Madison’s Interim Police Monitor: Experienced Advocate Ready to Build Madison’s Oversight
- Alex Saloutos
- 2 hours ago
- 15 min read
Madison’s Police Civilian Oversight Board has hired an interim Independent Police Monitor, Aeiramique Glass, who is currently suing her previous employer after being fired for demanding real oversight independence. Glass brings extensive experience from one of the country’s most troubled police departments, managing major accountability efforts and losing her position for defending oversight integrity. The central issue now is not her qualifications, but whether Madison will provide the genuine independence it claims to value.
On November 21, Madison’s Police Civilian Oversight Board announced the appointment of Aeiramique “Meeka” Glass as the city’s interim Independent Police Monitor, at a salary of $12,416 per month.[1],[2] She’ll begin on December 8 and serve for up to nine months, tasked with stabilizing the office, clearing the complaint backlog, and supporting the search for a permanent monitor.
While the lack of public input on the appointment process is notable, the central story is clear: Glass is the advocate Madison needs. Her record demonstrates she thrives in the most rigorous police oversight environments. She excels at building effective systems and defending their independence, despite real costs.
Glass’s credentials are clear. The real question is whether Madison will move beyond rhetoric and actually uphold strong, independent oversight in practice.
California Roots: Learning to Build Trust Where It’s Been Broken
Glass was born and raised in San Diego, where she built her career in youth justice programs, diversion systems, community safety strategies, and police accountability. She served as Program Manager for Los Angeles County’s criminal justice reform efforts, chaired the San Diego Police Chief’s Board of Advisors, and played a central role in transitioning San Diego’s Civilian Review Board into an independent Commission on Police Practices.
The context matters. Black people make up less than 6% of San Diego’s population, yet Black communities face consistent over policing.[3] “I learned early that any conversation about public safety has to uplift racial justice, community voice, and the reality of how policing impacts people differently,” Glass told me.
She also worked with San Diego County’s Chief of Probation on the Youth Transition Campus, consulted for the National Conflict Resolution Center, and collaborated with San Diego State University and the University of San Diego’s Institute for Peace and Justice. By the time Baltimore came calling in 2023, Glass had spent years learning what works—and what doesn’t—in police accountability.
Baltimore: Walking Into the Fire
In November 2023, Baltimore hired Glass as Deputy Chief of Police Accountability. Within days, the sitting Chief resigned, and Glass immediately assumed the duties of Acting Chief of Police Accountability. She was promised a permanent appointment upon completion of her probationary period.
The job was enormous. Glass led the Police Accountability Division with an authorized budget of approximately $2.1 million and 17 staff positions. Her oversight extended across three boards: the Police Accountability Board (which sets policy and oversees the accountability system), the Administrative Charging Committee (which determines disciplinary charges against officers), and the Civilian Review Board (which reviews completed investigations and makes recommendations). She covered six law enforcement agencies, including the Baltimore Police Department (operating under a federal consent decree, a court-ordered reform agreement imposed in 2017 after a U.S. Department of Justice investigation found a pattern of constitutional violations including excessive force, unlawful stops, and discriminatory policing), the Sheriff’s Department, School Police, Environmental Police, Johns Hopkins Police, and University of Maryland Police.[4],[5] The consent decree is now in its eighth year, with recent court filings indicating substantial compliance work remains.[6]
Baltimore’s policing challenges are massive. The Police Department alone employs over 350 people on consent decree compliance, nearly 100 staff investigating misconduct, and more than a dozen legal staff dedicated to police matters.[7],[8]This is one of the country’s most troubled departments.
Baltimore’s Police Accountability Division, where Glass worked, differs significantly from Madison’s oversight structure. For instance, in Baltimore, while the police department investigates allegations of officer misconduct, Glass’s division was responsible for prosecuting any matter related to police interactions with the public—a far more comprehensive mandate than Madison’s Office of the Independent Monitor currently holds.
Joshua Harris, who chaired the Police Accountability Board during Glass’s tenure, told me: “She stepped into leadership under extraordinary circumstances and immediately proved she was the right person to lead.”
It is important to understand the scope Glass faced. The Civilian Review Board holds independent investigative and subpoena authority under state law. The Administrative Charging Committee adjudicates up to thirty cases per week. Maryland state law and budget authority give both the PAB and ACC the ability to retain independent counsel and function as independent agencies, with the state requiring that cities support—not control—these boards. However, due to administrative loopholes and resistance, this independence has not been realized in practice.
