68,471 docs · 699,671 pages · 90,541 facts · as of 2026-08-01

Record D-4530 · staff_report

Fiscal Year 2013-2015 Special Budget Meeting

legistar · 0.8 MB · 84 pages extracted · 0 facts cite this document · retrieved 2026-07-17 · original location · open the PDF

Informational ReportFiled under council matter 12-0351 introduced 2013-03-07
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

· page 29 of 84 · · see this page in the PDF

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