ninth-report.pdf

Independent Monitoring Team Ninth Status Report of the Independent Monitor Delphine Allen, et al., v. City of Oakland, et al. May 13, 2006, to November 30, 2006 Page 21 In OPD’s view, the IMT should consider extensions in determining whether a case is timely. In other words, in OPD’s view, if an investigation is completed by the assigned due date when an extension has been granted, it is “on time” and should be considered compliant with Task 2. In the IMT’s judgment, this approach would not be consistent with the letter or intent of the Settlement Agreement. In our view, while considering extensions is important for internal management and accountability, the actual time it takes for a complaint to be resolved, regardless of whether the additional time was approved, is of paramount importance for both officers and complainants. If the IMT were to find cases timely on the basis that there was an extension authorizing going beyond the time limits set out in General Order M-3, our compliance assessment would include anomalous results such as finding cases timely that took two or three times as long to complete as contemplated by OPD’s own policy. Thus, in order to be timely for purposes of Task 2 compliance, the IMT will continue to assess whether internal investigations are completed within the actual time frames set out in OPD’s General Order M-3. We have included in our report the percentage of cases that were completed by their extended due date. Whether including extensions or not, OPD has not met the 95% compliance rate required. OPD also believes that the IMT should include informally resolved matters and administratively closed matters in assessing OPD’s compliance with Task 2’s timeliness requirements, particularly given the extensive work that goes into many of these cases. However, Administrative Closures and informally resolved complaints are not investigations and, by OPD’s own terms, are not covered by General Order M-3. In our judgment, this stands to reason, as Administrative Closures and ICRs are materially different from investigations. Administrative Closures are used in instances where, for example, the officer named is determined not to work for OPD or where the allegation does not allege misconduct but rather discontent with OPD service. Informally resolved matters are not investigations, but, as their name indicates, informal resolutions of relatively minor complaints of misconduct. OPD does not contend that if Administrative Closures and ICRs were included it would be in compliance with this Task. There were a total of 161 cases that fit the IMT’s selected parameters: 121 IAD investigations and 40 DLIs. Of the 121 IAD investigations in our dataset, 64 (53%) were completed, reviewed, and ready for discipline recommendation (or otherwise approved) within 90 days of the IAD intake date as required by M-3. Fourteen of the 121 IAD cases had yet to be completed as of our review. Of the 40 DLIs in our dataset, five (13%) were completed, reviewed, and ready for discipline recommendation (or otherwise approved) within 120 days of the IAD intake date as required by M-3. Eighteen of the 40 DLI cases had yet to be completed as of our review. If extensions are included, as OPD believes they should be, 60% of IAD investigations and 48% DLIs were timely completed.