Weaponizing race + the resolution to terminate the appointment of the interim independent police monitor Aeiramique Glass + hiring a permanent monitor + working towards effective police oversight

posted 

Hi there, 

The conversations surrounding the resolution to terminate Interim Independent Police Monitor (IIPM) Aeiramique Glass has become increasingly hostile.  Every single day, the discussion has moved further away from the question we should be asking: What is getting in the way of effective police oversight, and what must the Common Council do to address it?

We all know that folks have been harmed by policing. We also know that Black folks are disproportionately affected by that harm. Many of us acknowledge that the City of Madison needs effective police oversight. 

But supporting police oversight cannot mean that we ignore and refuse to look at whether what we have is working effectively. And it for sure cannot mean allowing accusations about race to stop us from having an honest conversation about the merits of the resolution. In other words, fears of being labeled a racist should not become the central focus of the discussion.

You know and I know that race is being weaponized when accusations of racism are used to shut down discussions about terminating IIPM Glass. Weaponizing race and attempting to silence each other does not not help us get to effective police oversight, it actually gets us further and further away from it. 

Here is what I need you to understand: 

What is the problem the Common Council is trying to solve?

  • Madison asked for and needs an effective police oversight office, and the City identified significant concerns about the operations of the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM), the completion of essential responsibilities, and progress toward hiring the permanent Independent Police Monitor.
  • The interim position was established primarily to lead the recruitment and hiring process for a permanent monitor while managing the office and serving as the executive secretary to the Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB).
  • Nearly 10 months after Glass began the interim role, the October 2 employment review described a lack of meaningful progress toward hiring a permanent monitor. Other City documents identified concerns involving operations, administrative procedures, contracting, workplace matters, and coordination with City departments.

These issues matter because an office cannot fulfill its purpose simply by existing. 

The question is not whether independent police oversight matters. It absolutely does. The question is whether IIPM Glass is operating in a way that moves Madison towards the effective oversight residents deserve. IIMP Glass has moved us further from effective police oversight and the hiring of a permanent monitor. 

It's important to stop claiming that you're prioritizing the people harmed by policing while refusing to be real about the problems that prevent police oversight from being effective in Madison. 

So how does the resolution address the problem?

The Common Council resolution terminates Glass's interim appointment effective immediately. It is intended to address the concerns identified by the Council and move the City towards effective police oversight.

The resolution notes:

  • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Common Council Chief of Staff shall supervise the staff of the Office of the Independent Monitor until such time as a permanent Independent Police Monitor is hired or until further order of the Common Council.
  • BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Common Council Chief of Staff shall work with the Finance Department to develop a scope of work to engage the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement to support the Common Council's commitment to police oversight.

The resolution does NOT eliminate the position. 

Despite ongoing misinformation spreading across social media, the Chief of Staff is not becoming the next interim nor permanent Independent Police Monitor. This is a temporary role to supervise the office while the City works toward next steps.

It is a step toward addressing the immediate concerns, and working towards effective police oversight in Madison.

What Do the August 31 Memo and October 2 Employment Review Tell Us?

Why does the permanent hiring process matter?

Glass accepted a temporary appointment with the primary responsibility of serving as hiring manager for the permanent Independent Police Monitor. The original job posting stated that the interim monitor was not eligible to apply for the permanent position.

  • Yet the PCOB discussed whether Glass could be directly appointed to the permanent role, and the hiring process was paused at her request.
    • The City of Madison follows a competitive hiring process. The Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB) does not have the authority to directly appoint the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM). Furthermore, under the ordinance, the final hiring decision rests with the Common Council.
  • PCOB members have also made regular comments in their meetings and on social media about their want to “place" her in the permanent position, as well as “directly appoint" her. 
    • That raises a serious governance question: Why establish a process for recruiting permanent leadership if that process can be set aside in favor of directly appointing the person hired temporarily to lead the search?
    • For example if the interim could be “directly appointed", other applicants for the interim position may have applied knowing that was an option for them as well. 
  • The public deserves a process that is clear, credible, and consistent with the terms established for the interim position.

Weaponizing race versus addressing the problem

We all know that racism is real. It affects how Black people are treated in workplaces, institutions, and public life. I would hope that we all agree that allegations of discrimination based on race should be investigated when warranted. 

But race is absolutely being weaponized by some folks as of late. Right now it is a Black person's leadership being called into question and the IIPM being Black is being weaponized to discredit any questions related to her leadership. 

