On The Vote to Terminate Interim Independent Police Monitor Aeramique Glass

Hi everyone. I wanted to publish a blog post on the upcoming council vote to terminate the contract extension of the interim Independent Police Monitor. This has been by far the most challenging decision I have had to make as alder, and I want folks on all sides of this issue to know that I did not make it lightly. In the end, I have decided that the best way to ensure a fully operational and effective Office of the Independent Monitor in our city is to vote in favor of this resolution to relieve IM Glass of her duties.

I know that this choice will be very disappointing to a lot of my allies in the fight for police reform and accountability. I wanted to publish this before the council meeting on Tuesday so that none of my constituents were surprised by my vote that night. I understand if some of you feel betrayed by this decision, but I would ask that you read through my reasoning here. As I'm sure many of my college professors would tell you, brevity has never been a strength of mine, so please forgive the length of this post. I have struggled mightily with this decision, and I wanted to fully reflect my thought process here and all of the factors in play.

The Power to Terminate the Interim IM

The first question I sought to answer was whether the council even has the power to terminate the Interim Independent Monitor. The ordinance makes it clear that the power to supervise the Independent Monitor falls to the PCOB and its Executive Subcommittee, but does say that the appointment of the IM must be confirmed by the Common Council. I stated before that I don't believe that the Council should have the power to fire the IM, and I think that is still largely the case, but talks with the city attorneys and other members of the council have caused me to add two caveats: 

First, I believe that it is significant that IM Glass is serving in an interim position. Unlike a permanent appointment, this position has a fixed length (one which was set and already altered by the Council) and remains a provisional appointment for the length of that term. As Attorney Mike Haas stated to me and other council members, “The Council's authority to extend or terminate the provisional appointment is separate from and not affected by the PCOB's authority to supervise the activities of the position. I believe the Council is well within its authority to act on the resolution."

Second, I believe the intent of the ordinance is to protect the Independent Monitor from undue Council influence into their investigations and police reform responsibilities. As is stated in the resolution and as I will cover later in this post, those are not the reasons why this termination is being pursued. So I am led to agree with Attorney Haas and other council members that this is a valid action for us to take.

What this vote is not about

I think it is helpful before getting into the factors that led me to my choice to cover the issues which did not play a role. My decision (and I believe the decisions of many of my colleagues) is based on the failure of the Independent Monitor to fulfill specific requirements of her job that were the basis for her contract extension, and I do not want this vote to be conflated with my stances on the following issues:

Police Oversight and the OIM

The most important thing I want to say is that this vote in no way means I am turning my back on the Office of the Independent Monitor or the concept of police oversight in general. I voted for additional funding for the OIM last month, and I stand by that decision. I will continue to advocate for more funding for this office so that it can properly and fully fulfill its roles as laid out in the ordinance. In the last year, the OIM has made major strides, including releasing its first annual report with detailed data about racial disparities in Madison policing and closing the first cases in the office's history.

This is also not a vote about trusting the police over the voices of advocates within the community. I will keep pushing for answers and policy changes from MPD to address the severe racial disparities in use of force and arrest rates, but I no longer believe that keeping IM Glass in her role is an effective way to get those answers or changes.

Corey Ruiz's Killing and the Protests 

This vote is also not related to the police killing of Corey Ruiz or the IM's participation in the protests that followed. I have seen some online say that the council is seeking to fire IM Glass to prevent an investigation into the officers' actions on that day. This could not be further from the truth. The district attorney absolutely must prosecute the officer who shot Corey Ruiz, so that his guilt or innocence may be determined by a jury of his peers. A review into whether that officer or others present should be disciplined or let go by MPD should only take place after criminal proceedings are concluded, which would presumably be long after a new IM was hired, regardless of whether or not IM Glass leaves her post now or in March when the contract is set to expire. 

This vote is also not about the IM speaking at the protests that followed the killing of Mr. Ruiz. While I may not have used her exact wording when addressing the crowd, I do believe that being in community with protestors and activists, gathering input from aggrieved parties, and displaying a commitment to oversight in the wake of police misconduct are all valid roles for the Independent Monitor and their staff. A lot has been made about whether or not these actions allow the monitor to be objective in their investigations, but I believe the role of the monitor is more akin to a prosecutor than a judge, and that independence is not equivalent to impartiality. I talked more about this in my last blog post, and I'd invite you to read it to hear more of thoughts on this subject.

