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 82 imposing lower penalties makes OPD's disciplinary system more, not less, fair and brings it into line with the Chief's disciplinary philosophy. OPD also points out that it is substantially revising the Matrix to bring it more in line with the Chief’s approach to discipline and OPD's actual practice. Nevertheless, we remain concerned that variances outside of the Matrix’s penalty ranges in disciplinary recommendations and final discipline decisions have become the norm rather than the exception, and that no specific justification was given for these departures, as required by OPD's own policy. These facts risk undermining the perception within the Department and the community that OPD's disciplinary system is fair and consistent, and diminish the confidence-building transparency that the adoption of a Matrix was meant to provide. We have recommended that OPD complete its proposed revisions to its disciplinary system as soon as possible and that it implement safeguards against incorrect charging and sustaining decisions so that deviations from the Matrix are the exception and, where they do occur, their justification is documented. During the upcoming reporting periods, the IMT will determine whether OPD’s actual practices comply with this Settlement Agreement provision. 3. Promotional Consideration (Task 46; S.A. X.C.1.) a. Settlement Agreement Requirements • By July 8, 2003, OPD’s promotion policy must be modified so that sustained misconduct cases against a member/employee are an important factor in determining promotability, including presumptive ineligibility for promotion for twelve months following the sustained finding of a Class I violation. • The Settlement Agreement further requires the Chief of Police to consider the following criteria, in addition to other factors, in making promotional determinations: o Commitment to community policing; o Quality of citizen contacts; o Number of citizen complaints; o Instances of unnecessary use of force; and o Support for Departmental integrity measures.