MADISON — A dispute over outside legal counsel has sharpened tensions between Madison City Attorney Michael Haas and Independent Police Monitor Aeiramique Glass, with city officials questioning whether Glass had authority to hire attorneys and other consultants without following municipal contracting procedures. The disagreement centers on Milwaukee attorney William Sulton, whom Glass retained to provide legal services to the Office of the Independent Police Monitor. In an Aug. 31 memo, the city attorney’s office said the monitor may obtain outside legal assistance but cannot independently enter into a contract on behalf of the city. Madison’s Administrative Procedure Memorandum No. 1-1 requires contracts to be made in the city’s name. The Finance Department must also authorize payments, according to the memo. Without an approved city contract, the department cannot process invoices. City officials confirmed there is no record of a contract with Sulton or of payments to him. Sulton also said he has not been paid and has not submitted an invoice. The city attorney’s office raised a similar concern about Glass’s use of forensic pathologist Dr. Victor Weedn in an external investigation. City records contain no payment to Weedn, according to the information reviewed in the dispute. The conflict escalated after comments Glass made during an August Facebook Live broadcast. “They’ve been wanting to do this to me … And I’m not the one. I will burn this city down. I will burn it down,” she said. In a July 31 email to Haas, Glass challenged his authority over her office and emphasized the monitor’s independence from the mayor, Common Council and Madison Police Department. “You are the mayor’s attorney, which I am independent of,” she wrote. “You are the Common Council’s counsel, which I and OIPM are independent of. You are MPD’s counsel, which I am independent of.” The city attorney’s office also cited other alleged procedural conflicts, including questions about compliance with Wisconsin’s open meetings law and city human-resources policies. In one exchange, Glass rejected guidance from Haas about open-meetings requirements, writing: “Your opinions are not welcomed in this office.” Glass had not responded to requests for comment. The dispute places the city’s independent police oversight office at the center of a broader question about how independence from police and other city officials should work alongside public contracting, finance and transparency rules. Those rules determine how taxpayer-funded services are authorized and paid for, while the monitor’s independence is intended to support civilian oversight of the Police Department.