21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 3 August 14, 2014, the Court expressed its dismay with the recent reinstatement of an officer whom Chief Sean Whent had terminated, and with the City’s poor performance in other recent arbitrations – several of which also overturned terminations of officers who had been sustained for serious misconduct. The Order reads, in part: “This is not the first time an arbitrator has overturned an officer’s termination by Defendants, and, indeed, this Court previously ordered the parties to discuss the reinstatement of [another officer] by arbitration at the September 22, 2011 status conference. The City’s promises to correct deficiencies at that time have fallen short, and further intervention by this Court is now required. “Failure to address the issues addressed in this order will prevent compliance, let alone sustainable compliance, with the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (“NSA”). Defendants cannot be in compliance with Task 5 if the internal 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 Order questions, “whether Defendants are adequately preparing cases for arbitration such that consistency of discipline can be assured to the greatest extent possible.” 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 described the report’s findings as “both disappointing and shocking.” It continued, “[I]t is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the City has been indifferent, at best, to whether its disciplinary decisions are upheld at arbitration.”