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 81 two hours any occurrence in which s/he has been arrested, sued and/or served with civil or administrative process related to his/her employment or containing allegations which rise to the level of a Manual of Rules violation. • In addition, by August 25, 2003, OPD personnel transferring to, or serving in, certain units or assignments (e.g., gang units; vice/narcotics section; IAD) must report within seventy-two hours if s/he has been served with civil or administrative process, including tort claims or financial claims. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for this task occurred in August 2003. OPD achieved policy compliance by publishing Special Order 8064, Reporting Civil Actions Served, on April 13, 2004, and Manual of Rules Section 314.28, Notification, on November 23, 2003. During the seventh reporting period, OPD provided the IMT with sufficiently reliable training data to enable us to confirm that OPD had trained 95% or more of relevant personnel on this task. During the sixth reporting period, the IMT interviewed officers on all three patrol shifts regarding their understanding of Task 39’s requirements. Based on our interviews, OPD officers appear to have a solid grasp of the most important elements of this task. As a result, the IMT changed its conditional training compliance determination for this task to an unconditional in- compliance finding. During the sixth reporting period, the IMT conducted a review of OPD’s actual practice of Task 39 and found OPD to be out of compliance. A complete discussion of our audit findings is included in our sixth status report. As previously discussed, our review indicated that OPD was taking few proactive steps to ensure that non-reporting members/employees are detected, and seemed to have given little thought to how it would ensure that its members/employees comply with this requirement. We made several compliance recommendations that we encouraged OPD to consider. During the eighth reporting period, OIG conducted an audit of Task 39. According to OIG, OPD was not yet in compliance with this task, but made progress. OPD reports that it has begun to implement some of the proactive measures that we recommended. OPD notes further, however, that there are several steps it could be, but was not yet, taking to detect and track arrests and lawsuits of its officers. During the tenth reporting period, OPD drafted General Order E-3.1, Department Notification Compliance Verification, to address these issues. During the eleventh reporting period, this General Order was published but not implemented due to objections from the OPOA. The IMT intended to audit this task during the ninth reporting period, but OPD acknowledged that it had not yet implemented sufficient measures to attain compliance with this task. During the tenth reporting period, one of the two compliance standards for this task was modified to include a more subjective pass/fail assessment.