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 34 o upon completion of the investigation and issuance of a final report, provide subject members/employees with access to the underlying data upon which an IAD report is based, including all tape-recorded interviews, transcripts and investigator’s notes. • By October 1, 2004, OPD must implement this policy. a. 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 incorporating this Settlement Agreement task and trained its staff 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. During the tenth reporting period, OPD proposed a series of changes to General Order M-3 and to its Internal Investigations and Internal Affairs policies and procedures manuals. As discussed above, during the eleventh reporting period, the IMT worked closely with the Department to revise these policies. During the ninth reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our ninth status report. Generally, we found insufficient documentation to verify compliance with this task. During the tenth reporting period, OPD improved documentation that members and employees are notified when a complaint is filed against them. At the beginning of the tenth reporting period, OPD asserted that it is not required to notify its members/employees of pending complaints unless it interviews the employee. OPD now notifies all members/employees of pending complaints regardless of whether it plans to interview the member/employee. In our audit, we found OPD in compliance with the final requirement of Task 11, which requires it to provide subject member/employees access to the underlying data on which the complaint investigation reports are based upon conclusion of the investigation. 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 thirteenth reporting period, we conducted another actual practice assessment of Task 11. We found that OPD, and IAD in particular, have made significant progress since our last review and was in compliance with Task 11. At that time, OPD was in conditional compliance with Task 11.3, which requires that IAD notify the subject’s immediate supervisor and commander of misconduct allegations. Our finding was conditional because OPD’s compliance rate of 75% fell short of the 85% compliance rate required for this task. However, because we believe that in at least some instances, notification occurred but simply was not properly documented, and because of OPD’s performance on the remainder of the task, we found OPD in conditional compliance. During this reporting period, we again audited Task 11.3 and found that OPD had raised its compliance level from 75% to 98%.