Title: Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization v. City of Milwaukee

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2023 WI 20 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2019AP1319 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, John  
Cwiklinski, Cheryl Ferrill, Kimberlee Foster, 
Dale Grudzina, April Hoffman, Joel Kujawa, 
Christopher Lehner, William McKeown, Jason 
Mucha, Brenda Nogalski, Tony Snow, Albert Carl 
Sunn, Jr., William Welter, Mark Zaremba and Joe 
Farina, 
          Plaintiffs-Respondents, 
Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Association 
Local 215, 
          Intervenor-Respondent-Petitioner, 
     v. 
City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Employees' 
Retirement System, 
          Defendants-Appellants. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 399 Wis. 2d 840, 967 N.W.2d 306 
(2021 – unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 21, 2023   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
October 12, 2022   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Jeffrey A. Conen   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a 
unanimous Court. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the intervenor-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Christopher J. MacGillis, Sean E. Lees, and MacGillis 
Wiemer, LLC. There was an oral argument by Christopher J. 
MacGillis and Sean E. Lees.  
 
 
2 
 
For the defendants-appellants, there was a brief filed by 
Patrick J. McClain, assistant city attorney. There was an oral 
argument by Patrick J. McClain.  
 
 
 
 
 
2023 WI 20 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2019AP1319 
(L.C. Nos. 2018CV1274 & 2018CV6612) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization, John 
Cwiklinski, Cheryl Ferrill, Kimberlee Foster, 
Dale Grudzina, April Hoffman, Joel Kujawa, 
Christopher Lehner, William McKeown, Jason 
Mucha, Brenda Nogalski, Tony Snow, Albert Carl 
Sunn, Jr., William Welter, Mark Zaremba and Joe 
Farina, 
 
          Plaintiffs-Respondents, 
 
Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' 
Association Local 215, 
 
          Intervenor-Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Employees' 
Retirement System, 
 
          Defendants-Appellants. 
FILED 
 
MAR 21, 2023 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J., delivered the majority opinion for a 
unanimous Court. 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed   
 
¶1 
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J.  The Milwaukee City Charter 
entitles firefighters injured on the job to duty disability 
retirement 
(DDR) 
benefits, 
which 
provide 
monthly 
wage 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
2 
 
replacement payments to firefighters unable to continue active 
service.  As with all pension benefits provided to City of 
Milwaukee employees, the City of Milwaukee Employees' Retirement 
System (MERS) administers DDR benefits.  Under the Milwaukee 
City Charter, MERS must pay an eligible DDR beneficiary a 
percentage of the "current annual salary for such position which 
he held at the time of such injury."  MCC § 36-05-C-1-a.  
"Current annual salary" is undefined in the Charter, and its 
meaning is the subject of this dispute. 
¶2 
Under the 2013–2016 collective bargaining agreement 
between Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Association Local 
215 and the City of Milwaukee (CBA1), certain Milwaukee 
firefighters are entitled to a 5.8% "pension offset payment" 
conditioned on an employee-paid pension contribution equal to 7% 
of salary.  Currently, all active Local 215 members make this 
contribution, but DDR beneficiaries do not.  Prior to 2017, MERS 
included the pension offset payment in the "current annual 
salary" for purposes of calculating the amount of DDR benefits.  
In 2017, however, MERS excluded the pension offset payment from 
the calculation of DDR benefits.   
¶3 
The Milwaukee Police Supervisors Organization (MPSO) 
and Milwaukee Professional Firefighters' Association Local 215 
(Local 215) challenged MERS's shift in policy.  The circuit 
                                                 
1 All subsequent references to the CBA are to the 2013–2016 
version. 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
3 
 
court2 granted summary judgment in favor of MPSO and Local 215.  
The court of appeals reversed the circuit court's grant of 
summary judgment to Local 215 but affirmed with respect to MPSO, 
extinguishing MPSO's involvement in this appeal.  Milwaukee 
Police Supervisors Org. v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2019AP1319, 
unpublished slip op., ¶24 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2021) (per 
curiam).   
¶4 
Before this court, Local 215 argues the pension offset 
payment must be included in the calculation of DDR benefits for 
beneficiaries hired before October 3, 2011.  We agree, and 
therefore reverse the court of appeals.  Under the CBA, the 
current annual salary includes the 5.8% pension offset payment; 
therefore, the plain language of the Charter requires MERS to 
include the pension offset payment in the calculation of DDR 
benefits.   
I.  Background 
¶5 
Chapter 36 of the Milwaukee City Charter, titled the 
Employes' Retirement System Act (ERSA), establishes DDR benefits 
for 
any 
firefighter 
whose 
duty-related 
injuries 
cause 
disability.  MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-a.3   The Charter entitles a 
                                                 
