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 85 because its promotions process incorporates all of these elements. However, we found substantial room for improvement in the manner in which citizen complaint information is handled in the promotions process. We found that the Chief was being presented with inconsistent information that was at times overbroad in light of state law restrictions, and at other times incomplete, omitting cases that were “not sustained.” OPD is working to ensure that the Chief is not provided information that should not be considered for promotional decisions. The incomplete information was due to a variety of factors including improperly narrow instructions to individuals responsible for gathering the information and OPD’s inconsistent and decentralized data management practices. However, the issue of incomplete complaint data was mitigated by OPD’s inclusion of the Complaint Investigation Report index (CIR index) in most of the promotional packets provided to the Chief and City Administrator. Our review indicated that, at least for more recent complaints, the CIR indices that were provided to the Chief and City Administrator for the promotions during the period under review were complete and provided information about cases that were “not sustained.” Still, as noted above, these CIRs also contain information that the Chief should likely not be considering under state law. More importantly, no information is provided that would permit the Chief to evaluate whether the number of complaints is appropriate for the particular candidate given factors such as type of assignment, location and a variety of other criteria that should be considered in determining whether the number of citizen complaints is “excessive” for a particular candidate. Our audit included several recommendations for assisting OPD to attain full compliance with this task, including: completing the promotions policy as soon as possible; designating each MOR provision as Class I or Class II and ensuring that this information is included in internal investigations from the outset and provided to the decision makers; ensuring that promotions documents are accurate and complete and do not contain inappropriate information; and providing the Chief and City Administrator with copies of investigative files of relevant sustained cases. During the upcoming reporting periods, the IMT will verify OIG’s audit results to determine whether OPD’s actual practices comply with this Settlement Agreement provision. H. Community Policing (Task 47; S.A. XI.) Section XI of the Settlement Agreement, Task 47, requires OPD to develop and implement a community policing plan to strengthen its relationships with communities in Oakland. This section requires a number of changes designed to provide officers with the opportunity to hear directly community groups’ concerns. This section also requires OPD to develop mechanisms to measure community policing activities so that officers are fully recognized for this work. The compliance deadline for the Community Policing section of the Settlement Agreement occurred during the first reporting period.