IM Glass's Interaction with Police on August 4th

Another event which has been cited as a possible influence on this vote has been the physical altercation between IM Glass and MPD officers on August 4th, which led to, among other things, IM Glass sustaining injuries, saying on a since deleted facebook video that she would “burn this city down", and a judge awarding a temporary restraining order against the IM for an officer involved in the incident. Recently, the Green Bay Police Department, who had been tasked with investigating this incident by MPD Chief John Patterson after local organizations declined to take on that role, recommended charges against IM Glass to the Dane County DA. I have my own questions about the scope and findings of that investigation (e.g. did the GBPD look into possible officer misconduct or solely the actions of the IM; why were certain witnesses not interviewed as part of the investigation), but like the investigation of the Ruiz killing, that report will not be available until at least after the DA makes his charging decision, and possibly not until after criminal proceedings have concluded. 

I have heard from plenty of people that the IM's words and actions on this date should be enough to warrant her termination, as well as from people who contend that the MPD's actions on this day prove that there is a concerted effort to harass and intimidate IM Glass and her supporters. In my opinion, this interaction necessitates an independent review from another municipality's police oversight board before any of those conclusions can be drawn. Also, while I would hope that I wouldn't use the IM's language following an encounter like that, I know that we can't be fully in control of our words in that sort of situation. I am disappointed in how the IM has responded to criticism of those words, but I don't think the actions of that day should impact our vote on this matter.

Investigation into Richard Lee Johnson's Death

Lastly, I have seen critics online say that the Council and/or Mayor are trying to fire IM Glass as a means of burying and/or retaliating against her office's report on the death of Richard Lee Johnson following an encounter with police in 2024. The report released by the OIM contends that Mr. Johnson's cardiac arrest was not due to cocaine poisoning as initially filed in the Medical Examiner's report, but was rather “restraint-related cardiac arrest and metabolic acidosis directly caused by police action." (This is a vast oversimplification of the report's very detailed findings, and I encourage you to read it yourself)

I think this report raises incredibly valid questions both about the incident in question and the investigation that followed. I think the investigation must be reopened, as does every other alder I have talked to about this matter. No one is trying to stop or stymie the process of getting to the bottom of what actually happened to Mr. Johnson that day and making sure it does not happen again. There are some concerns I have about the IM's follow-through on the recommended actions of this report, but I will cover those when I get to the things that are impacting my decision. For now, I just want it to be clear that this is not retaliation and that we are not trying to make this case go away.

Why I am Voting Yes

With those issues out of the way, I now want to cover the reasons why I am planning on voting Yes on the resolution to terminate IM Glass's contract:

Failure to Hire Permanent Monitor

The chief reason for my vote is the interim Police Monitor's failure to facilitate the hiring of a permanent Monitor to oversee the OIM. In the job description of the Interim Monitor position, the chief roles of the job were “serving as the hiring manager for the next Independent Police Monitor and [overseeing] the Madison Police Department's compliance with internal policies and procedures." It was also stated that the position was only to last “for the duration of time needed to fill the permanent Independent Police Monitor Position, which is expected to last approximately six to nine months." (This was later revised to 12 months by our HR Director to accommodate a longer community engagement process) Lastly, the description stated clearly that “the incumbent of this position will not be eligible to apply for the permanent position." 

I say these facts to underline that the interim position, while expected to conduct the work of an Independent Monitor and help put the OIM back on the right track after the resignation and mismanagement of the previous IM, was defined largely by the task of hiring a permanent monitor and doing so expeditiously. The duty of selecting the next IM does fall to the Police Civilian Oversight Board, but as both the hiring manager for the position (in charge of recruiting candidates and guiding the process) and the Executive Secretary of the PCOB, the interim IM has an outsized role in determining the success and speed of that search. With that in mind, it has been incredibly disappointing to see IM Glass not treat that aspect of her job with the seriousness it requires. Little progress had been made on this front in May of this year, when the council voted to extend IM Glass's contract to complete the search. I understood the delay at that point – the OIM was in a major state of disarray, there was a lot of turnover on the PCOB, and the interim IM needed to dedicate more of her time to making sure the basic tasks of the office (publishing the annual report, conducting case reviews) actually got done. The contract was extended until March 31st or the onboarding of the new IM, whichever happened first, with the understanding that this would now be the chief priority of the IM and PCOB. In June, the PCOB met in full and discussed a timeline for hiring a new IM that would begin with listening sessions in June, July, and August, a job posting in September, and a final selection completed by the end of the year. Obviously, we should not have expected the PCOB to stick to that timeline after the shooting of Corey Ruiz shifted their attention and short-term priorities (though I would argue a high-profile case like this is even more impetus for us to hire a permanent monitor who can oversee what is sure to be a lengthy review, discipline, and policy update process), but little progress had been made in the month between that PCOB meeting and the shooting, and only recently has any additional progress been made in this regard.

