The Madison Common Council voted just after midnight Wednesday to refer proposed changes to the ordinance governing the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) and Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB) to the PCOB for input and recommendations, and a Common Council vote on August 4.
The vote was 16-4, with Alders Ochowicz, Tischler, Field and Figueroa-Cole voting no.
The proposed amendments to the ordinance would give the PCOB greater accountability to the Common Council, specify that it is subject to City Administrative Policy Memos, require quarterly reports and require the OIM to use the city attorney for administrative tasks.
The PCOB and OIM were established in September 2020 to provide independent oversight of the Madison Police Department, analyze data, and investigate complaints from citizens.
On Monday, Interim Independent Police Monitor Meeka Glass, tasked with providing watchdog oversight of Madison’s police department, released a public statement detailing what it alleged were false statements used to damage its office and what it called erroneous front-page headlines in the Wisconsin State Journal.
“False statements about this office and its staff have been used to manipulate news cycles,” Glass wrote in a press release Tuesday.
At the core of the issues facing the independent monitor is a duality in the role performed by Madison city attorney Michael Haas.
Haas is tasked with representing the mayor’s office, the common council, Madison Police Department and the office of the Independent Monitor. Haas’ role is to mitigate risk to the city and provide legal counsel to those entities.
The independent police monitor, however, is a watchdog that inherently provides risk to Madison police and, potentially, the city by investigating and uncovering wrongdoing.
Conflicts of interest abound with Haas in a situation where he simultaneously advises the monitor while also having to protect those whom the monitor investigates.
In separate interviews, both Glass and Police Civilian Oversight Board chair Maia Pearson flatly told Madison365 they do not believe Haas is performing those dual roles equally.
“It is a conflict to have a city attorney that is the police’s counsel and the independent monitor’s counsel,” Pearson said. “We have tried to get him to understand that fact.”
Glass publicly alleged the city attorney’s office has violated Madison’s general ordinance, which 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.”
In a public statement on April 21, Glass pointed to the city attorney selectively applying statutes to obstruct the monitor’s mandated access to MPD while serving in his role as counsel to both entities and alleges the city attorney engaged in coordinating with alders’ amendments that restrict the monitor’s ability to get independent counsel (also while serving as the counsel for the monitor).
“The city attorney demanded that this office disclose all open investigations, citing insurance requirements, while simultaneously representing the department those investigations concern, with no independent counsel available to this office to challenge whether that demand is legally binding,” the public statement reads.
“I made it a point to say, you’re not equally representing all of your clients,” Glass told Madison365. “So, the answer is no, the city attorney is not supportive.”
The public statement, posted on the City of Madison website, lists several bullet points of alleged violations of Madison General Ordinances by city attorney Haas and threatens legal action as a result.
The independent monitor and the PCOB said it is vital that they are allowed to pursue outside legal counsel when they need to confront wrongdoings by police.
A spokesperson for the mayor said they already have the ability to do that and there is budget available for the monitor to get legal counsel in the amount of $50,000.
Beyond that, according to the spokesperson, the monitor will need to apply for money to be allocated to its office during budget season in October.
No such interview
Meanwhile, Glass alleges the Wisconsin State Journal orchestrated false statements in the media about her office.
According to Glass, Chief Patterson contacted her, saying that Gelembiuk had given a sit-down interview to the State Journal, claiming that MPD was denying the monitor access to data. Glass says Patterson told her he was being asked by city staff to respond to that interview.
“Gelembiuk gave no such interview,” Glass wrote in a statement. “Not a sit-down, not by phone, not in any form.”
Glass says that when she informed the chief Gelembiuk had not given any such interview, the chief responded that he had already given the State Journal a statement.
Glass also maintains that the State Journal published a story on April 17 with a headline that “Police watchdog mishandles sensitive data.”
“That headline exists because city staff told the chief something that was not true, did not correct it when the truth was available that same afternoon, and allowed a front page story to be published based on a fabrication,” Glass wrote in a statement.
Chief Patterson confronted the Independent Monitor’s office about Gelembiuk using a personal laptop to store MPD data.
Some of that data, according to Patterson, contained absolutely sensitive information, such as crime victim information, that it was completely inappropriate for any person to have on their personal laptop.
Gelembiuk, according to Glass, did so because city IT would not give him access to the software he needed to perform proper data analytics and he was forced to use his own resources to get that software.
Amend that
Glass has been doing police oversight work for more than 15 years and is dismayed at how far behind Madison is compared to other cities with independent police oversight.
“100% yes, Madison is behind,” Glass told Madison365. “Madison created one of the most powerful ordinances in the country. I wanted to come here and do the work without fighting the same fights like ones we had with police unions fifteen years ago.”
Glass said her office’s charter is powerful.
“This model (that Madison has) represents everything that has been needed, that people have been fighting for,” Glass said.
Her disappointment with Madison’s politics could not be hidden.
“The city is now trying to take away the power of the ordinance because they see what it can actually do,” she said.
MPD, city attorney Michael Haas, and the office of Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway were all contacted for this story. Most wish to provide statements following the vote at Council.
