19th-quarterly-report.pdf

Nineteenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police Department October 30, 2014 Page 3 Task 5, Complaint Procedures for IAD; and Task 45, Consistency of Discipline Policy. We describe these changes further below. During the last (eighteenth) reporting period, we found the Department in Phase 2 compliance with 17 Tasks, and in partial compliance with four Tasks. (We also deferred our assessment of one Task.) During our most recent site visit, on August 14, 2014, the Court expressed its dismay with the recent reinstatement of an officer whom Chief 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 Court’s Order referred to Tasks 5 (Complaint Procedures for IAD) and 45 (Consistency of Discipline), questioning, “whether Defendants are adequately preparing cases for arbitration such that consistency of discipline can be assured to the greatest extent possible.” As described further below, as a result – despite the findings of our most recent assessments of those Tasks – I list those Tasks as in deferred compliance status. The investigation of the discipline and arbitration process is currently underway; I will discuss it further in future quarterly status reports. While this inquiry is ongoing, I would like to note that in some other areas, the Department continues to make progress. Most notably, during this reporting period, for the first reporting period since the beginning of our tenure, the Department is in compliance with Task 20, Span of Control. We are pleased that the Parties recently reached agreement on a slightly altered manner of assessing the most substantive subtasks of Task 20; this demonstrated the Parties’ shared commitment to advancing the sustainability of these reforms. One of the impediments to compliance with Task 20 had been the Department’s use of “certified acting sergeants.” Sergeants are the building blocks of a police department’s supervisory structure – they respond to scenes, handle complaints from citizens, approve arrests made by officers, and review and write reports that are eventually sent up the chain of command. Officers must know who they report to; the consistency of supervision makes a police organization effective and increases officers’ accountability to their department, and the department’s accountability to the community it serves. Since the beginning of our tenure, we had expressed our concerns with the practice of using acting sergeants – who are officers themselves – to supervise squads of officers. With the enactment of DGO D-13.1, Assignment to Acting Sergeant of Police, the Department officially discontinued its use of acting sergeants for patrol- related duties. (The Department, with our approval, continues to place acting sergeants in non- patrol assignments.) This policy change is a significant step forward.