seventeenth-quarterly-report.pdf
Figures extracted from this document
Extracted text
Seventeenth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor
for the Oakland Police Department
April 28, 2014
Page 28
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.)
Background:
In the last reporting period, we found the Department to be in Phase 2 compliance with Task 16.
Discussion:
As previously reported, 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 in February 2008, and again in June 2013. (The
revised policy also incorporates the requirements of Task 16.) 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.
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 92 Daily Incident Log entries from
October 1, through December 31, 2013; a random sample of 73 IAD cases (investigated by both
IAD and via Division-level investigation, or DLI) that were approved by the Chief between
October 1, through December 31, 2013; and the ten sustained Class I investigations that were
approved by the Chief between October 1, through December 31, 2013.
Each of the 10 sustained Class I investigations showed acceptable analyses of supervisors’
abilities to identify the sustained misconduct. These 10 cases included three force-related cases,
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document979 Filed04/28/14 Page29 of 88