MADISON, Wis. — A city employment review of Interim Independent Police Monitor Aeiramique Glass cites concerns involving her office’s budget submissions, outside contractors, meeting notices and progress toward hiring a permanent monitor. The 42-page review, dated Oct. 2, was prepared by the Madison City Attorney’s Office in response to questions from members of the public and city alders. Its findings describe possible procedural and legal problems; they do not establish that Glass or her office violated the law. Glass was contacted for comment, according to information accompanying the review’s release. The review says Glass submitted her budget late and did not follow budget instructions. It also says she did not attend an Aug. 13 meeting where city agencies were asked to discuss their budget requests. The city’s executive budget was scheduled for release Oct. 6. The document also examines a dispute between Glass and City Attorney Michael Haas over outside legal counsel and other contractors. It says Dr. Victor Weedn helped with an external investigation without an approved city contract. Haas requested a copy of Glass’ contract with Weedn on July 31, but the review says it had not been provided by Aug. 6. The document also says Glass indicated she had retained Sulton Law Office for legal services, but that no contract was provided. Madison ordinances require the independent monitor to follow city contracting requirements when hiring contractors. In an email cited in the review, Glass wrote that her office did not have to follow administrative procedure memoranda except when she chose to do so in good faith, and said contractor information would not be shared before an investigation was complete. The review further says the City Attorney’s Office intervened on a couple of occasions after meeting notices for closed sessions of the Police Civilian Oversight Board were not posted in time. City rules require notices at least 24 hours before a meeting. The monitor’s office is responsible for ensuring the board complies with the state’s Open Meetings Law, according to the review. Separately, the review describes a Human Resources complaint alleging potentially coercive, threatening or intimidating behavior by an employee in the monitor’s office. The complaint was forwarded to Glass on Aug. 7. The city, the review says, did not have access to Glass’ response. The report also questions the pace of hiring a permanent independent monitor. Glass was appointed in late 2025 after former monitor Robin Copley resigned, and the interim appointment was initially expected to last six to nine months. The review says Glass’ primary responsibility included serving as hiring manager for the permanent position. The Common Council extended her appointment on June 9, through March 31, 2027. But nearly four months after that extension, the review says, meaningful recruitment had yet to begin. At an Oct. 1 meeting, the Police Civilian Oversight Board discussed work on a job description; the position had not been posted because that description was not complete. The findings put a spotlight on the city’s oversight of police and the processes intended to make that oversight accountable. The permanent monitor search remains unfinished while the interim office faces questions about its own compliance with city procedures.