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 46 • By July 7, 2004, Bureau of Field Operations sergeants and lieutenants must scrutinize arrests and uses of force that have been historically associated with police misconduct. b. Status of Compliance and Assessment The compliance deadline for this task occurred in July 2004. As previously reported, OPD developed and published a compliant policy incorporating this provision, General Order B-6, Performance Appraisal, well ahead of this deadline. During the sixth 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 this reporting period, OPD published a revised version General Order B-6 to provide additional guidance to supervisors and managers. The IMT determined that the revisions comply with the Settlement Agreement. According to OPD, during this reporting period it trained more than 95% of its personnel on the revised policy. The IMT will verify training on this policy and report the results in our next status report. The IMT audited OPD’s performance appraisals in October 2004 and found that it was not in actual practice compliance with Task 21. 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 last reporting period, the IMT audited OPD’s actual practice compliance with this task. We requested documentation of the required meetings for a random sample of members and employees for a three month period following implementation of the new reporting forms. 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. As a result of the audit and OIG’s attempts to collect the necessary documentation, OPD began beta-testing a centralized log to use for tracking the required meetings. Some centralized tracking is occurring in BFO, but most other departmental units are continuing to rely on the paper forms. OPD’s poor documentation in this area will impede its ability to attain compliance with other provisions of Task 21. In addition to informal performance review meetings, Task 21 requires OPD commanders and managers to meet promptly with affected subordinates regarding complaints or commendations received. It also requires them to meet with subordinates and their supervisors if a member or employee exhibits a performance problem. As we discussed in our last status report, the Department still does