City of Madison via Youtube
Aeiramique Glass
Aeiramique Glass: 'The lies that have come from this city leadership have caused me to believe that I cannot work [with you].'
Can one city agency sue another?
Madison’s Office of the Independent Police Monitor, created in 2020 to serve as an independent watchdog of the Madison police department, would certainly like to try.
About six hours before the city council met April 21 to discuss an ordinance that would tighten regulations on the office, interim independent monitor Meeka Glass released a 31-page memorandum criticizing alders, the city attorney’s office and members of the media for their treatment of the office and characterization of its interactions with the police chief and mayoral staff.
In that memo, Glass suggested her office may seek to sue the city over alleged violations of the office’s founding ordinance, which prevents city officials from using their "political or administrative position to unduly influence or undermine the independence of the monitor.”
“This office will explore the necessary legal action to address these violations and will pursue all available options to protect the independence the ordinance was written to guarantee,” Glass wrote.
But City Attorney Michael Haas says the office cannot sue the city.
“The basic law in Wisconsin is that one city agency cannot sue another city agency. City agencies are all part of the same organization and one arm cannot sue another arm,” Haas says in an email to Isthmus. “City agencies have the authority delegated to them in the ordinances and cannot file lawsuits independent of the city.”
The latest scuffle associated with the long-beleaguered police oversight office centers around an ordinance proposal clarifiying the conditions that would trigger the office to retain outside legal counsel and that the police monitor is subject to the same employee policies as any other city agency.
That ordinance change prompted swift backlash from the public and the office, including two hours of public comment at the city council meeting. After about five hours of testimony and discussion, members voted 16-4 to refer the ordinance to a June 17 civilian oversight board meeting and the council’s Aug. 4 meeting for further edits in collaboration with the police monitor and its civilian oversight board.
In response to a question, Glass suggested she may be unwilling to work with alders to revise the proposal: “The lies that have come from this city leadership have caused me to believe that I cannot work [with you]…When you ask me ‘Can I work with you all?’ I don’t know how to answer that without being honest: I don’t believe I can.”
And Gregory Gelembiuk, the office’s data analyst, testified that he’s been undergoing a hunger strike to advocate for the office.
“I've been fasting with only water since early yesterday afternoon, and will continue doing so for now. Such a fast is not meant as a coercive measure, but is done to prick the conscience of your interlocutor,” Gelembiuk said. “I feel this is one of the only tools I have available now.”
The board hired Glass in November after the previous monitor, who’d come under fire for delays and missteps, resigned. The office closed its first case in January. In March, Glass released an annual report featuring an AI-generated cover with two state Capitols, as well as AI-edited text (a link to the original document is no longer available, as Glass revised it to remove the AI-generated content and rereleased it in late March).
That report's release prompted a proposed ordinance amendment from then-Ald. MGR Govindarajan, whose term expired April 21, clarifying that the office is subject to the same city administrative procedures as all city offices, including one that prohibits city officials’ using generative AI.
“The [police monitor] and the [civilian oversight board] believe that they were created to operate as a quasi-governmental entity, when they were never supposed to do so,” Govindarajan said at the meeting, noting that other city-affiliated organizations, such as the Overture Center or Business Improvement District, were specifically designed as such.
The ordinance would also mandate quarterly reports from the office and prohibit it from retaining outside legal counsel beyond investigations or assigning to complainants wishing to sue the police department. Though the office has a $50,000 annual budget allocation to provide legal counsel, Glass tells Isthmus that the funding has never been used.
Govindarajan also noted that the office has incurred more than $136,000 in costs defending itself against two lawsuits that, if the OIM were reliant on outside legal counsel for all matters, he believes likely would not be covered by the city’s insurance policy.
The proposal was later amended by Ald. Davy Mayer to include a requirement that one alder serve on the civilian oversight board; Ald. Carmella Glenn submitted an alternate removing the aldermanic representation requirement that was never voted on before the ordinance was referred.
More than 200 pages of emailed public comment were submitted on the proposal; 42 registrants were in support and 79 were opposed, according to city communications manager Dylan Brogan. Organizations that showed up in opposition included JustDane and Freedom Inc.
Liam Beran
Chambers quickly became crowded during the two-hour public comment period.
Administrative procedures, commonly referred to as APMs, are non-ordinance policies governing how all city offices, including the police monitor, function. They cover both banal topics like when city staff can take lunch breaks and sensitive employment policies such as paid leave, harassment, and alcohol and drug testing.
Ald. Derek Field noted that rejecting city APMs would mean that the office would not have rules to address such matters and that, unlike the police and fire commission, the police monitor is composed of city staff. Maia Pearson, chair of the civilian oversight board, countered that they’d still want to be accountable to “basic” APMs protecting workers.
“I do think there are some foundational ones we can all agree upon,” said Pearson.
But the police monitor and its board have long balked at mandates from the mayor’s office; prior disagreements have included whether the office can establish its own logo or social media page. So when Govindarajan’s proposal to hold the office accountable to city APMs was released, it was met with a perhaps predictable outpouring of backlash from the office and its allies.
“The creation of the Office of Independent Police Monitor and Police Civilian Oversight Board stand as one of those rare moments in Dane County where the voices of people with lived experience were heard, respected, and their input was acted on. And yet repeatedly, we find ourselves here working to preserve the integrity of the ordinance,” testified Linda Ketcham, executive director of JustDane.
At the same time, some members of the public said they’d welcome more oversight over the office — or its defunding entirely, as has been attempted in past years.
“Please remove funding from the [police monitor] until there are better systems in place for this important work,” wrote west-side resident Sarah Hughes in an email to all alders. “The actions from the monitor over the previous weeks, culminating in today’s press release, are embarrassing, irresponsible, and damaging. Imagine what [$400,000] could be used for in our city. The needed and important work of ensuring equitable policing deserves better than what has happened with this office over the last 5 years.”
Kim Richman testified along the same lines: “Madisonians have had enough of their hard earned wages disappearing into endless bureaucracy and lawsuits caused by the [civilian board]…The board has operated for almost six years without meaningful accountability, transparency and metrics to the people of Madison. That shift of structure needs to change tonight.”
