Good morning, I am furious

Just got home after a 12-hour Common Council meeting. Nine hours of public comment, three hours of questions to staff and ZERO debate. Then the council voted 14-6 to illegally remove Aeiramique Glass as Interim Independent Monitor.

Whatever you may think of the IIM's performance in recent months -- and there is certainly valid criticism -- there were massive legal issues with the resolution as written that passed to terminate her. Because the question was called and my objection failed with an 18-2 vote, I never got to give my prepared speech. Here it is for you now.

Many if not most of the issues we deal with are complex with degrees of nuance. This one is not. It is so, so simple. There are so many problems with resolution 95140 that make it impossible to support if one also wishes to follow the letter and intent of our ordinances.

There is one cause for termination listed, multiple times, in this resolution.

"WHEREAS, the Common Council extended the provisional appointment with no change to the terms of her current appointment, including the primary responsibility to serve as the hiring manager for the posting, recruitment and hiring of a permanent Independent Police Monitor along with performing all of the duties of the position until such time as the position is filled on a competitive basis; and,"

"WHEREAS, the Common Council has reviewed the memorandum dated August 31, 2026, from several City agency heads and the memorandum from the Deputy City Attorney dated October 2, 2026, which identify concerns with the actions of the Interim Independent Monitor in completing her responsibilities, including but not limited to serving as hiring manager for the permanent Independent Monitor;"

Whereas clauses are findings we're meant to act on. I've read many of the blog posts put out by my colleagues that list a litany of complaints, and the memorandums cited are attached to this resolution, but none of those complaints are listed IN this resolution. Tonight, and this morning, alders have engaged in many lines of staff questioning that are not germane to what is before us. APMs, contracting, consultants, media leaks, direct appointments. None of that is addressed in this resolution. They are irrelevant to this discussion. We have wasted so much time on things that are not in the resolution.

On the sole complaint we are examining, failure to hire a permanent independent police monitor: The end of the IIM's appointment is March 31, 2027. How do you fault someone for failing to complete their work when they still have five months during which to complete it?

Is the process not moving as quickly as some would like? Yes, I'd agree to that. The clock is ticking to March 31. But does the Council have the right to influence the process or set an internal schedule or take action because it feels it's not being done correctly?

The resolution further states:

"WHEREAS, the Common Council has determined that the actions of Interim Monitor Glass in failing to complete essential duties of the position constitute a breach of contract with the City and that it is necessary to terminate the extension of her provisional appointment in order to reestablish the City's progress towards effective civilian oversight of the Madison Police Department;"

However, MGO 5.19 section 6b states:

"No City employee or official shall attempt to use their political or administrative position to unduly influence or undermine the independence of the Monitor or any employee of the OIM in the performance of their duties and responsibilities as set forth in this Ordinance."

This means directing work. No alder can tell the IIM to investigate Case A, or to not investigate Case B. I think we all agree that the ordinance rightly forbids such influence. Likewise, the council cannot specify how work gets completed, other than what has been put into ordinance or resolution, such as specifying the primary responsibility to hire the permanent independent monitor by completion of the term. That's March 31, 2027.

Does the Council have the power to fire the IIM for other reasons, beyond the one included in this resolution?

Some alders have argued that since we voted to extend the IIM's position, we have the power to rescind it as well. But that's not exactly what happened. The vote back this spring was a budget amendment to fund the extension from the PCOB with potential double-filling once the permanent IM is hired.

That is the one piece of oversight the Council IS allowed, budgetary. But the resolution before us is not a budgetary amendment.

The Council often confirms extensions of other provisional appointments and in those cases, the Mayor or division director has the power to terminate, not the Council.

MGO 5.19 part 2 states in part:

"The Monitor shall be a managerial employee as defined in M.G.O. § 3.54(9), except that the Monitor shall be recruited, hired, and supervised by the Police Civilian Oversight Board"

MGO 5.19 part 5 states:

"Supervision of the Monitor. The Monitor shall report directly to the Board and the Board's Executive Subcommittee. While it is intended that the Monitor have significant independence and discretion in conducting the day-to-day activities of the OIM, the Monitor shall act as directed by the Board and the Board's Executive Committee."

Furthermore, in resolution 93167, which the Council approved unanimously to extend the IIM's appointment, it states:

"WHEREAS, the PCOB retains oversight over the Interim Independent Monitor which includes the ability to end the appointment at any time;"

In the plainest language, confirmed in that WHEREAS clause, again, approved unanimously by this council, is that the PCOB is the body with oversight and the ability to terminate.

Nowhere. Nowhere in the Madison General Ordinances does it give the Council power to terminate the IIM.

The ordinances outlining the PCOB and OIM were created before my time. I think that they are imperfect. They are certainly unique. The Council ceded a LOT of control to the PCOB, perhaps more than many current Council members would care to admit. To the credit of the original drafters, some of whom are with us tonight, it was a massive undertaking when written, cut from whole cloth, but could certainly use refinement and strengthening to ensure proper checks and balances as well as greater efficacy for the office and board.

However, those ordinances are current law and we must follow the law. This resolution does not follow the law. And thus I cannot possibly support it. Very simply, and it is really that simple, no one who respects the rule of law can support this resolution. I'm going to do my colleagues a solid and give us a chance to avoid an inevitable lawsuit – and therefore I make a motion to place this resolution on file with prejudice.

Unfortunately, I didn't get to offer my colleagues an out and now we can probably look forward to a lawsuit.

Special thanks to former alder Marsha Rummel and neighbor Linda Lehnertz who helped influence and crystalize my position and recognize the legal danger.

I'd love to hear what you think and I look forward to your emails when I wake up this afternoon.