fourteenth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Fourteenth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. July 31, 2009 to January 13, 2010 Page 99 considered when making the promotions, none of the promotions included consideration of the task’s first element: commitment to community policing. Thus, OPD was found to be out of compliance with this task in actual practice. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our sixth status report. During the seventh reporting period, OPD reported that the Department had implemented a number of measures designed to strengthen the promotions process including structured recorded oral interviews that include questions relating to Settlement Agreement topics. We support such measures and believe that they will likely assist the Department to achieve compliance on this task. During the eighth reporting period, OIG conducted a follow-up audit of this task. OIG reviewed the promotions made by OPD from February 1, 2005 to January 30, 2006, and reported that the Department’s actual practice comply with the Settlement Agreement. During the ninth reporting period, the IMT assessed OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our ninth status report. We observed significant improvement in OPD’s promotional practices but found that OPD was not yet in compliance with the NSA. Despite the steady improvement we saw during the period under review, the lack of accurate and complete information regarding promotional candidates compromised OPD’s compliance efforts and OPD was not in compliance with this task. Our audit included several recommendations for assisting OPD to attain full compliance with this task, including: completing the promotions policy as soon as possible; designating each MoR provision as Class I or Class II and ensuring that this information is included in internal investigations from the outset and provided to the decision makers; ensuring that promotions documents are accurate and complete and do not contain inappropriate information; and providing the Chief and City Administrator with copies of investigative files of relevant sustained cases. During the tenth reporting period, one of the three compliance standards for this task was modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. During the thirteenth reporting period, OIG completed an assessment of Task 46, finding OPD in compliance with the task. During the current reporting period, the IMT conducted an actual practice assessment of Task 46. We found that OPD is now in compliance with this task. Our review did not assess, or reflect our view of, the ultimate propriety of any particular promotion. Rather, it assessed whether OPD has in place a system which appropriately incorporates required integrity, accountability, and community policing factors into the promotions process, and that provides accurate and complete information to the Chief and City Administrator so that they can effectively assess these factors in deciding whom to promote. We found that it does. Further, we found no applicants with sustained Class I offenses within the previous 12 months that had been promoted.