Framework to Evaluate Resolution to Terminate the Interim Independent Monitor

October Resolution to Terminate:

At the Common Council Meeting on 10/6/2026, a resolution was introduced from the floor to terminate the appointment of the Interim Independent Police Monitor (Legistar File #95140).

June Resolution to Extend Initial Appointment:

In June of this year, the Council unanimously voted to grant one extension of her initial appointment from 6/8/2026 to 3/31/2027 at the latest.

Framework to Evaluate Termination Resolution:

I had already been looking into city processes (as they intersect with the OIM), meeting with various City Staff, and sitting in on PCOB meetings well before we received a memo outlining concerns from other Agency heads on 8/31/26. I have a couple additional meetings this week and am drafting a full breakdown of the memo and 10/2/2026 'employment review' to share additional context later this week. In the meantime I want to share a set of questions I have put together as a framework for evaluating the resolution.

Questions I am asking myself and encourage my colleagues to consider:

1. Is the information shared to Alders or shared to the public regarding the Interim IM complete? What gaps are there?
   1. Are the assumptions made in various memos, justifications of the need for this resolution, or overall allegations against the interim monitor/PCOB sharing the full context of the situations being described?
   2. Are there any factual inaccuracies in what is being reported? 
2. Is this action even legal (especially the installation of the council chief of staff as supervisor of the office…)?
3. Does terminating the Interim Independent Monitor do anything substantial to address structural issues that have been identified by the council, city staff, the Interim IM herself, the PCOB, or the Public since the office became fully operational for the first time earlier this year?
4. If 3 is considered yes: Is it worth the damage to public trust and already strained PCOB-Council relations or potential litigation that will result from this explicit subversion of existing ordinance and PCOB supervisory authority?
5. What still remains to be resolved to ensure the structural questions are addressed so that all the same conflicts don't repeat with the Permanent IM Position?
6. Is there any evidence to suggest the PCOB is not adequately performing their supervisory duties? Are there past examples of their supervisory work to look to? (The answer to these questions hinge on sensitive personnel information and will not be able to be shared publicly in detail, but there are examples of complicated supervisory work, not to mention the interim hiring process carried out late last year)

Ordinance Notes:

• The ordinances establishing the PCOB (Police Civilian Oversight Board and OIM (Office of Independent Monitor) are very clear in establishing the PCOB as the recruiting, hiring, and supervisory authority over the IM. 
• The OIM ordinance also includes language stating "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".

Pending Key Questions to Staff to Further Guide Deliberations:

1.  In order to fully evaluate the 'Employment Review' distributed to all alders and many news outlets on 10/2/2026 I have asked for:
   1. A few example scenarios where an 'Employment Review' was done in the past
   2. Copies of said 'Employment Reviews'
2. What criteria are we to consider for evaluate the interim IM's execution of her end of the contract in order to rescind the extension?
   1. Are there guidelines we need to consider in justifying our decision?