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 84 information. OPD continues to make improvements in this area, but the information in these summaries was not always accurate or complete. Despite the steady improvement we saw during the period under review, the lack of accurate and complete information compromised OPD's compliance efforts. Tasks 46.1 requires OPD to consider sustained misconduct cases as an important factor when determining an individual’s suitability for promotion. Task 46.3 requires OPD to consider sustained Class I offenses as important factors in evaluating promotability for three years. For the promotions audited, there was one sustained allegation of Class I misconduct completed within § 3304 and within three years (but more than 12 months) prior to promotion. This violation was not identified as Class I misconduct and the Chief did not recognize it as such. However, it is apparent from conversations with the Chief and others close to the process that the incident was important to the Chief's promotion decision, notwithstanding his decision to promote the individual despite the sustained misconduct. Accordingly, OPD is in compliance with Task 46.1 and 46.3. Task 46.2 makes individuals with a sustained Class I offense presumptively ineligible for promotion for twelve months following the sustained finding. In the promotions audited, there was one sustained allegation of Class I misconduct that was completed within § 3304 and within twelve months prior to promotion. The investigation found that a Sergeant (subsequently promoted to Lieutenant) did not properly supervise subordinate officers during a high-risk arrest that resulted in an officer-involved shooting. This sustained allegation of Class I misconduct should have made the Sergeant presumptively ineligible for promotion. It is apparent that the Chief did take the sustained allegation of misconduct seriously. However, the sustained misconduct was not identified as Class I misconduct and the Chief did not recognize it as such. There is no indication that the Chief was aware that the candidate was presumptively ineligible for promotion or that he considered the candidate presumptively ineligible when making his promotion decision. OPD is thus out of compliance with Task 46.2. We were not able to clarify exactly why the sustained MOR violations noted above were not identified as Class I in materials provided to the Chief. According to OPD, if these MOR violations were alleged today, they would immediately be assigned a Class I designation and this information would be provided to the Chief during the promotional process. According to OPD, the Department is in the process of assigning each MOR provision a class designation and ensuring that each allegation of misconduct is assigned a class designation at the outset of the investigation. We have encouraged OPD to complete this process promptly and to ensure that this information is provided to the Chief, as he is expected to make many more promotional decisions before the end of the year and will need accurate internal investigations histories. Task 46.4 requires that promotional determinations include consideration of the following five elements: 1) commitment to community policing; 2) quality of citizen contacts; 3) number of citizen complaints; 4) instances of unnecessary use of force; and 5) support for Departmental integrity measures. OPD is in compliance with Task 46.4