2 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Conen, Milwaukee County Circuit 
Court, presided. 
3 MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-a provides, in relevant part:  
(continued) 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
4 
 
qualifying firefighter each year to "75% of the current annual 
salary for such position which he held at the time of such 
injury."  Id.  A firefighter who sustains a career-ending 
disability "that would impair the member's (retiree's) ability 
to earn a livelihood" shall receive "90% of his current annual 
salary" in DDR benefits each year.  § 36-05-3-c-1-b.4  Although 
the Charter does not define the phrase "current annual salary," 
the parties agree the phrase garners meaning from the CBA. 
¶6 
The process by which Local 215 members contribute 
toward their pensions is established primarily in Articles 23 
and 10 of the CBA.  Article 23 requires each firefighter who is 
a MERS member to contribute 7% of his "earnable compensation."  
                                                                                                                                                             
[A]ny 
fireman or 
policeman who 
shall 
become 
disabled as the direct result of injury incurred 
in the performance of one or more specific acts 
of duty shall have a right to receive duty 
disability benefit during the period of such 
disability of an amount equal to 75% of the 
current annual salary for such position which he 
held at the time of such injury. 
4 MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-b provides, in relevant part: 
In the event however that such fireman or 
policeman 
who 
is 
eligible 
to 
recover 
duty 
disability has a disability involving the loss of 
both eyes or the full loss of use of one eye and 
one limb or the full loss of the use of 2 limbs 
or an equivalent disability that would impair the 
member's (retiree's) ability to earn a livelihood 
and such disability is determined by majority 
action of the medical panel or medical council, 
then in such event the disabled fireman or 
policeman shall receive a duty disability pension 
of 90% of his current annual salary. . . . 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
5 
 
To compensate for this cost to the firefighter, Article 10 of 
the CBA establishes "pension offset payments" in the amount of 
5.8% of the biweekly wage, thereby increasing employees' taxable 
compensation.  Article 10 entitles only those employees who make 
the member contribution to receive a pension offset payment.5  
The 
parties 
agree 
DDR 
recipients 
cannot 
make 
the 
7% 
contribution, but they disagree whether the 5.8% pension offset 
payment must be included as part of the "current annual salary" 
used to calculate DDR benefits under ERSA. 
¶7 
Article 10 of the CBA also contains two sets of salary 
grids detailing the biweekly wages of Local 215 members.  One 
set of grids (Section 10(C)) lists the wages for employees hired 
before October 3, 2011.  Another set of grids (Section 10(B)) 
lists the wages for those hired on or after October 3, 2011.  
Within each set, individual grids are labeled with the titles of 
the positions they cover——firefighter, fire captain, fire 
                                                 
5 Article 10 of the CBA provides, in pertinent part:  
Commencing Pay Period 1, 2016, employees hired 
prior to October 3, 2011 who make the member 
contribution in accordance with the provisions of 
Article 23 of this Agreement shall receive an 
additional 2.9% pension offset payment.  The 
pension offset payment to the employee will 
continue to be made as long as the employee makes 
the member contribution.  If the employee does 
not make the member contribution, the 5.8% 
pension offset (2015 offset and 2016 offset) 
payment will no longer be paid to the employee.  
The pension offset payment made to such eligible 
employee shall be base building and pensionable. 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
6 
 
lieutenant, etc.  Each grid includes a wage ladder, the numbered 
steps of which correspond with the number of years worked in a 
particular position.  To illustrate, the grid below applies to 
firefighters and fire paramedics hired before October 3, 2011: 
a. Firefighter 
Fire Paramedic 
 
