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 103 noteworthy accomplishments; nor was OPD in compliance with Task 48’s requirement that each Division Commander meet with the Chief of Police to discuss the annual management report. 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. While OPD did not meet the report submission deadlines set out in its policies, it remained in compliance with the requirements that each functional unit prepare a management report and that Division Commanders, Deputy Chiefs, and the Chief of Police meet to discuss the reports. During the tenth reporting period, all of the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 85% or modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. During the twelfth reporting period, we completed our compliance assessment of OPD’s 2007 annual management reports. OPD is in compliance with Task 48. Our review indicated that OPD has significantly improved both the quality and timeliness of its annual management reports since our first assessment of OPD’s annual management reports in 2005. In general, the reports were more detailed and thorough, increasing their potential as useful planning and oversight tools for OPD upper management. OPD has made a focused effort to improve in this area and, in our view, this effort has succeeded. A full discussion of our findings is included in our twelfth status report. During the thirteenth reporting period, OPD completed its 2008 annual management reports. In 2009, as in 2008, the meetings between Division Commanders were more formalized than during the years of our previous audits. Members of the IMT attended these meetings, which occurred over two days. The discussions we observed during these well-attended meetings were informative and included some probing questioning. However, similar to last year, we continued to note that the quality of discussions was inconsistent. This may be due in part to the fact that, in violation of OPD policy, the commanders were not provided many of the reports sufficiently in advance to review them in preparation for the meetings. A number of the reports were provided to commanders only after prompting from the IMT. Such conduct weakens the management value of the annual reports and calls into question whether OPD will maintain compliance with this important process. During the current reporting period, OPD has just begun to prepare for its review of 2009 annual management reports. We encourage OPD to continue to make this process more substantive and useful to the agency. OPD is in compliance with Task 48. This task will not be actively monitored under the MOU. If the Monitor observes material non-compliance with this task, the Monitor may conduct reviews as necessary to determine whether the City has fallen out of substantial compliance and the extent and nature of the alleged deficiency. (MOU, paragraph 11.)