19th-quarterly-report.pdf
Figures extracted from this document
Extracted text
Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor
for the Oakland Police Department
October 30, 2014
Page 26
Task 16: Supporting IAD Process - Supervisor/Managerial Accountability
Requirements:
On or before December 1, 2003, OPD shall develop a policy to ensure that supervisors and
commanders, as well as other managers in the chain of command, shall be held accountable for
supporting the IAD process. If an IAD investigation finds that a supervisor or manager should
have reasonably determined that a member/employee committed or violated a Class I offense,
then that supervisor or manager shall be held accountable, through the Department’s
administrative discipline process, for failure to supervise, failure to review, and/or failure to
intervene.
(Negotiated Settlement Agreement III. O.)
Discussion:
Two Department policies, Departmental General Order M-03 and Training Bulletin V-T.1,
incorporate the requirements of Task 16. OPD published Departmental General Order M-03,
Complaints Against Department Personnel and Procedures, on December 6, 2005. General
Order M-03 was revised most recently on August 22, 2013. OPD published Training Bulletin V-
T.1, Internal Investigation Procedure Manual, on June 1, 2006; and Special Order 8552, Update
of Departmental Training Bulletin V-T.1, Internal Investigation Procedure Manual, on February
1, 2007. 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.
OPD has been in Phase 2 compliance with Task 16 since the fourteenth reporting period.
Task 16.1 requires that supervisors and commanders, as well as other managers in the chain of
command, are held accountable for supporting the IAD process (compliance standard: Yes/No);
and Task 16.2 requires that if an IAD investigation finds that a supervisor or manager should
have reasonably determined that a member/employee committed or violated a Class I offense,
the supervisor or manager is held accountable, through OPD’s administrative discipline process,
for failure to supervise, failure to review, and/or failure to intervene (compliance standard:
90%).
To assess Task 16 during this reporting period, we examined 91 Daily Incident Log entries from
April 1, through June 30, 2014; a random sample of 65 IAD cases (investigated by both IAD and
via Division-level investigation, or DLI) that were approved by the Chief of Police between
April 1, through June 30, 2014; and the seven sustained Class I investigations that were approved
by the Chief of Police between April 1, through June 30, 2014.
Each of the seven sustained Class I investigations showed acceptable analyses of supervisors’
abilities to identify the sustained misconduct. These seven cases included three cases of
allegations of harassment/ hostile work environment, one case where an employee assaulted
another employee, one allegation that OPD violated policy by releasing a firearm that was used
in a suicide, a use of force case involving a canine, and an allegation of failure to supervise.