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 39 internal investigations. We found that the Discipline Officer made discipline recommendations in all of the sustained vehicle collision cases and in 97% of the sustained misconduct investigations we reviewed. OPD is in compliance with Task 15. 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.) 16. Supporting IAD Process-Supervisor/Managerial Accountability (Task 16; S.A. III.O.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By June 15, 2004, OPD must, based on contemporary police standards and best practices, develop a policy that holds supervisors and commanders, as well as other managers in the chain of command, accountable for supporting the IAD process. Where an IAD investigation finds that a supervisor or manager should have reasonably determined that a member/employee committed a Class I offense, that supervisor or manager must be held accountable, through the Department’s administrative discipline process, for failure to supervise, failure to review and/or failure to intervene. • By October 1, 2004, OPD must implement this policy. 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 incorporating this Settlement Agreement task and trained its personnel on these 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 began a compliance review of Task 16 and assessed several cases that had been identified by IAD as responsive to this task. We also reviewed additional cases we identified as responsive to this task during the course of our broader case review. It became apparent during the course of our review that there was not a mechanism to ensure that all cases responsive to Task 16 could be identified, absent extraordinary effort by IAD staff. In response, during the tenth reporting period, IAD developed a method for identifying Task 16 cases. It added a new Class I Manual of Rules provision specifically dealing with supporting the IAD process. The IMT elected to postpone its formal