras was overrated and that overall police staffing philosophy needs to change.

"If we continue to do things the same way we will continue to do things the same way," he said, alluding to ideas that police aides could just as well be used for tasks that uniformed cops are now doing instead of being on the street. "These amendments offer a fundamental change in how we police."

His idea failed in a 1-4 committee vote, however a similar proposal by Ald. Jim Bohl to eliminate nine monitor watchers was approved, with the savings going into the general budget and not to the Police Department.

"We just spent a million dollars for nothing," offered Ald. Michael Murphy, a supporter of the cameras, noting that there would be cameras but no one to watch what was going on. More amendments will be made at the Common Council meeting Nov. 9.

Easy Money: The law offices of Eggert & Cermele, headed by Milwaukee attorney Laurie Eggert, makes a practice of representing Milwaukee police officers being accused in citizen complaints.

A bill from the firm being considered by a Common Council committee next week is $23,908.75. In a case where attorney Jonathan Cermele billed the city for $2,110.50 for representing four notorious cops, the resulting dismissal of the complaint by the Fire and Police Commission actually had nothing to do with the firm's legal prowess -- the plaintiff in the case happened to be in jail after being arrested on a bail-jumping charge and couldn't make it to testify against the cops.

Talk about convenient timing.

The case stems from a police battery complaint from Draylon Oliver, who accused officers Joseph Warren, Paul Lough, Dean Newport and Michael Lutz of beating him during a 2003.

The four may be familiar to those who follow police brutality accusations. In 2004, Charles Michael Griffin -- a soldier on leave from Iraq -- named Warren and Lough in complaint for using excessive force. Griffin claimed he suffered multiple bruises and a broken shoulder after an altercation with Warren, Lough and two other detectives.

In 2003, Lutz and Newport were involved in the controversial shooting of Timothy Nabors. Lutz shot Nabors, then claimed Nabors had picked up a gun that was slid across the pavement to him by another suspect. Some witnesses in the case said Nabors never even picked up the gun. The fall-out in the case had rippled into the mayor's race at the time.

Part of the crew that Eggert's firm represented in the Oliver case was former officer Ala Awadallah, who pleaded guilty to federal charges of depriving citizens their civil rights in a separate case when Awadallah was taped threatening to plant drugs on a collar. He was dropped from the case after his federal plea.

Per routine accounting procedures, the firm submitted a detailed list of itemized costs at $110 per hour prior to Oliver missing the hearing. The City Attorney's office recommended payment of the amount. "The time spent was reasonable," writes City Attorney Grant Langley.

Aldermen in the past have not raised questions over the Eggert firm's billing, but have made an issue over how much outside representation of accused cops is costing the city.

 Page 1 of 2 (view all on one page)

Next >>

2 comments about this article. Post a comment / write a review.

Recent Talkbacks ...

Posted by danno on Nov. 2, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (report)

A true criminal with a bit of brains will not be deterred by a simple surveillance camera. And a gun ban will prevent criminals from getting guns? Then I guess you believe the War on Drugs is a success too.

Posted by MILWIRISH on Nov. 2, 2007 at 5:05 a.m. (report)

why is the operation of the licence committee so arbritatary?? you never know what the penalty will be!! are underage violations worth 30 days off as well as dealing drugs?? lets close down ALL the bad bars and help the good ones prosper. do the aldermen report ALL the donations from tavernkeepers?