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 31 categories (Class I and Class II) according to the severity of the offense. • By October 1, 2004, OPD must implement this classification system. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The implementation deadline for this task occurred in October 2004. During the seventh and eighth reporting periods, OPD completed the policies that comply with this Settlement Agreement task and trained its personnel on the policies. The policies are General Order M-3, Complaints Against Departmental Personnel or Procedures, and Training Bulletin V-T.1, Internal Investigation Procedure Manual. As discussed above, during the eleventh reporting period, the IMT worked closely with the Department to revise General Order M-3. In addition, as described below, this task was modified by stipulation. This task was initially modified by stipulation in December 2005, to permit supervisors discovering Class II violations during the normal course of supervision (i.e., not as the result of a citizen complaint) to address the misconduct through non-disciplinary corrective action, provided there is no pattern of misconduct. This task was further modified during the twelfth reporting period by stipulation allowing an Acting Chief, Assistant Chief, or Deputy Chief to direct that a Class I investigation be conducted by a non-IAD investigator. Previously, only the Chief could order this. During the ninth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. We found OPD in partial compliance with this task and near compliance with almost every component of this task. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our ninth status report. During the tenth reporting period, all of the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 90% or modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment. During the thirteenth reporting period, the IMT conducted another audit of OPD’s actual practice compliance with Task 8. We found OPD to be in compliance with all of the task’s requirements. Among other requirements, Task 8 requires OPD to categorize each misconduct complaint according to Class I (more severe) or Class II (less severe) offenses. We found that OPD routinely identifies every allegation as Class I or Class II, helping to ensure that investigations are handled appropriately. In contrast to our previous audit, we found that OPD is properly assigning investigations based on these classifications. We also found that OPD is complying with the Settlement Agreement’s requirements regarding the taping and transcribing of statements and interviews that are conducted during misconduct investigations. OPD is in compliance with Task 8. 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.)