The other aspect of this that weighs on me is IM Glass's ineligibility to apply for the independent monitor position. This was stated in the job description and reiterated by the City Attorney and HR Director throughout the last year. All applicants for the interim position had to acknowledge that accepting that role made them ineligible to apply for the permanent position since they would be serving as hiring manager. There has been some contention about whether the interim monitor could be selected to fill the permanent position if she recused herself from the hiring process. IM Glass has stated that she would not participate in a competitive process to hire the new IM and had recused herself from conversations about ways in which the PCOB could appoint her to the permanent role. I believe it is correct for her to not participate in a competitive hiring process, since she would hold an unfair advantage over other applicants both due to her position as the interim IM and her relationship with the PCOB, which are exactly why the interim was prohibited from applying. 

I disagree, however, with IM Glass's tact that she could instead be appointed directly by the PCOB without a competitive process. Our HR Director, with input from the City Attorneys, informed IM Glass and the PCOB that while a provisional hire can be appointed and have their contract extended by the council, all permanent position hires in the city must go through a “Civil Service Process" including posting the job, screening candidates, interviewing eligible applicants, and making a selection based on consistent criteria before the contract is voted on by the Common Council. It is not possible for any board or even the common council to “directly appoint" someone to a permanent role without going through this process. Moreover, even if that were possible, I think the same questions of fairness would apply, and applicants who chose not to apply for the interim position so that they could be eligible for the permanent role would still be within their rights to sue the city for maneuvering around that requirement. IM Glass's contention is that the PCOB wants her to serve in the permanent role and that since she serves at their discretion, she is obliged to pursue the path they choose. She further contends that hiring for an Independent Police Monitor position cannot follow standard city appointment and recruitment policies. 

Ultimately, my decision on this vote comes down to the fact that I disagree with IM Glass on those two points of contention. The IM's commitment to the wishes of the PCOB, well-intentioned as they may be, do violate the city's commitment to fair hiring and the civil service process in my opinion. I would be inclined to issue that as guidance to the IM and allow the remainder of her contract to play out, but from what I have seen, IM Glass is not going to change her mind on this point. Recently, the PCOB created a survey for the community to provide input on what they want from the permanent IM. This form was initially shared via the personal social media pages of PCOB members, as well as the personal page of IM Glass. The comments on this post largely championed the idea that IM Glass should be selected as the permanent monitor. IM Glass did not in any way indicate to those commenters that she could not or would not seek the permanent role. She has, to my knowledge, never publicly stated that she won't seek this position and has continued to pursue this appointment. Based on this, I do not have faith that IM Glass would effectively pursue the recruitment and appointment of someone else to the role of permanent IM if she were to continue to serve in the interim role. Seeing as this is one of the two primary roles of the interim IM position, I cannot vote to allow her to continue in this role.

Failure to Follow City Policies 

The other major determining factor in my vote is the refusal of the OIM under IM Glass's leadership to follow city policies, specifically in contracting and purchasing. My colleague Alder Vidaver summarized the issue well in her blog post, so I will quote her here:

“The City's APMs include such things as contracting and purchasing processes, workplace accommodations, workplace violence prevention and response, teleworking policies, meeting notices, paid leave policies, etc. The APMs are mostly procedural and non-controversial implementations of state laws and City ordinance. Some of these work rules detail processes to protect the rights of City employees, including those supervised by the IM. IM Glass has continued to discount the necessity of following these work rules, even though they are applicable to every other employee of the City of Madison. Further, she has openly flouted them stating “we do not have to comply with APMs other than what we do in good faith when I feel comfortable doing so". As a result, IM Glass has no valid contracts with any external investigator or attorney, as none of those contracts have been submitted through the normal City process. 