Step 1. $1,683.57 
Step 2.  1,751.05 
Step 3.  1,940.59 
Step 4.  2,130.65 
Step 5.  2,340.21 
Step 6.  2,571.33 
Step 7.  2,801.98 
A first-year firefighter earned $1,683.57 biweekly.  In his 
second year, his biweekly compensation increased to $1,751.05. 
¶8 
Prior to 2017, MERS used the pre-October 3, 2011 grids 
to calculate DDR benefits for recipients hired before that date.  
The pre-October 3, 2011 grids include the 5.8% pension offset 
payment 
without 
reduction 
for 
the 
requisite 
7% 
pension 
contribution by the employee.  The 7% contribution is typically 
withheld as a payroll deduction from an employee's base wages.  
The figures in the pre-October 3, 2011 grids are therefore 
higher than a Local 215 member's biweekly take home pay. 
¶9 
In 2017, MERS changed how it calculated DDR benefits.  
Prior to implementing that change, MERS asked the Milwaukee City 
Attorney's Office "whether the 5.8% 'pension offset payment' for 
represented public safety employees is includable in 'current 
annual salary' for purposes of MCC 36-05-3-c-l-a."  In a 
memorandum, the Assistant City Attorney opined that "the 5.8% 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
7 
 
pension offset payment is not includable in 'current annual 
salary' as that phrase is used in Chapter 36 of the City 
Charter."  MERS accordingly notified DDR beneficiaries it would 
no longer include the pension offset payment in the calculation 
of their DDR benefits.  Thereafter, MERS used the post-October 
3, 2011 grids to calculate DDR benefits in lieu of the pre-
October 3, 2011 grids.  Because the post-October 3, 2011 set 
excludes the 5.8% pension offset payment, the amount of DDR 
benefits decreased.  MERS also clawed back excess benefits from 
each DDR benefit recipient on the pre-October 3, 2011 roll, 
directing some DDR beneficiaries to return pension payments of 
up to $6,000 per beneficiary. 
¶10 In response, MPSO sought a declaratory judgment and 
injunctive relief against the City and MERS.  Local 215 
intervened, and the cases were consolidated.  MPSO and Local 215 
both moved for summary judgment, arguing the 5.8% pension offset 
payment must be included in the DDR benefits calculation.  In 
turn, MERS and the City also moved for summary judgment, arguing 
the pension offset payment cannot be included.  After a hearing, 
the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of MPSO and 
Local 215, concluding the pension offset payment must be 
included in calculating DDR benefits because the CBA provides 
such payments are "base building and pensionable." 
¶11 The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning the CBA 
conditions receipt of the 5.8% pension offset payment on the 7% 
member contribution.  Milwaukee Police Supervisors Org., No. 
2019AP1319, at ¶19.  Because DDR recipients do not make that 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
8 
 
contribution, the court concluded DDR recipients cannot receive 
the pension offset payment.  Id., ¶20.  According to the court 
of appeals, "current annual salary" equals whatever an employee 
would earn had he never made the 7% contribution or received the 
5.8% pension offset payment.  Id.  Local 2156 filed a petition 
for review, which we granted. 
II.  Standard of Review 
¶12 This case requires us to review a grant of summary 
judgment.  "Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no 
genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is 
entitled to judgment as a matter of law."  Brey v. State Farm 
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2022 WI 7, ¶8, 400 Wis. 2d 417, 970 
N.W.2d 1 (quoting Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v. Islami, 2021 WI 53, 
¶13, 397 Wis. 2d 394, 959 N.W.2d 912); Wis. Stat. § 802.08(2) 
(2021–22) ("The judgment sought shall be rendered if the 
pleadings, 
depositions, 
answers 
to 
interrogatories, 
and 
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of 
law.").  Because the parties in this case have stipulated to the 
facts, we need only interpret ordinances and a contract to 
                                                 
