A last‑minute floor amendment to strip funding from the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) and the Police Civilian Oversight Board (PCOB) and redirect those dollars to staff the Madison Police Department's body‑worn camera program failed on Nov. 11 after more than three hours of public comment and council debate. The council recorded a roll‑call vote of 17 no to 3 yes on the measure.

The amendment, moved by Alder Isidore Knox, proposed eliminating about 2.6 full‑time equivalent positions in the OIM/PCOB and using the operating funds to hire MPD staff who would manage and process body‑worn camera footage. Knox said the city has debated body cameras for more than a decade and described the move as a conservative, pragmatic step to begin implementation ahead of a planned capital purchase.

Advocates, community leaders and current PCOB members who spoke during the public comment period urged the council to retain oversight funding. Bonnie Rowe, speaking for herself, said an independent monitor needs access to body‑worn footage but that the OIM must be allowed to function: “We implemented an office of the independent monitor without giving them the tools to conduct investigations,” she said, and urged planning for cameras in 2027 while keeping OIM funded.

Several PCOB members and community groups argued that the board and office are still building capacity after years of delay and staffing challenges. Maya Pearson, chair of the PCOB, told the council the office had been taking complaints and that roughly 11–14 investigations were in process; she said the board was working on its annual report and preparing to bring on an interim independent monitor. “We have started taking requests from the public and cases as well as having an MOU that has been working,” Pearson said during a lengthy Q&A.

Opponents of the amendment also warned about practical consequences if the OIM were defunded. Interim HR staff and the acting OIM administrator told council that, without staff, the office would have to close active investigations and notify complainants that their cases would not be completed.

Supporters of the amendment said shifting operating dollars would let the police department hire needed staff to process video, redact footage and address an existing backlog of open‑records requests. Chief Patterson said the department faces a months‑long backlog on redaction and open‑records fulfillment and that adding civilian staff would make a phased camera rollout feasible.

Councilmembers pressed HR, the city attorney and finance staff on legal, staffing and budget mechanics — including whether operating funds can be repurposed for capital purchases and how vacancies explain past underspending in the OIM budget. HR staff described an expedited hiring process for an interim monitor and said finalists were scheduled to present to the PCOB the day after the meeting.

After extended debate and a successful motion to call the question, the council held a roll‑call vote. The amendment failed, 17 no to 3 yes. With the amendment defeated, the OIM and PCOB will retain their current budget allocations as the council completed the remainder of the budget work that evening.

The council did not vote on a separate capital appropriation for cameras that night; Chief Patterson and others said implementation planning, staffing and capital requests remain possible in the coming budget cycle.