I was a Madison alder for 16 years. Here’s what I think about firing the independent police monitor.

Marsha Rummel represented District 6 on the Madison Common Council in 2007-2021 and 2023-2025

After a 12 hour meeting, with over 7 hours of public comment, at 6:30 a.m. on Oct. 21, the Madison Common Council voted 14-6 to terminate the appointment of Interim Independent Monitor Aeiramique Glass, without any debate.

The day before the vote, I emailed every alder on the Common Council the following (slightly edited for publication):

What changed from the unanimous vote on June 9 to approve the extension of the provisional appointment of Aeiramique Glass as Interim Independent Police Monitor through March 31, 2027 in a resolution that acknowledged Monitor Glass was “fulfilling all duties and responsibilities required in the position” to a place where half the Council thinks they have the legal authority and the moral duty to terminate her appointment on October 20?

I oppose Legistar 95140 that would terminate the appointment of the Interim Independent Monitor. I request the Council to vote to place 95140 on file. I believe you are violating ordinances, previously adopted resolutions and the Elected and Appointed Official Code of Conduct.

1. If you believe your concerns about Monitor Glass’s job performance or professional conduct should be reviewed, then share them with her supervisor as suggested in the Elected and Appointed Official Code of Conduct: “Concerns about staff behavior or performance must be raised privately and professionally with the staff member’s direct supervisor. If unresolved, concerns may be referred to the relevant agency director or the Human Resources Director. Personnel matters shall not be discussed in public forums.” The Independent Monitor/IM’s direct supervisor is the Police Civilian Oversight Board.
2. You do not have the authority to terminate the Interim Independent Monitor based on the authority vested in the Police Civilian Oversight Board to recruit, appoint and supervise the Independent Monitor in MGO 5.19(2), 5.19(4), 5.19(5) and 5.20 (9)(a).
3. In the extension of Monitor Glass’s provisional appointment (Legistar 93167) adopted June 9, 2026, you clearly shared intent to vest the Police Civilian Oversight Board with the authority to terminate the appointment: “WHEREAS, the PCOB retains oversight over the Interim Independent Monitor which includes the ability to end the appointment at any time”.
4. The termination proposed in 95140 violates MGO 5.19(6)(b): “Independent from City Staff and Officials. No City employee or official shall attempt to use their political or administrative position to unduly influence or undermine the independence of the Monitor or any employee of the OIM in the performance of their duties and responsibilities as set forth in this Ordinance.” Terminating the IM and appointing the Council Chief of Staff are political interventions that undermine the independence of the IM.

In my 16 years of service as District 6 Alder, I have never seen Alders publicly intervene into a personnel dispute before. That is what you are doing. The argument that the Council can fire, or rescind the appointment of, the IM makes little sense when (1) the Council does not have such authority over any other City employee and (2) ordinances assign hiring and supervision to the PCOB.

The decision to terminate the IM’s interim appointment is unprecedented and reckless and will likely result in lawsuit(s).

After spending years of work on police accountability as part of previous Council efforts to create an innovative hybrid model for independent police oversight, it will be difficult for me to trust you in the future if you vote to terminate Monitor Glass.

Here is how you can protect and improve MGO 5.19 and 5.20. If you want me to believe you when you say you support independent oversight of police, then place 95140 on file. Then work on a resolution encouraging the PCOB to create a policy and procedure manual that would establish MOUs for some of the sticky issues identified by Monitor Glass that she thinks limits the independence of the OIM. The IM does not believe administrative procedure memorandums (APMs) apply to her since she does not report to the Mayor and clearly that is an open question per a previous effort by the Council to add the requirement to follow APMs (Legistar 92386). We need a community conversation about what being independent from the Mayor means regarding APMs.

In blogs posted by several alders, they say they support independent oversight of the police, but they support the idea that the Monitor should be subject to APMs which are creatures of the executive branch. In my opinion, the answer is not APMs but a process to identify MOUs.

The Council, like the Independent Monitor, does not serve at the pleasure of the Mayor. The Council is not subject to APMs. Since half the Council is relatively new, I want to highlight that you are not subject to APMs. The way the Council resolved the requirement to serve the community with integrity, dignity, and accountability and promote safety, health, and general wellbeing of the community was to create and regularly update the Elected and Appointed Official Code of Conduct. The OIM needs something similar.

