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 66 • 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 appear 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 reports that, during this reporting period, it completed the refresher training for over 95% of relevant personnel. During the last 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 detailed discussion of this audit is provided in our seventh status report. In response to our audit, OPD has made a number of significant changes in its approach to complaints of retaliation. The Court has ordered OPD to consult with the City Attorney’s Office any time it receives an allegation of retaliation and to report the results of its investigations to the Court. While this consultation and reporting has occurred, the required consultation has not occurred for each case as required by the Court’s Order. During this reporting period, the City Attorney’s Office developed additional training for IAD staff regarding analyzing and investigating allegations of retaliation. As discussed above, OPD has also implemented integrity tests aimed at identifying possible retaliatory conduct.