6 The court concluded MPSO's collective bargaining agreement 
did 
not 
condition 
pension 
offset 
payments 
on 
member 
contributions.  Milwaukee Police Supervisors Org. v. City of 
Milwaukee, No. 2019AP1319, unpublished slip op., ¶1 (Wis. Ct. 
App. Oct. 5, 2021) (per curiam).  As a result, the court held 
the "current annual salary" for MPSO members includes the 
pension offset payment.  Id. 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
9 
 
resolve this dispute.  See Lewis v. Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis., 
2001 WI 60, ¶9, 243 Wis.2d 648, 627 N.W.2d 484 ("This case is 
before us on a grant of summary judgment.  Because the parties 
have stipulated to the facts, this appeal only raises a question 
of law") (citing L.L.N. v. Clauder, 209 Wis. 2d 674, 682, 563 
N.W.2d 434 (1997)). 
¶13 To determine whether the circuit court 
properly 
granted summary judgment to Local 215, we must interpret the 
Milwaukee City Charter.  The interpretation of city ordinances 
is a question of law we review independently.  Milwaukee Dist. 
Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2019 WI 24, ¶11, 385 Wis. 2d 748, 
924 N.W.2d 153 (citing Schwegel v. Milwaukee Cty., 2015 WI 12, 
¶18, 
360 
Wis. 2d 654, 
859 
N.W.2d 78). 
 
"In 
interpreting 
municipal ordinances, we apply the same principles used in 
statutory interpretation."  Id. (citing Stoker v. Milwaukee 
Cty., 2014 WI 130, ¶17, 359 Wis. 2d 347, 857 N.W.2d 110). 
¶14 "[S]tatutory interpretation 'begins with the language 
of the statute.'"  Id. (quoting State ex rel. Kalal v. Cir. Ct. 
for Dane Cnty., 2004 WI 58, ¶45, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 
N.W.2d 110).  "We give statutory language 'its common, ordinary, 
and accepted meaning, except that technical or specially-defined 
words 
or 
phrases 
are 
given 
their 
technical 
or 
special 
definitional meaning.'"  Id.  We search for plain and reasonable 
meaning, not ambiguity.  Id., ¶47.  If statutory language is 
unambiguous, 
we 
do 
not 
"consult 
extrinsic 
sources 
of 
interpretation[.]"  Id., ¶46. 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
10 
 
¶15 This case also requires us to interpret the CBA.  Like 
any 
other 
contract, 
the 
interpretation 
of 
a 
collective 
bargaining agreement presents a question of law we review 
independently.  Roth v. City of Glendale, 2000 WI 100, ¶15, 237 
Wis. 2d 173, 614 N.W.2d 467 ("Interpretation of a collective 
bargaining agreement, as with other contracts, presents a 
question 
of 
law 
that 
we 
review 
independently 
of 
the 
determinations rendered by the circuit court and the court of 
appeals") (citing Wis. Label Corp. v. Northbrook Prop. & Cas. 
Ins. Co., 2000 WI 26, ¶22, 233 Wis. 2d 314, 607 N.W.2d 276). 
¶16 In interpreting contracts, courts must ascertain the 
intent of the contracting parties as reflected in the contract 
language.  See Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Girl, Inc., 2004 WI 
2, ¶23, 268 Wis. 2d 16, 673 N.W.2d 65 ("Judicial interpretation 
of a contract . . . seeks to determine and give effect to the 
intent of the contracting parties.").  We discern the intent of 
contracting parties from the plain and ordinary meaning of the 
text.  Tufail v. Midwest Hosp., LLC, 2013 WI 62, ¶26, 348 
Wis. 2d 631, 833 N.W.2d 586 ("We presume the parties' intent is 
evidenced by the words they chose, if those words are 
unambiguous") (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Kernz 
v. J.L. French Corp., 2003 WI App 140, ¶9, 266 Wis.2d 124, 667 
N.W.2d 751).   
III.  Discussion 
¶17 The Milwaukee City Charter grants duty disability 
payments to firefighters who sustain injuries in the line of 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
11 
 
duty.  Section 36-05-3-c-1-a of the Charter provides, in 
relevant part: 
[A]ny fireman . . . who shall become disabled as the 
direct result of injury incurred in the performance of 
one or more specific acts of duty shall have a right 
to receive duty disability benefit during the period 
of such disability of an amount equal to 75% of the 
current annual salary for such position which he held 
at the time of such injury. 
¶18 The Charter does not define the phrase "current annual 
salary," but the parties agree the CBA is the source of its 
meaning.  Because the CBA describes the pension offset payment 
as "base-building and pensionable," Local 215 argues the phrase 
"current annual salary" encompasses that payment.  The City and 
MERS disagree, contending the pension offset payment may not be 
included in "current annual salary" for purposes of calculating 
DDR benefits because DDR beneficiaries do not make the requisite 
7% contribution.  Both parties supplement their arguments with 
extrinsic evidence to resolve any ambiguity.  Resort to 
extrinsic evidence is unnecessary because the phrase "current 
annual salary" is unambiguous and its meaning is discernible 
from the pre-October 3, 2011 salary grids in the CBA.   
¶19 The salary grids detail the biweekly wages for each 
position.  These figures reflect the "current annual salary" for 
employees hired before October 3, 2011.  The grids, located in 
an article titled "Base Salary," list the biweekly wages 
employees in each position received.  The parties agree "current 
annual salary," as used in the Charter, means a position's base 
salary.  Most naturally construed, the figures in the grids——
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
12 
 
