21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 9 Departmental policy requires that at least 85% of Class I misconduct investigations and at least 85% of Class II misconduct investigations must be completed within 180 days to be considered timely.1 Of the 34 Class I cases we reviewed, 30, or 88%, were in compliance with established timelines – a decrease from the 94% we found during the last reporting period. Also, 11 of the Class I cases were completed in between 170 and 179 days, and one case was completed in exactly 180 days. Of the 44 Class II cases we reviewed, 100% were in compliance with established timelines – the same percentage we found during the last reporting period. Eight of the Class II cases were completed in between 170 and 179 days. Of the 22 sustained findings that we reviewed, all (100%) were in compliance with established discipline timelines.2 This was the same percentage that we found during the last reporting period. OPD is in compliance with Task 2.1. Task 2.2 requires that IAD and OPD command staff regularly monitor compliance with these timeliness standards (compliance standard: Yes/No). The primary responsibility for monitoring compliance with timeliness standards rests with IAD, which generates weekly reports listing the Department’s open investigations and critical deadlines for investigations retained in IAD and those handled at the division level. The reports are distributed to IAD command staff and the respective Bureau Deputy Chiefs. In addition to the reports, the IAD Commander discusses pending deadlines for key open investigations during IAD’s weekly meetings with the Chief; the deadlines are also reflected in written agendas for these meetings. A Monitoring Team representative occasionally attends and observes these weekly meetings. IAD also occasionally, as needed, emails individual reminders on cases approaching due dates to investigators and their supervisors. The Department is in compliance with Task 2.2. Task 2.3 requires that if IAD experiences an unusual proliferation of cases and/or workload, IAD staffing be increased to maintain timeliness standards (compliance standard: Yes/No). During the current reporting period, IAD opened 273 cases, a decrease of 23 cases from the last reporting period. The Chief approved 238 cases, a decrease of 61 cases from the last reporting period. IAD experienced personnel changes during this reporting period. The IAD commander, a captain, was promoted to Deputy Chief; and a replacement captain transferred into IAD to fill the position. In addition, a sergeant transferred into IAD to fill the vacant Intake Unit administrative sergeant position. There were three civilian technician position vacancies at the close of the quarter. Individual intake caseloads decreased. 1 OPD classifies misconduct as either “Class I” or “Class II.” Per DGO M-03, Class I offenses “are the most serious allegations of misconduct and, if sustained, shall result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal and may serve as the basis for criminal prosecution.” Class II offenses include “all minor misconduct offenses.” 2 We reviewed 14 cases involving sustained findings; several cases involved more than one sustained finding.