A review by the Madison City Attorney’s Office has raised questions about Interim Independent Police Monitor Aeiramique Glass’s work, including delays in hiring a permanent monitor and complaints about her conduct. The Madison Police Civilian Oversight Board says the review is not the official employee evaluation it is conducting. The review, dated Oct. 2, says it was requested in response to inquiries from members of the public and city alders. It describes itself as advisory and says decisions about whether to extend Glass’s provisional appointment or take other action rest with the Common Council. Glass’s appointment runs through March 31, 2027. Among the review’s concerns is the search for a permanent monitor. It says Glass was hired in December 2025 and tasked with managing the recruitment, but that nearly 10 months later the position description had not been approved, no job posting had been issued, and screening, interviews and candidate referrals had not been completed. The review also says Glass did not provide the City Attorney’s Office with information about contractors and investigators and did not follow the city’s standard process for retaining outside legal counsel. It cites a July 31 email in which Glass wrote that the office did not have to follow administrative procedures except when she felt comfortable doing so in good faith. The document describes disagreements with other officials, including Glass leaving a July meeting with the Wisconsin Department of Justice and Dane County District Attorney’s Office about officer-involved shooting investigations and records releases. It says she canceled a September meeting with Madison police two hours before it was scheduled. The review also notes that a Dane County judge issued a protective order on behalf of a Madison police officer based on Glass’s on-the-job actions. Separately, the review says the city’s Human Resources Department received multiple complaints about Glass’s conduct on or after July 23, including allegations involving confidentiality and retaliation. The city hired an outside attorney to investigate. The review says that investigation remains open and provides no further details; the complaints are not presented as established findings. A Finance Department memo cited in the review says the Office of the Independent Monitor missed the July 17 deadline for submitting budget materials. The office requested about $781,158 for 2027. The city budget documents describe the allocation as maintaining current service levels, with no change from the prior year. Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway said the city provided flat funding after the office missed budget deadlines and did not submit a proposed 2% reduction. The Civilian Oversight Board, which oversees the Office of the Independent Monitor, said it has completed an internal survey of the office’s work and will discuss the results as part of its own formal evaluation. It plans to release a summary after that process is finished. The board emphasized that other reports and commentary should not be treated as its official employee review, and renewed its call for funding equal to 1% of the Madison Police Department’s budget, saying evaluations should account for the office’s available staffing and resources. Common Council President Sabrina Madison said she was among the alders who requested the City Attorney’s review to better understand the monitor’s job and the office’s work. She cited the July 2026 fatal shooting of Corey Ruiz by a Madison police officer as a reason effective oversight matters. Madison said she lacked confidence that oversight was working and called effective working relationships with other officials important to the role. She said she was still reviewing the document and could not say whether discussions about next steps were underway. City Attorney Michael Haas said the document was not an official performance evaluation and declined further comment. Glass disputed the review’s legitimacy in a Facebook livestream. The Office of the Independent Monitor and Glass had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.