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 48 trained 95% or more of relevant personnel on this task. During the ninth reporting period, OPD published a revised version of General Order B-6 to provide additional guidance to supervisors and managers. The IMT determined that the revisions comply with the Settlement Agreement. The IMT verified that OPD has trained more than 95% of its personnel on the revised policy. During the tenth reporting period, OPD published Special Order 8650, Performance Appraisals. The IMT has verified that OPD has trained more than 95% of its personnel on the Special Order. The IMT audited OPD’s performance appraisals in October 2004 and found that it was not in actual practice compliance with Task 21. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our combined fourth and fifth quarterly report. In a September 30, 2005, audit, OIG found that 41% of supervisory and management staff still were unable to produce documentation that semimonthly and biannual performance review meetings were occurring between management/supervisors and their subordinates as required. During the eighth reporting period, the IMT again audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. Despite several weeks of diligent efforts by OIG staff to locate the documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with this task, OPD was unable to locate sufficient documentation of required meetings. Based on the information produced, OPD was only able to document that between 58% to 65% of meetings occurred. While more meetings may have occurred, OPD was unable to provide sufficient documentation. Accordingly, OPD remained out of compliance with Task 21. During the tenth reporting period, the Parties reached a stipulation changing the bi- weekly meeting requirement so that it only applies to members and employees working in certain units or positions. Also during the tenth reporting period, many of the compliance standards for this task were lowered from 95% to 85% or 90%. During the eleventh reporting period, the Parties agreed that OPD would no longer be required to track the bi-weekly performance review or annual meetings. Supervisors and Commanders must continue to hold these meetings and the IMT will assess compliance via interviews and observations. During the twelfth reporting period, we conducted another compliance assessment of OPD’s actual practice, and during the thirteenth reporting period, we completed the reporting process for our assessment. We found OPD in compliance with Task 21. As our last Task 21 audit report noted, proactive supervision and early correction of problems are critical from a risk management perspective and help ensure successful and lengthy careers for individual employees. Consequently, we encouraged OPD to build upon its efforts in this area and ensure that supervisors are taking a proactive role in other important areas, including, for example, meeting with officers to review and discuss in-car videos, interactions with citizens and co-workers, and preparation of reports, preparation and execution of search warrants, and court testimony. OPD is in compliance with Task 21. This task will not be actively monitored under the MOU. If the Monitor observes material non-compliance with this task, the Monitor may conduct