Building Under Pressure
Glass inherited a division without a mandated annual report and developed a version that the community could engage with. Harris said: “She took an annual report that hadn’t been started and turned it into something the community could actually engage.”
Alongside these reporting improvements, Glass managed one of Maryland’s highest-volume and most complex civilian oversight caseloads, handling intake, review, and monitoring of hundreds of complaints annually across multiple agencies and boards. Harris noted: “Even with limited staff and a heavy workload across three boards and multiple agencies, she kept the work moving and the members trained, informed, and supported.”
But Glass also started identifying serious problems. The Police Accountability Division was budgeted for 17 staff positions, but only approximately five were actually dedicated to the Division. The remaining positions, funded by the Police Accountability Board budget, had been diverted to other uses.[9] This wasn’t just mismanagement—it was a structural problem that undermined the division’s ability to do its job.
The Baltimore Sun corroborated Glass’s concerns in a May 2024 report, confirming that despite a $2.1 million fiscal year 2024 budget allocation for 17 staff positions, only five full-time employees were actually working in police accountability.[10] The Police Accountability Board formally requested an audit of the office’s spending and called for creating an independent office separate from the Mayor’s Office of Equity and Civil Rights—the same structural independence Glass had been advocating for.
The Fight for Independence
Glass began advocating for the Police Accountability Board to have independent legal counsel, separate from the city attorney’s office. Her reasoning was straightforward: “You cannot claim independence when the same legal department is responsible for protecting the city, defending the police department, and advising the oversight body. Even if the attorneys are in different divisions, they still operate under the same department, the same leadership, and the same priorities. That alone creates a conflict.”
She explained the structural problem: “A city attorney’s job is to protect the city’s interests and minimize liability. That means defending the police department when complaints, lawsuits, or discipline issues arise. Their responsibility is to safeguard the institution. Oversight has the opposite responsibility. Oversight’s job is to uplift truth, transparency, injustice, and harm in a way that leads to accountability... Those two missions will never fully align. They simply cannot.”
Harris confirmed that Glass “identified gaps in staffing, budget, and independence and fought for the tools real oversight requires.”
This debate holds real significance for Madison, where the Office of the Independent Monitor and the Police Civilian Oversight Board rely on legal counsel from Assistant City Attorney Andrew D. Schauer, whose prior career included many years representing police interests. Madison residents and leaders must demand legal structures that uphold the independence and public trust we need and deserve.
When I asked Glass about this arrangement, she was unequivocal: “Yes. Always yes. And it is never about the individual attorney... the structural conflict does not change... Whether the conflict is direct or a perceived conflict, both impact trust. We want an oversight process and system that is truly independent, because that independence creates an agency the public can trust without reservation.”
Independent counsel was particularly essential because the ACC reviews Internal Affairs investigations. Although many ACC and Internal Affairs determinations aligned, there were several instances where conclusions differed, particularly in disciplinary classifications. In some cases, Glass’s division brought charges when Internal Affairs declined to do so. Independent counsel is also critical for trial board cases when officers appeal disciplinary decisions.
PCOB Chair Maia Pearson noted that Madison’s city ordinance already gives the OIM the ability to retain independent legal counsel. “With that, if the PCOB and OIM decide that is the route we would like to take, it is well within our powers to do so,” she said.
Choosing Integrity Over Politics
Harris described Glass’s leadership as “unapologetic and rooted in integrity.” He added: “Speaking out about the lack of independence carried real risk, but she chose honesty over politics. I believe that courage contributed to the circumstances surrounding her departure, yet she continues to advise and support the work even now.”
