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 39 investigations as well. Since OPD’s practices are consistent with a policy that has been approved, we find OPD in conditional compliance with this portion of Task 15 pending completion of an appropriate stipulation. As discussed below in our Task 45 audit summary, OPD is in compliance with the second requirement of Task 15 which requires that the Discipline Officer make disciplinary recommendations in sustained internal investigations. During the upcoming reporting periods, the IMT will determine whether OPD completes the required stipulation and whether its actual practices continue to comply with this Settlement Agreement provision. 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 last two 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 this 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 is not currently a mechanism to ensure that all cases responsive to Task 16 can be identified, absent extraordinary effort by IAD staff. IAD has developed a method for identifying