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 78 5. Internal Investigations-Retaliation Against Witnesses (Task 37; S.A. VI.E.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By August 25, 2003, OPD must establish a policy prohibiting retaliation against any member or employee of the Department who reports misconduct by any other member or employee, or serves as a witness in any proceeding against a member or employee. The Settlement Agreement requires that the policy acknowledge that retaliation may be informal and subtle. The Settlement Agreement further requires that dismissal be the presumptive disciplinary penalty for retaliation. • By August 25, 2003, OPD must hold supervisors, commanders and managers accountable for retaliation committed by their subordinates. If supervisors, commanders, or managers of persons engaging in retaliation knew or reasonably should have known that the behavior was occurring, OPD must subject them to the investigative and disciplinary process. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment On November 23, 2003, OPD published Special Order 8092 consisting of two Manual of Rules revisions: MoR Section 398.73, Retaliation Against Witnesses, and MoR Section 398.74, Retaliation Against Witnesses, Accountability. These MoR provisions incorporate the requirements of Task 37. OPD’s Disciplinary Matrix underscores that termination is the presumptive penalty for retaliation. Accordingly, OPD is in policy compliance with Task 37. During the sixth reporting period, the IMT confirmed that OPD trained 95% or more of relevant personnel on this task. During the seventh reporting period, the IMT interviewed officers on all three patrol shifts to assess their understanding of Task 37’s requirements. Based on our interviews, officers did not yet possess a sufficient understanding of this task. While officers appeared to understand what constitutes retaliation under Task 37, many officers were unaware that the presumptive penalty for engaging in retaliation is termination. Commendably, OPD developed a “refresher” lesson plan including instruction on the requirements of this task. OPD reported that, during the ninth period, it completed the refresher training for over 95% of relevant personnel. During the eighth reporting period, OPD also provided in-depth training to many of its supervisors, commanders, and managers regarding retaliation. During the seventh reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s compliance in actual practice with Task 37. The IMT determined that OPD was not in compliance with Task 37 because its investigations of retaliation were inadequate to provide sufficient confidence that officers who have engaged in retaliation, or supervisors who knew or should have known of such retaliation, are held accountable. A discussion of our findings is included in our seventh status report.