That departure became the subject of federal litigation. In September 2025, Glass filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the City of Baltimore, Mayor Brandon Scott, the Baltimore City Council, the Office of Equity and Civil Rights, and Dana Moore (the former Director of the Office of Equity and Civil Rights).[11]
The complaint alleges that Glass was terminated on January 31, 2024, in retaliation for her advocacy for board independence and her refusal to compromise the integrity of the oversight process. Glass told the Wisconsin State Journal that after an investigation led to the removal of “high-up officials,” she was offered a different role as director of violence intervention and crime prevention. Glass attended early preparation meetings for this new role but consistently requested written documentation, justification, and clarification—none of which was ever provided to her or the board. “I had not come out to Baltimore to be the director over violence intervention, crime prevention, and intervention,” she said. “I felt like it was retaliatory.”[12]
After she disclosed her status as a cancer survivor in a February 27 reinstatement request—explaining how wrongful termination had disrupted her ongoing preventative care—the city reinstated her on March 1 with retroactive status and back pay. However, she was placed on involuntary administrative leave and not restored to her full authority as Chief or allowed to return to the office. During this period, she continued working on reports, conducting trainings, and advising board members and staff, but with limited ability to perform her duties.
The second termination occurred on June 28, 2024, shortly after the mayor won his second term. It followed Glass’s written request asking why a new position was being offered if her reinstatement acknowledged that the initial termination had been improper, and whether the proposed transfer was being forced.
Glass’s complaint alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourteenth Amendment retaliation), and Maryland’s Whistleblower Protection Act. The complaint details her allegations that she uncovered misconduct within the Baltimore city government, that an independent investigation substantiated her concerns and resulted in the removal of Dana Moore, Director of the Office of Equity and Civil Rights, and Moore’s Chief of Staff, and that the city retaliated against her rather than restoring her to her position. This pattern of police departments resisting civilian oversight isn’t unique to Baltimore or Madison. In Baltimore, oversight board members have publicly stated that BPD sometimes ignores their requests to reopen investigations, demonstrating that Glass’s concerns about proper oversight procedures reflect broader systemic challenges facing police accountability nationwide.[13] Despite the Police Accountability Board convening an emergency meeting on April 15, 2024, and formally requesting her reinstatement, Baltimore refused to grant it.
Although reinstated in name, Glass was blocked from performing the duties of the position in her official capacity. The board’s press conference outside City Hall—which Glass helped organize and at which she stood with board members—took place the day before the mayoral election as part of their public effort to bring attention to structural and compliance issues.
According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Glass “is seeking roughly $3 million in damages for losses associated with her move from San Diego to Baltimore, violations of her constitutional rights, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.”[14]
These are allegations in ongoing litigation, not established facts. But Harris’s account corroborates the core of Glass’s story. She fought for independence. She identified fundamental problems with staffing, budget, and structure. And it cost her the job.
Harris said: “She set a tone we are still building on, and I truly hope we can bring her back once full independence is in place.”
Madison Knew About the Lawsuit—And Hired Her Anyway
The PCOB and the city learned about Glass’s federal complaint during the vetting process—and decided her qualifications outweighed any concerns.
Pearson explained: “The board, in collaboration with the City’s Human Resources department, conducted a complete reference process that included a criminal background check and review of internet findings. During that review, the EEOC complaint was discovered, and after reviewing the information with Ms. Glass at the time, we were satisfied with the responses. The HR department concurred with our assessment.”
The fact that Madison knew about the lawsuit, discussed it directly with Glass, and hired her anyway speaks volumes. The PCOB and the city did their homework. They assessed what happened in Baltimore. And they decided Glass was exactly who they wanted.
Pearson said she is “confident in our decision to bring on Ms. Glass as the interim Independent Monitor and looks forward to working with her.”
Why Her Baltimore Experience Is Exactly What Madison Needs
Glass knows how to build systems that work. She created an annual report accessible to the community from scratch. She managed a complex multi-board, multi-agency oversight structure. She built a foundation that Baltimore continues to work from.
Pearson values Glass’s diverse experience: “I believe that Ms. Glass’s experience of working in two vastly different environments, as it relates to civilian oversight and the insight that brings, is very valuable.”
She emphasized Glass’s managerial and advocacy skills: “Ms. Glass has extensive managerial and community advocacy experience, which we believe is an asset to the PCOB and OIM, especially as we are working to build a stronger foundation for civilian oversight in Madison, and possibly our state.”
Glass knows how to fight for independence—and she accepts the cost. Harris characterized her leadership as “unapologetic and rooted in integrity.” She chose honesty over politics even when it carried real risk. She still advises and supports Baltimore’s work. And Harris hopes to bring her back once Baltimore achieves complete independence.