That is different from identifying actual racism. One requires us to examine evidence of discrimination. The other asks us to treat scrutiny as proof of discrimination before examining the actual facts of the situation. 

  • None of us are perfect. We do not all perform every job well. We are not immune from making mistakes, exercising poor judgment, or failing to meet the expectations of a job we were hired to do.
  • Treating Black people as though they cannot be questioned without the questioner being racist is not protection. It is a different kind of dehumanization because it denies Black people the same complexity, accountability, and ordinary human fallibility afforded to everyone else.
  • We can acknowledge racism and still ask whether a person fulfilled the responsibilities of a job they were hired to do. We can oppose discrimination and still examine the merits of a resolution to terminate the employment of a person who happens to be Black.

These principles are not in conflict with one another. 

White folks across Madison, your fear of being called racist cannot matter more than the work necessary to move towards effective police oversight in Madison

There is something I have observed in Madison since moving here almost 20 years ago that continues to frustrate me: some white people become so afraid of being called racist that they are unwilling to name a problem when a Black person is involved.

Of course, I have seen folks willing to scrutinize questionable conduct and challenge organizations when they believe something is wrong. But when the person being questioned is Black, some of those same people become really hesitant. They worry more about how they will be perceived than about whether the underlying concerns deserve attention.

I experienced this regular dynamic when I worked to address concerns about a clinic (led by a white woman) that was all but set to receive $2.4 million in county funding. I raised concerns about information in the application regarding the claim stating that there was staff of color and partnerships with Black organizations. 

White people scrutinized those issues. Why are people willing to name a problem in one circumstance but reluctant to do so in another? Is it because they fear being labeled racist?

I am not suggesting that every white person who disagrees with the resolution is motivated by racial anxiety. Folks can disagree in good faith. But we need to be honest about the pattern I am describing.

When your fear of being called racist becomes more important than examining a problem that affects Black communities, your fear has become part of the problem.

  • If you believe Black lives matter, then the work of the institutions responsible for protecting and serving Black communities should matter, too.
  • You cannot say that Black people deserve effective police oversight while refusing to examine and address concerns about the very office intended to help deliver it. 
  • And you cannot allow the fear of being criticized to become an excuse to look away, say nothing, or just go along to get along.

I am asking that white people who care about racial equity be more willing to do the difficult work of distinguishing actual racism from legitimate questions about performance, process, and accountability. Otherwise, your want to be seen as an ally is taking priority over the needs of the Black people you claim to support.

Your fear of being called racist should not outweigh Black communities' need for effective police oversight.

Misinformation and disinformation does not help get us to effective police oversight, at all.

  • I've seen so much misinformation and disinformation spreading across social media. And I don't know how any of that is supposed to help get us closer to effective police oversight. 
  • I've lost count of the number of conversations I've had with people who tell me about something they read on social media and then after I suggest they read the resolution, memo, and review, they find that they may have not said certain things if they had read that info first. 
  • Making decisions based on false narratives has consequences. In this case it is pulling our attention away from the work required to actually have effective police oversight.
  • If you genuinely care about civilian police oversight, I ask you to set aside some time to read the resolution and attachment titled employment review. 

People who want effective oversight deserve more than arguments shaped by often false social media narratives. 

So where do we go from here?

  • The resolution is a step toward addressing the concerns identified by the Council. It is not the end of the work necessary to have effective police oversight in Madison.
  • The work ahead includes maintaining OIM operations, restoring progress toward hiring a permanent monitor, and engaging NACOLE to support the City's next steps.

I support effective civilian police oversight. That is why I believe we have a responsibility to address problems that are standing in its way.

I also believe that racial equity requires more than defending every Black person in a position of authority from scrutiny. It is necessary for us to build institutions that work for Black communities and to hold those institutions—and the people entrusted with them—accountable.

We can take racism seriously without treating every decision as being racist. We can support Black leadership without pretending that a Black leader is not doing the job we hired them for.

The question is not whether we should support civilian oversight. We should.

The question is whether we are willing to do what is necessary to make it effective and 

The City of Madison and especially  Black community members deserve more than the mere existence of police oversight. They deserve oversight that is effective. And getting there requires us to confront the problems standing in the way—even when doing so is uncomfortable.

Links to info referenced: 

  1. Resolution language

  2. Employment Review + August Memo can found here

Categories:

Was this page helpful to you? * required