multiplied by 26——constitute the base salary for each position 
within the Milwaukee Fire Department.  Because the "base salary" 
for each position in those salary grids includes the 5.8% 
pension offset payment, and the parties agree the "base salary" 
means the "current annual salary," MERS must include the pension 
offset payment in the calculation of DDR benefits, which are 
calculated as a percentage of the "current annual salary for 
each position" under Section 36-05-3-c-1-a of the Charter.   
¶20 Local 215 argues the pension offset payment must be 
included in base salary because the CBA describes the payments 
as "base-building and pensionable."  Although this description 
is unnecessary for purposes of discerning the meaning of 
"current annual salary" under the CBA, the pension offset 
payment does increase the base salary for each position, thereby 
increasing the amount of the DDR benefit payable under the 
Charter.  Logically, the pension offset payment "builds" the 
base salary for both active duty employees as well as DDR 
beneficiaries who are paid a percentage of the base salary for 
the position they held while on active duty.  As the City 
explains, however, DDR benefits represent wage replacements for 
duty-disabled firefighters and are not a pension.  When DDR 
beneficiaries reach retirement age, their eligibility for DDR 
benefits ceases and their pension benefits become payable.  Even 
without the "base-building and pensionable" language in the CBA, 
the "current annual salary" for each position encompasses the 
5.8% pension offset payment.  The salary grids detailing the 
current annual salary for each position therefore obligate MERS 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
13 
 
to include the pension offset payment in its calculation of DDR 
benefits. 
¶21 The City and MERS contend a provision in Article 10, 
Section (C) of the CBA conditions a member's eligibility for the 
pension offset payment on the member making the 7% contribution.7  
Based on that provision, they argue the benefits paid to DDR 
recipients, who do not make the 7% contribution, cannot include 
the pension offset payment.  We disagree.  That provision 
applies to active duty employees, not DDR beneficiaries.  Under 
the CBA, "employees" means only those who are "in active 
service." 
 
Their 
duty-related 
disabilities 
prevent 
DDR 
beneficiaries from being in active service.  Because DDR 
beneficiaries are not "employees," they are not required to make 
the 7% member contribution.  Nevertheless, because the "current 
annual salary" for the positions they held while in active 
service includes the pension offset payment, DDR benefits——which 
                                                 
7 That provision of Article 10, Section (C) provides: 
Commencing Pay Period 1, 2016, employees hired 
prior to October 3, 2011 who make the member 
contribution in accordance with the provisions of 
Article 23 of this Agreement shall receive an 
additional 2.9% pension offset payment.  The 
pension offset payment to the employee will 
continue to be made as long as the employee makes 
the member contribution.  If the employee does 
not make the member contribution, the 5.8% 
pension offset (2015 offset and 2016 offset) 
payment will no longer be paid to the employee.  
The pension offset payment made to such eligible 
employee shall be base building and pensionable. 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
14 
 