Baltimore’s oversight system, while more established than Madison’s, continues to face challenges with police department cooperation and resource constraints. Police Accountability Board members have publicly reported that their requests for BPD to reopen investigations are sometimes ignored—precisely the kind of institutional resistance Glass has experience addressing.[15] Baltimore’s accountability structure is comprehensive and robust in design, but in practice, it lacks independence from the administration and the authority to function at the level intended by state law. This structural weakness undermines accountability and makes the system vulnerable to political influence.
She understands the structural conflicts Madison faces. Her Baltimore experience taught her exactly what happens when oversight lacks true independence.
Pearson believes Glass can navigate Madison’s political environment: “We believe that Ms. Glass’s experience in building relationships with a broad group of stakeholders, even in difficult political environments, makes her up for the task.”
She has the credibility of someone who was right. Harris confirms her concerns about staffing, budget, and independence were legitimate. Harris describes her as grounded in “national best practices, lived experience” and someone who “sets a standard of accountability that moves people.”
This isn’t someone who will be intimidated by pressure from city administration. This is someone who has already paid the price for standing up for what’s right.
Fighting While Sick
Glass has been dealing with endometriosis since age 12. In 2019, around Thanksgiving, she was rushed to the hospital and spent months fighting for her life. Doctors discovered a rare blood cancer in her appendix that was causing severe pain beyond the endometriosis. In 2020, she had her appendix removed and underwent a full hysterectomy, which means she cannot have biological children.
She believes all the cancer has been removed and no longer takes chemotherapy. She’s healthy and strong, though she still undergoes MRI and CT scans every six months to ensure everything remains clear.
What’s remarkable is that she never stopped working. Glass told me, “Even in the middle of all of that, I never stopped doing the work. I was literally in the hospital when I got a call that my sister’s friend had been slammed to the ground twice by a police officer. Even hooked to monitors and IVs, I went into action. I made calls. I mobilized. I organized. And by Monday, I was on the campus. That incident made national news and resulted in a policy change. I fought while sick, while being targeted...”
She added, “My health does not hinder my work. It fuels my purpose. My fight is a significant part of my story, but it is not a defining factor.”
Glass also lost her mother suddenly in 2017 at age 49 to a heart attack. She took on raising her siblings—she’s 18 years older than her youngest sibling. She’s not married and cannot have biological children, but young people she mentored in foster care, mental health programs, and juvenile justice “still consider me family.” She recently lost her dog Acea in an accident during a Seattle trip.
This is someone who knows how to keep fighting when everything else falls apart.
The Political Pressure
In mid-November, during budget deliberations and about a week before the PCOB announced Glass’s appointment, three Madison alders—Joann Pritchett, Isadore Knox Jr., and Barbara Harrington-McKinney—sought to strip the board’s and monitor’s office of funding, proposing to redirect approximately $400,000 to body-worn cameras for police officers.[16]
The office had been vacant since October when Robin Copley resigned. The proposal failed 17-3, with only the cosponsors voting in favor. The attempt demonstrates the political pressure the oversight function faces in Madison—and the environment Glass is walking into.
The Interim Limitation
The city required that Glass agree not to apply for the permanent Independent Police Monitor position as a condition of employment for the interim role. This raises a question: If she’s this qualified, with precisely the experience Madison needs, why can’t she compete for the permanent position?
Is Madison afraid of someone this independent?
What Happens Next
Glass begins December 8. She’ll serve for up to nine months, working to “stabilize the office, build the foundation and infrastructure, investigate backlog and current complaints, and support a fair, community-centered process for selecting the permanent Monitor.”
Pearson is excited about what Glass brings to a politically charged role: “Civilian police oversight is highly political and, in many ways, controversial. I am excited about the experience that Ms. Glass will bring to Madison, especially when it comes to community engagement and advocacy.”
Early indicators will matter. Will Glass receive the resources and authority to do the job? Will the PCOB pursue independent legal counsel, which Pearson confirmed is already within their power? Will Madison support independence when it creates friction with the city administration?
Baltimore’s experience suggests this is where the real test comes. Glass told me, “I am excited to help Madison build a strong oversight model rooted in justice, community, and accountability. Public safety and accountability go together. When they operate hand in hand, cities thrive. Madison has the opportunity to become a national model.”
Madison Got What It Needs—Will We Support Her?
Glass brings experience from some of the most challenging police oversight environments in America. She knows how to build systems that work. She knows how to fight for independence, and she’s proven willing to pay the price. She understands what effective accountability requires.
