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 24 are received directly by the Communications Division or relayed to the Communications Divisions by supervisors or officers in the field; 2) ensure that when complaints are received directly by the Communications Division a sergeant is assigned to respond to the complainant to initiate the complaint process; and 3) ensure that IAD is promptly informed of complaints logged on the Daily Incident Log (DIL) by the Communications Division. As previously reported, the implementation of this process reflects a striking cultural shift from years back when complaints that were not received directly by IAD were often lost or ignored. During our review, we did identify some problems with the DIL system and with IAD learning of misconduct allegations that are made in connection with use of force incidents. We informed IAD of these problems and, to its credit, it took immediate action to address the problems, including conducting internal audits and reinforcing policy requirements with OPD supervisors. In addition to the requirements discussed above, Task 4 requires that OPD ensure that all complaints it receives are processed and tracked. In sharp contrast to the practice a few years ago, when hundreds of complaints a year were not assigned an identifying number and were effectively lost and uninvestigated, our review of over 1,600 matters entered into the IAD database during the period reviewed demonstrated that all but four had received an IAD case number, which is assigned to all misconduct complaints, or an IAD intake number, which is assigned to all matters, including service complaints, that OPD determines are not misconduct complaints. Upon review of the matters that were not numbered, we determined that only one of them should have received an IAD intake number. This is a striking and important difference from past practice. During the thirteenth reporting period, we assessed OPD’s compliance in actual practice with the two remaining provisions of Task 4 and found that OPD was in compliance with all of Task 4. Our review reports contained a series of recommendations aimed at assisting OPD to address areas likely to cause it compliance problems and to ensure that the gains that have been made are maintained. OPD is in compliance with Task 4. Portions of this task (4.7 and 4.10) will be actively monitored under the MOU. The Monitor will conduct the required audits, reviews or studies to assess whether OPD is complying with the substantive task requirements. (MOU, paragraph 10.) The remainder of this task will not be actively monitored under the MOU. If the Monitor observes material non-compliance with the remainder of 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.) 5. Complaint Procedures for IAD (Task 5; S.A. III.E.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By June 15, 2004, OPD must develop a policy to provide immediate access to a supervisor to all citizens seeking to file a complaint. The Settlement Agreement sets forth certain