are calculated based on a percentage of the "current annual 
salary"——necessarily include the pension offset payment.   
¶22 The provision of Article 10, Section (C) conditioning 
a member's eligibility for the pension offset payment on the 
member making the 7% contribution has no bearing on the meaning 
of "current annual salary" as used in MCC § 36-05-3-c-1-a.  It 
merely disqualifies active duty employees who do not make the 
member contribution from receiving pension offset payments.  
That DDR beneficiaries do not currently make the contribution is 
irrelevant.  The Charter entitles disabled firefighters to a 
disability benefit based on the "current annual salary" for the 
position they held at the time of their eligibility for DDR 
benefits——without conditions or exceptions.  The fact that DDR 
beneficiaries neither receive the 5.8% pension offset payment 
nor make the 7% pension contribution is immaterial because the 
current annual salary for the position held at the time of 
disability includes the 5.8% payment.   
 ¶23 In accepting the City and MERS's interpretation, the 
court of appeals erred.  The court reasoned "the Local 215 
contract clearly requires a member to make the 7% pension 
contribution to receive the 5.8% wage increase but "pursuant to 
ordinance . . . DDR beneficiaries may not contribute to the 
pension plan.  Therefore, DDR beneficiaries are not entitled to 
receive the pension offset wage increase to their base salary."  
Milwaukee Police Supervisors Org., No. 2019AP1319, at ¶20.  The 
court of appeals erroneously conflated DDR beneficiaries with 
active duty employees.  Unlike the latter, DDR beneficiaries 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
15 
 
receive a disability benefit, not a base salary.  CBA provisions 
expressly applicable to employees who are MERS members simply do 
not extend to DDR beneficiaries.   
¶24 In 
adopting 
the 
construction 
of 
the 
governing 
ordinance and the CBA advanced by the City and MERS, the court 
of appeals missed the pivotal fact that DDR beneficiaries do not 
receive the 5.8% as a "pension offset payment" per se, but 
instead because the "current annual salary" for members hired 
before October 3, 2011 includes it.  Presenting an equity-based 
argument, the City and MERS emphasize the fact that "firemen who 
receive the 5.8% increase also have to forgo 7% of their base 
salary as a member contribution," which DDR beneficiaries do not 
make.  We do not balance equities in interpreting either 
ordinances or contracts——we apply their plain meaning.  See 
Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20, 27 (1933) ("We do not pause to 
consider whether a statute differently conceived and framed 
would yield results more consonant with fairness and reason.  We 
take the statute as we find it"); Wisconsin Marine & Fire Ins. 
Co. Bank v. Wilkin, 95 Wis. 111, 115, 69 N.W. 354 (1896) ("It 
must be borne in mind that the office of judicial construction 
is not to make contracts or to reform them, but to determine 
what the parties contracted to do; not necessarily what they 
intended to agree to, but what, in a legal sense, they did agree 
to, as evidenced by the language they saw fit to use."). 
¶25 Finally, the City and MERS contend "exempting" DDR 
beneficiaries from the pension offset language conditioning 
receipt of the 5.8% increase on making the 7% pension 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
16 
 
contribution renders that condition applicable to no one, since 
all active-duty firefighters hired before October 3, 2011 pay 
the mandatory 7% member contribution.  The extrinsic fact that 
the CBA may have created "a category into which no employee 
fits" does not alter the interpretation or application of the 
contract's clear text.  See Milwaukee Dist. Council 48, 385 
Wis. 2d 748, ¶18.  This language of the CBA still "bears a 
textual function," providing that an active duty employee who 
ceases to make the contribution will no longer receive the 
pension offset payment.  Id.  "Any apprehension about the 
existence of a category into which no employee may fit 
necessarily concerns the wisdom" of the language negotiated by 
the City and Local 215.  Id.  Second-guessing the prudence of 
that 
language 
because 
all 
employees 
currently 
make 
the 
contribution "would reach beyond the proper judicial role, which 
is limited to interpreting and applying the clear text."  Id.  
Regardless, the CBA requires the City and MERS to pay each DDR 
beneficiary the "current annual salary" for the position he held 
during active service, and for anyone hired before October 3, 
2011 that salary includes the 5.8% pension offset payment.   
¶26 In addition to their textual arguments, each party 
offers extrinsic evidence to support its analysis.  We consider 
extrinsic evidence only when contractual or statutory language 
is ambiguous.  Kalal, 271 Wis. Stat. § 633, ¶46.  In this case, 
the relevant text of the CBA and the Charter is unambiguous, 
obviating any need for resorting to extrinsic evidence.  Our 
analysis begins and ends with the governing text. 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
17 
 
IV.  Conclusion 
¶27 We conclude the circuit court properly granted Local 
215's motion for summary judgment.  The Charter, read alongside 
the CBA, requires MERS to include the 5.8% pension offset 
payment in the "current annual salary" used to calculate DDR 
benefits for beneficiaries hired before October 3, 2011. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
 
 
No. 
2019AP1319   
 
 
 
1