21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 23 investigations leading to disciplinary decisions by Defendants are inadequate. Likewise, they cannot be in compliance with Task 45 if discipline is not consistently imposed. Because imposition of discipline is meaningless if it is not final, the Monitor and the Court must consider whether discipline is upheld at the highest level, most often arbitration…” The investigation of the discipline and arbitration process was recently completed, and the Court- appointed investigator issued his report. The report concludes that Oakland’s police discipline process is “broken” because, among other reasons, it fails “to deliver fair, consistent, and effective discipline.” It continues, “Time and again, when the Oakland Police Department…has attempted to impose significant discipline, its decisions have been reversed or gutted at the arbitration stage, causing the public to question whether the City handles disciplinary cases appropriately.” The report discusses the lack of accountability among City officials for the serious failures of both OPD and the Office of the City Attorney in police discipline cases. It also offers many concrete recommendations in the areas of investigation, discipline, preparation, arbitration, and sustainability. Just a few days following the report’s release, on April 21, 2015, the Court ordered the City to “work to eliminate the problems identified” in the Court-appointed investigator’s report, and to file a status report on or before September 1, 2015 to discuss its progress. In the coming months, the Monitoring Team and I intend to work closely with the Department, the Office of the City Attorney, the Mayor, and other City officials on the City’s efforts to address the findings and work to implement the recommendations listed in the investigator’s report. Consequently, although we found the Task 5 cases we reviewed during this reporting period to be in compliance, until OPD and the City address the serious and systemic issues specifically outlined in the Court Order, we consider OPD to be in partial compliance with Task 5. Compliance Status: Phase 1: In compliance Phase 2: Partial compliance Task 6: Refusal to Accept or Refer Citizen Complaints Requirements: Refusal to accept a citizen complaint, failure to refer a citizen to IAD (when that citizen can be reasonably understood to want to make a citizen’s complaint), discouraging a person from filing a complaint, and/or knowingly providing false, inaccurate or incomplete information about IAD shall be grounds for discipline for any OPD member or employee. (Negotiated Settlement Agreement III. F.)