Why is it important that contracting rules be followed? Because any contract executed by the City is paid for by taxpayers and thus requires “sunshine", meaning the public must have access to the information. These rules are in place to ensure there is no nepotism or unfair labor or procurement processes that occurred in the selection of the vendor, and that the contractor is not in any way debarred or suspended from doing business with the City. 

IM Glass contends that engaging in standard City processes is not required of her, yet the ordinance overseeing her office (Madison Municode 5.19(7)(h))(external) plainly states: “…It is also anticipated that from time-to-time the Monitor may need to engage independent contractors, such as an investigator, to assist in fulfilling the duties of the OIM. In doing so, the Monitor shall follow all City of Madison contracting requirements…" (emphasis added). Thus, it is unclear why IM Glass believes she does not have to follow these procedures.

There have also been multiple HR issues within the office, including lack of adherence to telework and Family & Medical Leave policies."

I don't have much to add here, other than to say that I was initially receptive to the claims that requiring the OIM to follow all city policies by ordinance may compromise their investigative independence. I voted to table that motion in my first meeting as alder in April, with the understanding that the OIM, PCOB, and Council members would meet in the months following to figure out which specific APMs would be harmful to that independence. That meeting never occurred, and the stance of the OIM and PCOB remained as total opposition to adhering to any city policies. This is still a large issue that we need to solve to make sure the OIMs findings and actions are above reproach and hold up when challenged. I don't believe that it is a problem that IM Glass is looking to solve.

Other Concerns 

There are a few other areas where I feel the IM is failing to live up to the expectations of her role. Ideally, I would trust the PCOB to supervise the IM as the ordinance requires, but the ongoing nature of some of these issues has led me to lose faith in their willingness to do so. The main issue here is the OIM's conduct towards members of the Common Council and other city employees. Certainly, there has been poor decorum on both sides of these debates, but the attacks on my colleagues – specifically describing them as “evil" – go well beyond the pale and should have been recanted. More broadly, I think the overall communication strategy of the OIM has been lacking. The office closed its first cases in its history this year, but did not publish those cases onto its website until I requested they do so while reviewing their annual report. No further cases have been added in the months since, despite cases being closed. The OIM also hasn't released a blog post or press release in over two months, meaning the public has not received updates on their work or the search for a new IM. As noted before, there's been some struggle with follow through after the release of the Richard Lee Johnson report, chiefly a failure to respond to an open records request from the Dane County Medical Examiners Office. Lastly, there's been a breakdown in communication between the IM and MPD Chief John Patterson, which IM Glass seems reluctant to mend. While the cause of this rift is in dispute, the OIM cannot effectively implement reforms without a working relationship with the police chief (as is called out directly in the ordinance), and it does not appear to me that this will be the case so long as IM Glass is running the office.

Final Thoughts

As I said at the top of this (and as I hope is clear from my writing), this is a decision I struggled with mightily. I did not want to rush into this decision given the perhaps dire consequences it will have on the relationship between the Common Council, the PCOB, and the police reform activist community more broadly. And yet, given the circumstances we find ourselves in, I have come to the conclusion that in the long run, the Office of the Independent Monitor and police oversight in general will be stronger if we terminate IM Glass's provisional contract and partner with the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement to pursue the search for a permanent monitor in earnest. There will need to be mediation, reconciliation, and a rebuilding of trust for all parties involved, and I have no doubts that will be a long and arduous process. But it is the path we have to take, and the only one I see that will allow us to fully realize the mission of this office and bring substantive reform and oversight to our police department. Again, I understand if some of my constituents and friends feel let down by this decision. But I hope you now understand why I made it, and what I hope can be gained by doing so.

Programming Note 

The other issue which I've been receiving a lot of questions about is the city's new proposed data center policy, which includes potential zoning for large scale data centers in parts of our district. The Sustainable Madison Committee, of which I'm a member, will receive our briefing on the proposal on Monday. I will ask plenty of questions then (please send me yours if you have any) and will publish an update later that week.