Fiscal Year 2013-2015 Special Budget Meeting
Informational ReportFiled under council matter 12-0351
Subject: Fiscal Year 2013-2015 Special Budget Meeting From: City Administrator's Office Recommendation: Receive A Presentation And Hold Discussion On The Mayor's Proposed Budget For Fiscal Year 2013-2015
Extracted text
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document930 Filed05/01/13 Pagel6of59
Bring Task 16: Supporting IAD Process - Accountability, Into
compliance.
MONITOR 12™ QUARTERLY COMMENTS AS TO REASONS
FOR NON-COMPLIANCE:
Task 16.1 requires that supervisors and commanders, as well as
other managers in the chain of command, are held accountable for
supporting the IAD process (compliance standard:
Yes/No); and
Task 16.2 requires that if an IAD investigation finds that a supervisor
or
manager
should
have
reasonably
determined
that
a
member/employee committed or violated a Class I offense, the
supervisor or manager is held accountable, through
OPD's
administrative discipline process, for failure to supervise, failure to
review, and/or failure to intervene (compliance standard: 90%).
To assess Task 16 during this reporting period, we examined 95
Daily Incident Log entries from July 1, through September 30, 2012;
a random sample of 84 IAD cases (investigated by both IAD and via
Division-level investigation, or DLI) that were approved by the Chief
between July 1, through September 30, 2012; and the 20 sustained
Class I investigations that were approved by the Chief between July
1, through September 30, 2012.
During this reporting period, there was an increase in the number of
sustained Class I investigations, compared to previous reporting
periods.
However, only nine (45%) of the 20 investigations
sufficiently addressed the role of the subjects' supervisors or
managers in the sustained misconduct. Task 16 requires, in part,
that a supervisor or manager shall be held accountable, through the
Department's
administrative
discipline
process, for failure
to
supervise, failure to review, and/or failure to intervene.
Of the remaining 11 cases in our review, seven involved Occupy
Oakland and related protests.
In each of these, officers were
sustained for their improper use of force.
However, despite the
requirement
that
investigations
include
a
member/employee
accountability
section, the
investigations
contained limited
or
incomplete analyses of the actions of the supervisors who should
have supervised the officers, intervened in the use of force, and
reported the actions.
During protests, OPD assigns squads of
officers to interact with the crowd, and each squad is supervised by
a sergeant. However, none of the seven Occupy Oakland-related
cases included an analysis of the accountability of any supervisor
above the rank of sergeant, leading us to question where the other
16