At the same time, the city board that manages the office ignored concerns from other city departments and officials that the office may have violated state laws, a member of the Madison City Council said.
Madison police paused openly sharing data with the Office of the Independent Police Monitor and requested an internal review of its employees’ handling of sensitive documents after learning that sensitive, unredacted documents it had provided the office were being uploaded to a personal device and analyzed with software not approved by the city’s IT department.
Cybersecurity isn’t the city’s only concern with the monitor’s office. In an email the Wisconsin State Journal obtained through a public records request, Ald. MGR Govindarajan told the chair of the Police Civilian Oversight Board, Maia Pearson, the office’s staff were working beyond allotted hours, circumvented the city’s AI policy and purchased and contracted services without following city guidelines.
“While independence in its core function is both important and necessary, extending that independence to areas such as compliance with City policies and legal requirements creates risk not just for the OIM, but for the City as a whole,“ Govindarajan wrote.
POLICE PUSHBACK AGAINST DATA SHARING
Police paused record-sharing on Nov. 7 after the monitor’s data analyst, Greg Gelembiuk, told Assistant Police Chief Angie Kamoske that he had used his personal computer to analyze police records provided to the monitor’s office.
According to an internal memo from Madison Police Chief John Patterson, Gelembiuk called his city-issued laptop a “paperweight“ and stated that he received permission from the previous monitor, Robin Copley, to use his own device.
Gelembiuk never received approval from the city’s IT department to use his own computer for the work. He also reportedly told Kamoske that he used software that IT initially rejected.
“I have ‘data analyst’ in my title, so I figured out how to do the job without IT support,” he wrote in an email to Patterson.
IT director Sarah Edgerton confirmed that the department later approved one of the software packages after a formal review.
Gelembiuk declined to comment for this story, referring questions from the State Journal to interim police monitor Aeiramique Glass.
“Personal devices and unapproved software should never be playing a role in any of our work,” Patterson told the State Journal. “We have a responsibility to the whole community handling sensitive documents, sensitive records, personal identifying information, with the utmost security and diligence.“
Under city ordinance, the OIPM is entitled to “unfettered access“ to unredacted police records, which are typically withheld from public records requests.
The police department lifted its block on sharing records with the OIPM after Glass was hired as interim monitor. The PCOB chose Glass to temporarily lead the monitor’s office a month after Copley stepped down for personal health reasons.
“On day one, the chief and I met, and he agreed that there will be no issue with information sharing and lifted that pause,” she told the State Journal.
Patterson said he’s hopeful the relationship between his department and the monitor’s office will improve under Glass, but that police will not side-step state records laws if similar issues occur.
ORDINANCE CHANGE
In his last month in office, District 8 Ald. Govindarajan, who represents most of the UW-Madison campus area, introduced an ordinance to clarify the PCOB and OIPM's role and the city policies they are required to follow, and to mandate quarterly reports to the Madison City Council.
An amendment to the ordinance by Ald. Davy Mayer would add a City Council member to the PCOB to ensure that at least one elected official attends their meetings.
The board strongly objected to the ordinance when introduced last month, with some members telling the City Council to stop bothering them with frequent changes.
“This type of quarterly reporting, this type of regular attendance … is indicative of a type of policing,” Helyn Luisi-Mills, a member of the PCOB, said at a March 25 meeting. “We’re not like every other board, and we should not be treated like every other board.”
Govindarajan said he introduced the ordinance at the March 25 PCOB meeting to gather feedback and make changes based on the board’s perspective. That didn’t happen, as the board voted to table discussion of the ordinance indefinitely.
The City Council can pass the changes with or without the PCOB’s approval, Govindarajan said, “it's just unfortunate, from my perspective, that when this goes to Council, we won't know what their recommendations are.”
The ordinance is scheduled to be taken up at the City Council’s next meeting on April 21.
HISTORY OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Since its inception in September 2020, the PCOB and OIPM have been dogged by controversy.
In 2022, language requiring specific demographic representation on the board was changed after a lawsuit was filed against the city. A second lawsuit over discriminatory hiring practices in selecting the independent monitor was filed in 2023.
In September Ald. Regina Vidaver and Govindarajan wrote a letter to the PCOB outlining their concerns about the performance of the OIPM, then led by Copley, and the PCOB's lack of oversight.
This included multiple instances of the office’s failure to submit annual reports, the monitor’s failure to attend City Council meetings, and a history of ignoring public records requests directed to the office.
The State Journal has not received a response to a request submitted last month for a list of AI prompts used to help draft a report by the independent monitor’s office. Madison’s city government has a temporary policy prohibiting the use of generative AI in public reports.
The 2025 report was held for review but was later approved by the PCOB before a full review was conducted.
Pearson said most of the council’s concerns were addressed in a March 31 email to Govindarajan.
“The Board fully understands that the OIM operates within City systems and may be subject to basic applicable legal and administrative requirements,” she said. “At the same time, the independence of the OIM and PCOB in carrying out its core mission is fundamental and must be preserved.“
Pearson did not respond to calls or emails from the State Journal.
FUTURE OF THE OIPM
The “independent” in the Office of the Independent Monitor’s name is intentional. The office is afforded significantly more autonomy than other departments.
Unlike most department heads, the monitor is chosen by the board, not the mayor, but still requires final approval from the City Council.
The office received $405,299 in 2026, more than half of which pays the salaries of its three employees, the monitor, a data analyst and an office manager and $50,000 is set aside for outside legal counsel.
In her now revised 2025-2026 annual report, Glass said the staffing situation is “not sustainable” and that the office should receive approximately $1.97 million per year, or roughly five times its current budget, to meet its goals.
Quintupling the office’s budget is unlikely given Madison’s financial standing. Two years ago, the city passed a $22 million referendum to maintain its current spending, meaning it would have to make cuts elsewhere.
“We build a budget, and then we actually spend money,” Vidaver said. “We may overspend our budget if, for example, MPD has higher than anticipated overtime costs.”
The city has a buffer of around $20K in the budget, she said. “But, if we spend over that expenditure restraint threshold by even $1, we lose millions from the state in support for the next year.”
Some in the city have called for defunding the office.
In 2024, Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway proposed a budget that drastically slashed the office’s spending. In 2025, a group of City Council members attempted to put a complete pause on the office's spending.
Both attempts failed, but the threat remains present as the city gears up for another round of budget talks.
“If these risks are not addressed and result in avoidable liability for the City, I believe the Council would be compelled to take steps to mitigate that risk, including reevaluating the structure, oversight, and funding of the OIM and PCOB,“ Govindarajan said.
© 2026 The Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wis.). Visit www.wisconsinstatejournal.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
