combined-10th-11th-report.pdf

Negotiated Settlement Agreement, Combined Tenth and Eleventh Semi-Annual Report December 2008 = Internal investigations werehandled separately from City Attorney investigations, and that OPD did not delay, halt, modify, or terminate investigations because the underlying matter was in civil litigation (Task 14.1). There were no applicable cases for Tasks 14.2 and 14.3. Task 14.2 allows the Chief of Police to hold findings of an internal investigation in abeyance if he/she determines that a concurrent civil litigation is likely to yield additional information relevant to the internal investigation, but requires that the delay last no longer than necessary and reasons for the delay must be documented. Task 14.3 does not take effect unless a finding is held in abeyance as provided for in Task 14.2. In such a case, Task 14.3 requires the Chief to ensure that the “investigation continues on all areas of the internal investigation.” Since no cases were held in abeyance, there were no applicable cases for 14.2 and 14.3. Informal Complaint Resolutions Audit OIG initiated an audit of Informal Complaint Resolutions (ICRs) on June 11, 2007. Task 4, Complaint Control System for IAD, states the specific requirements for ICRs, as does DGO M-3. There are 10 requirements associated with Task 4. For purposes of the audit, four requirements (forwarding documentation to IAD; ensuring that persons making a complaint are not unduly influenced; acknowledging receipt of the complaint; and notifying the Chief of Police in cases likely to generate unusual interest) were not assessed. OIG’s audit of the remaining tasks found the Department to be in compliance with all seven tasks as they pertain specifically to the ICR process. While some of the tasks pertain to both the ICR process and the formal complaint process, for this audit, only completed ICRs were reviewed. There were 53 ICRs reviewed for this audit. The ICR documentation, according to Task 4.2 of the Agreement, must include eight elements: Receipt of the complaint, Date of complaint, Time of compliant, Location of complaint, Name of person making the complaint, Name of person receiving the complaint, How the matter was resolved, and That the person making the complaint was advised of the formal complaint process. SPNAYEYWNS For the eight required elements, the Department was 100% in compliance with all but one, the documentation of time. There were three incidents in which the time was not documented, resulting in 94.3% compliance for that specific element. Averaging the compliance rate for all eight elements, the Department was 99.3% in compliance with Task 4.2, well above the 85% compliance requirement. According to Task 4.10, both the subject member/employee and the violation must be eligible for the ICR process. In only one case out of 53 was the ICR process incorrectly applied to resolve a Class I allegation of misconduct, which is not eligible for the ICR process. Overall, the Department has made significant strides towards full compliance with Task 4, specifically with the ICR process. The Department’s complaint database, where complaints are 24