Information About Proposed Amendments to Office of Independent Monitor Ordinances

Tuesday's Council agenda includes a resolution that proposes  changes to the Madison General Ordinances that create and govern the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM), overseen by the Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB). I'm a cosponsor of the proposal along with Alders MGR Govindarajan (whose service as an Alder ends at noon on Tuesday), Yannette Figueroa-Cole, and Sabrina Madison. Alder MGR, the lead sponsor, shared this memo explaining his intent.

Proposed Changes

The ordinance changes clarify that the OIM, while remaining independent in its responsibilities and authority to conduct investigations and make recommendations, is subject to applicable laws, City procedures, and City policies as are other City agencies. Examples include participating in the annual City Budget development process, following the Prohibited Harassment and/or Discrimination Policy for City employees, and following data security and software policies required by City Information Technology. This was not specified when the original ordinance was adopted in 2020. This Nov 2025 memo about a very serious and reckless data mishandling incident by an OIM employee, and this defensive response by that employee (see Nov 10 email on page 2), illustrate that Council needs to be very clear that the OIM staff cannot flout rules that other agencies must follow to keep sensitive data safe. This oversight body is charged with very important work. It needs to follow these process safeguards to maintain trust and credibility.

The proposal also clarifies the OIM's use of legal counsel via representation by the Office of the City Attorney. The City Attorney already defends OIM just like any other agency. The City Attorney protects the City and the public's General Fund dollars in litigation no matter which agency's activity has resulted in lawsuits. To illustrate this, here's a summary shared by Alder Govindarajan of the City's defense costs incurred while defending OIM in lawsuits. (I think there's a legitimate need for a way to resolve internal records-sharing disagreements where the City Attorney and OIM disagree about legal interpretations related to OIM access to police records related to an OIM investigation. That's not addressed here.)

Finally, the proposal adds subjects to be addressed in the OIM's quarterly reports and the Police Civilian Oversight Board's annual report. Reporting from this office under the former Independent Monitor was seriously lacking. I appreciate that the new Interim Independent Monitor already plans to report much of this information on a quarterly basis. Adding this expectation to the ordinance ensures that the practice will continue under future Monitors as well.

Legislative Process

PCOB members in their March full Board meeting voted unanimously to reject any changes to this ordinance, citing their opposition to any ordinance changes driven by elected City officials, without actually going through the proposal to discuss the appropriateness or impact of those individual changes. Here's a link to the recording of that discussion if you want to see for yourself. Therefore, Tuesday's Council agenda lists the PCOB's recommendation that the proposal be “placed on file" (this is process-speak for rejection). 

I expect there will be multiple amendments proposed by alders on Tuesday; three are already in legistar: first, second, third. Comments on this proposal can be emailed to allalders@cityofmadison.com. You may also register your position, or register to speak at the meeting, using the registration information in the above section of this blog post.