21st-quarterly-report.pdf

Twenty-First Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department May 4, 2015 Page 81 officer’s offense as the more serious Obedience to Laws – Felony/Serious Misdemeanor (314.42- 1), for which the discipline for a second offense would be termination. The fact that the officer was not charged is not persuasive. It is apparent that had one of the customers or security employees at the club wished to pursue charges, he would have been charged. It is his actions, not whether formal charges were placed, for which he should be accountable. We note that another case that we reviewed involves an officer who also was disciplined for alcohol-related offenses. In that case, OPD recommended termination but worked out a “last chance agreement” in which the officer will receive a 20-day suspension and be subjected to controls such as random alcohol tests. This is a more viable solution to an officer’s alcohol abuse, in that it allows for periodic alcohol testing – and should the officer return to unacceptable behavior, termination. As described above, during the last two reporting periods, we had deferred our assessment of Tasks 5 and 45 due to the then-ongoing Court-ordered investigation of the Department’s discipline and arbitration process. On 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…”