To the Madison City Attorney, Mayor, Members of the Common Council, and the people of Madison:
I am writing as a member of the Police Civilian Oversight Board, as a Black man, and as someone who has personally experienced harm and mistreatment at the hands of MPD. I am angry. I am concerned. And I believe Madison is at risk of losing something this community spent years fighting to create: truly independent police oversight.
A resolution has been introduced to terminate the appointment of Interim Independent Police Monitor, Aeiramique (Meeka) Glass. The Common Council is scheduled to consider that resolution on October 20. This is bigger than Meeka. This is about whether Madison believes in independent oversight, especially when that oversight becomes uncomfortable.
The PCOB has responsibilities relating to the Independent Police Monitor, including responsibilities that must be understood within Madison’s governing ordinances, policies, appointment terms, and other applicable authorities. If there are concerns about the Monitor’s performance, the public deserves to know what process governs those concerns, what authority applies, and what role the PCOB is supposed to play.
I am not arguing that the Monitor is above accountability. Nobody is. I believe in accountability. I believe in transparency. I believe in hard questions and meaningful performance reviews. Accountability must come with a fair and legally appropriate process. You can’t tell the community that independent oversight matters and then leave unanswered questions about whether the structures created to protect that independence were followed.
If the PCOB has a role in supervising, evaluating, reviewing, or making recommendations concerning the Monitor, that role needs to be respected. If the PCOB does not have authority over this decision, then the city needs to say that clearly and explain why. The public nor the PCOB should have to guess.
This is personal for me. I know what it feels like to have your experiences dismissed. I know what it feels like to wonder whether the systems that are supposed to protect you will listen to you. That is why independent police oversight matters to me. It is not an abstract government structure. It is about people in our community who have spent years demanding accountability and asking Madison to create a system they can actually trust. Those people are watching this.
The community is asking a simple question:
Can an Independent Police Monitor truly be independent if the work becomes politically uncomfortable?
That question deserves an answer. Not a talking point. Not a press release. An answer grounded in law, policy, facts, and transparency.
The questions Madison must answer:
What legal authority governs the proposed termination?
What procedures were required?
Were those procedures followed?
What evidence supports the proposed action?
What role does the PCOB have?
Why wasn’t the PCOB given the opportunity to perform any responsibilities required or authorized under that structure?
And perhaps most importantly: What message does this send to the next person who agrees to serve as Madison’s Independent Police Monitor?
We are asking that person to follow the facts, ask difficult questions, identify failures, and hold people accountable. But if they can reasonably fear losing their position when that work becomes politically difficult, then Madison must confront what “independent” really means. Independence does not mean the Monitor is above accountability. And accountability does not mean independence can be disregarded. We need both.
To the Common Council:
Before October 20, I am asking you to clearly explain the legal and policy authority for this resolution and the Council’s role in relation to the PCOB, Mayor, City Attorney, and Independent Police Monitor. If applicable law or policy allows this matter to be postponed or referred for review, consider doing so. If it does not, explain why.
And whatever authority you ultimately determine you have, consider the larger consequence: Will your actions strengthen public confidence in independent oversight or weaken it?
To the City Attorney:
The public deserves a clear explanation of the legal framework governing this decision. Please distinguish between what the law requires, what it permits, and what remains a policy or governance question. The legal process is not a technicality. It is part of what protects both accountability and independence.
To the Mayor:
If Madison is serious about rebuilding trust, now is the time to demonstrate it. Support a process that is transparent, legally grounded, and respectful of independent police oversight. Do not allow political discomfort, whether real or perceived, to become a substitute for a fair process.
To my fellow PCOB members:
This is our responsibility, too. We need to clearly understand and communicate our authority and responsibilities under the ordinance. If we have duties relating to supervision, evaluation, review, or recommendations concerning the Monitor, we need to fulfill them. We can’t allow the community to believe we are responsible for independent oversight when things are going well, only to discover that our role becomes unclear when things get difficult. We must be disciplined enough not to claim authority we do not have. Our job is bigger than defending one person. Our job is protecting the integrity of the oversight system.
And to the community:
This is where you come in. Do not sit this one out. The Common Council is scheduled to take up this resolution on October 20. Contact your alder. Contact the PCOB. Attend the October 20 meeting and register to speak or submit public comments. Tell your elected representatives that you expect them to explain the authority and process behind this decision.
Ask them: Who has the authority? What process was followed? What evidence supports this action? What role does the PCOB have? And what protections exist to ensure the next Independent Police Monitor can be independent?
Don’t just ask people to vote for or against the resolution. Demand that they explain the process. Because this should not become another decision made by people in public office while the community is expected to accept the outcome afterward. If you believe independent police oversight matters, show up. If you have spent years demanding police accountability, show up. If you have ever felt ignored by the systems that were supposed to protect you, show up. If you believe Madison should have an oversight system strong enough to ask uncomfortable questions, show up.
Talk to the people in your community who may not even know this decision is happening. And hold all of us accountable, including the PCOB, for doing the work we said we would do. Because this is not simply about Aeiramique Glass. It is about what Madison means when it says independent police oversight.
As a Black man, I need an oversight system that is willing to tell the truth, listen to people who have been ignored, and follow the facts even when those facts make powerful people uncomfortable. As a member of the PCOB, I also understand that independence requires accountability, transparency, and a willingness to follow the law even when the outcome is difficult. That is the standard I believe Madison should demand.
Because if independence disappears the moment oversight becomes uncomfortable, then what we have created is not independent oversight. It is only the appearance of independence. And that is why October 20 matters. Because this may be about one appointment, but the consequences could reach far beyond one person. This could be a defining moment for independent police oversight in Madison.
If independence survives only when it is convenient, then it was never truly independence at all. And if we are not careful, we may look back on October 20 as the beginning of the death of independence in Madison.
This is why I can’t remain silent. I hope Madison will not remain silent either.
Respectfully,
Devon Snyder, Board Member
Chair, Community Engagement Subcommittee
City of Madison Police Civilian Oversight Board