Harris’s statement confirms everything Glass said about herself. Baltimore valued her enough that they want her back once they achieve true independence.
The PCOB did its homework. They learned about her federal lawsuit during the vetting process. They discussed it directly with Glass. They consulted with references. And they concluded she was exactly who they wanted.
Pearson said it plainly: “I am confident in our decision to bring on Ms. Glass as the interim Independent Monitor and look forward to working with her.”
The question isn’t whether she’s qualified. The question is whether Madison will support the kind of independent oversight it claims to want. Glass put it simply: “Justice is more than the absence of injustice. It is the daily practice of transparency, accountability, and integrity by those entrusted to lead.”
We’ll find out soon enough if we mean it.
Notes
[1] City of Madison news release, “City Appoints Interim Independent Monitor,” November 21, 2024, https://www.cityofmadison.com/news/2025-11-21/police-civilian-oversight-board-selects-interim-independent-monitor
[2] Wisconsin State Journal, “Interim Madison police monitor filed lawsuit against former employer,” December 2, 2025, https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/article_14d7d03d-2055-49dc-b8ed-f4ee5b8825ff.html
[3] U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: San Diego city, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sandiegocitycalifornia(showing Black population at 5.7% as of 2023)
[4] United States v. Police Department of Baltimore City, Consent Decree, Case 1:17-cv-00099-JKB (D. Md. 2017), January 12, 2017, https://comptroller.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/consent-decree-2017.pdf
[5] U.S. Department of Justice, Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department, August 10, 2016, https://www.justice.gov/d9/bpd_findings_8-10-16.pdf
[6] Draft Eighth-Year Monitoring Plan, United States v. Police Department of Baltimore City, Case 1:17-cv-00099-JKB, Document 835-1, Filed July 2, 2025, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59db8644e45a7c08738ca2f1/t/692f3c5b450a884e7800637c/1764703324004/867+-+Submission+of+Updated+Eighth-Year+Monitoring+Plan+for+Approval+%281%29.pdf
[7] City of Baltimore Bureau of Budget and Management Research, FY2026 Agency Detail Volume II, 270 and 345, https://bbmr.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/upload/FY2026%20Agency%20Detail%20Volume%20II.pdf
[8] City of Baltimore Bureau of Budget and Management Research, FY2026 Agency Detail Volume I, 344, https://bbmr.baltimorecity.gov/sites/default/files/upload/FY2026%20Agency%20Detail%20Volume%20I.pdf
[9] Glass v. City of Baltimore, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02954, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore Division), filed September 8, 2025, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.590026/gov.uscourts.mdd.590026.1.0.pdf
[10] Baltimore Sun, “Baltimore police accountability board calls for independence and audit of city spending in delayed report,” May 13, 2024, https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/05/13/baltimore-police-accountability-board-independence-audit-spending-budget/
[11] Glass v. City of Baltimore, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02954, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore Division), filed September 8, 2025, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.590026/gov.uscourts.mdd.590026.1.0.pdf
[12] Wisconsin State Journal, “Interim Madison police monitor filed lawsuit against former employer,” December 2, 2025, https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/article_14d7d03d-2055-49dc-b8ed-f4ee5b8825ff.html
[13] Baltimore Sun, “Baltimore officials question police oversight, mayor's office on officer accountability,” November 4, 2025, https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/11/04/baltimore-question-bpd-accountability/
[14] Wisconsin State Journal, “Interim Madison police monitor filed lawsuit against former employer,” December 2, 2025, https://madison.com/news/local/government-politics/article_14d7d03d-2055-49dc-b8ed-f4ee5b8825ff.html
[15] Baltimore Sun, “Baltimore officials question police oversight, mayor's office on officer accountability,” November 4, 2025, https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/11/04/baltimore-question-bpd-accountability/
[16] The Cap Times, “Madison City Council rejects bid to defund police oversight agency,” November 13, 2025, https://captimes.com/news/government/madison-city-council-rejects-bid-to-defund-police-oversight-agency/article_de0c77b7-8103-4145-99a9-fb78456240ea.html
77SquareMiles.com what mainstream media won't—because democracy dies in darkness, especially at City Hall. Support independent local journalism: share this story and subscribe at for regular updates on Madison city government.
© Alex Saloutos 2025.