In the legislative record of 95140, Monitor Glass suggests the need for an independent counsel for the OIM’s administrative work instead of relying on the Office of the City Attorney similar to the situation of the PFC. There are also conversations about an MOU with MPD for record sharing so that the OIM is not treated as a public requestor, and other issues that were raised in the now public email exchanges between Monitor Glass and City Attorney Haas. Many APMs are common sense and not controversial, but let’s identify the ones that could harm the independence of the OIM and look for solutions using MOUs.

Instead of focusing on upholding the work of the OIM and resolving the ongoing contradictions of the ordinance with the goal to maintain truly independent police oversight within the constraints of a municipal setting, the sponsors justify the firing of the city’s only Black woman department head because they say Monitor Glass has failed to fulfill requirements of her job, specifically managing the process to hire a permanent Independent Monitor.

The termination resolution says her failure to manage the hiring process “constitutes a breach of contract with the City”. But Monitor Glass does not have a contract with the city, she has a provisional appointment that initially did not require Council approval and only required Council approval when it was extended due to the potential financial impacts of double billing in the 2026 budget and extension of a provisional appointment for a Compensation Group 21 position requires Council approval pursuant to the City’s Personnel Rules, Rule 3.C.4.

The appointment extension approved in June suggested that by September a robust community engagement process would happen before posting the job. But the Corey Ruiz killing by an MPD officer happened in July which obviously threw a wrench in the PCOB/Monitor/HR hiring timeline. On October 6, one week past the end of September, the resolution was introduced to terminate Monitor Glass based on her failure to manage the hiring process. Her appointment and the process to hire a permanent replacement lasts until March, it’s hard to see that there is a total failure to complete her duties when the appointment lasts for five months. There has been a delay, yes, but Monitor Glass is continuing to perform essential duties.

In addition, I question assigning Common Council Chief of Staff Karen Kapusta-Pofahl the responsibility to supervise the staff of the OIM until a permanent Independent Police Monitor is hired. The Council Chief of Staff would be expected to manage the OIM staff but not perform any of the investigative duties of the Monitor. I respect the Chief of Staff’s abilities, but I think it is untenable to place her in this position.

What happens when District Attorney Ozanne makes a finding about Police Officer Kiel Baitinger-Peterson’s culpability in the death of Corey Ruiz? If you terminate Monitor Glass, you will have diminished the ability of the OIM to complete the investigation that the ordinance entitles the Monitor to conduct into police officer use of force incidents, an investigation the community will expect. Karen is not going to be able to do that.

From my view, both the termination of the interim IM and putting the Council Chief of Staff in temporary charge of the OIM is in violation of MGO 5.19(6)(b) 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 or any employee of the OIM in the performance of their duties and responsibilities as set forth in this Ordinance”. The Council created the OIM ordinance with the explicit intent to protect it from political interference. How does the proposal to have the Council office oversee the OIM do that?

When the ordinance was drafted by the Council to create the Office of the Independent Monitor and the Police Civilian Oversight Board in 2020, it was understood that there would be unresolved issues that would need to be addressed in the future. Here we are.

In my view the unresolved tension is between being a city department created to be independent of political influence and capture by police interests and being a department within city government where most department heads serve at the pleasure of the Mayor with a set of internal guidelines. Instead of firing the person who is only empowered to work until March 2027, work with her to resolve the sticky issues she has raised trying to do the job she was hired to do.

The Council is conducting an unprecedented and reckless personnel review of Monitor Glass in a public forum in violation of the Council’s Elected and Appointed Official Code of Conduct and in violation of MGO 5.19 and 5.20 that governs the political independence of the IM and the PCOB supervision of the IM.

The issues are more than procedural. After the investigation into the death of Richard Lee Johnson while in police custody and the police killing of Corey Ruiz by an MPD officer, it honestly doesn’t look good that after the police kill someone, the Council decides to fire the Independent Monitor. We need the Council to focus on making sure those investigations are completed. Terminating the appointment of Monitor Glass will increase public distrust in the Common Council and it will also reduce the future pool of IM applicants.

Alders you may not like Aeiramique Glass or agree with her actions or statements but there is a process you need to follow to address those concerns. Please place 95140 on file.

Marsha Rummel