Madison is preparing to put cameras on its police officers. MPD is creating a new section dedicated to service excellence and accountability. And now, an alder wants to remove Independent Police Monitor Aeiramique Glass and put the Common Council’s chief of staff in charge of her office until a permanent monitor is hired.
We’re supposed to look at all of that and feel reassured?
I don’t.
I support Monitor Glass. I oppose the proposal to terminate her interim appointment. And when I look at these developments together, I see a city moving toward an arrangement where it produces the evidence, reviews its own conduct, and has more control over the person who’s supposed to question its conclusions.
That looks a lot like bringing accountability back under management.
Alder Will Ochowicz’s removal proposal is expected before the Council on October 20. Glass hasn’t been removed. There’s still time for the Council to reconsider, and there’s still time for residents to insist that it does.
First, though, we need to address this “employment review.”
Madison’s ordinance assigns the recruitment, hiring, and supervision of the monitor to the Police Civilian Oversight Board, with Council confirmation of the appointment. The PCOB conducts the monitor’s official performance evaluation. The City Attorney’s advisory review isn’t that evaluation and cannot substitute for it.
Even City Attorney Michael Haas acknowledged that his document wasn’t an official performance evaluation.
So why are we allowing the public conversation to treat it like one?
Officials can raise concerns about Glass. They can question administrative decisions, document complaints, and ask whether responsibilities have been fulfilled. But their assessment doesn’t become the official evaluation of her supervising board simply because they call it an “employment review.”
The PCOB has expressly said these other assessments aren’t its official employee review and shouldn’t be represented or treated as such.
That ought to settle how we describe the document.
According to Madison365, PCOB Chair Maia Pearson said Haas hadn’t provided the review to the board. Glass said she learned about it when a reporter contacted her.
How does that happen?
How do the people responsible for supervising an employee end up outside the distribution of a document being used to justify removing her? How does the employee learn about it through the press?
We’re talking about somebody’s job, her reputation, and the independence of an office the public is supposed to trust. I expect the media and members of the Council to be precise about what this document establishes.
An allegation doesn’t become a finding because enough people repeat it.
I’m not asking anybody to exempt Glass from accountability. I’m asking why the process being used against her shouldn’t receive the same scrutiny its proponents demand of her.
Show us the authority. Explain the process. Give her a meaningful opportunity to respond. Respect the civilian board’s role.
Then explain why the Council’s chief of staff should take over.
Because cameras won’t resolve the problem this proposal creates.
I support body cameras. I’ve supported them for years. But a camera records whatever its placement, activation, and governing policy allow it to record. Somebody still has to examine the evidence, identify what’s missing, and challenge an explanation that doesn’t hold up.
That requires real independent oversight. That’s the work Monitor Glass’s office is there to do.
We already have an example of why it matters. In a case reviewed by her office, MPD sustained findings involving an unlawful arrest. The monitor concurred. Body-camera audio had also been muted during internal officer discussions at a critical stage. On that issue, the officer was exonerated because the conduct fell within the pilot policy. The monitor agreed with that determination while raising serious transparency concerns.
The officer could follow the camera policy and still leave the public with an incomplete record.
The monitor identified a problem that a finding of policy compliance didn’t resolve.
That’s precisely the kind of scrutiny I want. Someone willing to ask whether the rules themselves are adequate, even after the department has determined whether an officer followed them.
Now consider MPD’s new Service Excellence and Outreach Section, expected to launch in early 2027. It will include units focused on use of force, community outreach, and professional development.
Fine. What will it do that makes the department more accountable to people outside the department?
Officers reviewing officers can produce useful findings. Supervisors should correct problems. Training should improve. None of that removes the need for somebody outside the chain of command to examine the work and reach a different conclusion.
Without that independence, we risk building a second set of eyes that still belong to the same head.
And with the move against Glass happening alongside these announcements, this new section looks to me like window dressing. We’re being offered a new name and promises of improvement while an existing source of independent scrutiny faces removal.
I’m supposed to celebrate the new accountability structure while watching what happens to the person already asking difficult questions?
No.
Here’s my concern: cameras produce the footage, the department’s own section reviews it, and a more accommodating monitor lends an independent title to conclusions the City already prefers.
A rubber stamp with a better job description.
I can’t tell you that a permanent replacement has already been selected or that every official involved shares that intention. I can tell you that this proposal makes me question whether the City wants independent oversight or would be more comfortable with a monitor it can count on to agree.
Putting the Council’s own chief of staff in charge does nothing to reassure me.
Who will insist on access to the underlying records? Who will challenge the department’s interpretation? Who will tell the public that an encounter complied with policy but still exposed a failure?
And what happens to that person when the answers become inconvenient?
The Council’s treatment of Glass sends a message to whoever comes next. If we want qualified people willing to exercise independent judgment, they need reason to believe that independence will be respected when they actually use it.
A monitor doesn’t have to be right about everything to deserve a fair process. The City doesn’t have to agree with every finding to respect the office. Disagreement is something an oversight system should be built to withstand.
Otherwise, what exactly are we building?
I want the Council to reject this removal proposal. I want the PCOB’s evaluation treated as the official evaluation it is responsible for conducting. And I want the City to explain how its new police section will give the monitor access to its records, respond to independent recommendations, and make disagreements visible to the public.
Those are commitments we can evaluate. “Service excellence” is something we’ll have to see.
Before October 20, ask your alder whether they support removing Glass. Ask what authority and findings they’re relying on. Ask why Council staff should assume control of the office, and what protections will keep the permanent hiring process in the civilian board’s hands.
We’re entitled to answers before the vote.
I still want these reforms to work. Give officers cameras. Improve their training. Examine their decisions. But protect the people whose responsibility is to question what the department tells us about itself.
I want a monitor who can disagree with City Hall and still come to work the next morning.
That shouldn’t be a radical expectation in Madison.
