21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 79 performance. 4. The COP may direct the Discipline Officer to prepare a Discipline Recommendation without convening a Discipline Conference. (Negotiated Settlement Agreement X. B.) Discussion: Five Departmental policies incorporate the requirements of Task 45: Departmental General Order M-03, Complaints Against Department Personnel and Procedures (published December 6, 2005 and revised most recently on August 22, 2013); Special Order 8552, Update of Departmental Training Bulletin V-T.1, Internal Investigation Procedure Manual (published February 1, 2007); Training Bulletin V-T.1 and V-T.2, Internal Investigation Procedure Manual (published June 1, 2006); Internal Affairs Policy and Procedure Manual (published December 6, 2005); and Training Bulletin V-T, Departmental Discipline Policy (published September 3, 2010). As the Department has trained at least 95% of relevant personnel on these policies, we find OPD in continued Phase 1 compliance with this Task. For the four quarterly reports prior to the nineteenth reporting period, we found OPD in compliance with Task 45. During the nineteenth reporting period, however, we placed OPD in deferred compliance status with Task 45 due to two cases that had emerged from the disciplinary process that we found unacceptable. In one case, a senior officer struck a subject when he was lying on the ground after being shocked by a Taser. In this case, the then-City Administrator overruled the OPD discipline process, and reduced the discipline from a 10-day suspension to counseling. The second case involved an officer who threw a noise making explosive device into a crowd of demonstrators during the Occupy Oakland-related protests of 2011. This officer’s termination was overruled by an arbitrator who ordered his reinstatement. Task 45.1 requires that OPD maintain a centralized system for documenting and tracking all OPD forms of discipline and corrective action, whether imposed centrally or at the Division level (compliance standard: Yes/No). To assess Phase 2 compliance with this subtask, we queried the IAD database to identify all of the cases with at least one sustained finding that were approved from October 1, through December 31, 2014. This query yielded 27 cases, containing 35 sustained findings. All (100%) of these cases and findings contained all of the necessary information available on the printout generated by IAD for our review. OPD is in compliance with the requirement that it maintain an adequate system for documenting and tracking discipline and corrective action. Task 45.4 requires that discipline be imposed in a manner that is fair and consistent (compliance standard: 95%). To this end, the Department developed a Discipline Matrix, which was adopted on September 2, 2010 and in effect until a new Discipline Matrix was approved on March 14, 2014. This new matrix applies to violations after that date. We reviewed all 27 cases and 35 sustained findings that were decided during the period of October 1, through December 31, 2014. We also reviewed four cases with eight sustained findings that had been brought to our attention during the previous reporting period but which