12/2/2010 Status Conference in Delphine Allen v. Oakland

8/8/2019 12/2/2010 Status Conference in Delphine Allen v. Oakland

1/28

1

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOHN L. BURRIS, STATE BAR NO. 69888Law Offices of John L. BurrisAirport Corporate Centre7677 Oakport Road, Suite 1120Oakland, California 94621

Telephone: 510.839.5200Facsimile: 510.839.3882Attorneys for Plaintiffs

JAMES B. CHANIN, STATE BAR NO. 76043JULIE M. HOUK, STATE BAR NO. 114968Law Offices of James B. Chanin3050 Shattuck AvenueBerkeley, California 94705Telephone: 510.848.4752

Facsimile: 510.848.5819Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(Additional Counsel on Next Page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELPHINE ALLEN; et al;

Plaintiff,vs.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendant.

MASTER CASE NO. C-00-4599 TEH

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCESTATEMENT RE NON-MONETARYSETTLEMENT ISSUES

Date: December 9, 2010Time: 10:30 a.m.Courtroom 2, 17 TH FLOOR

Honorable Thelton E. Henderson

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page1 of 28


2/28

2


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GREGORY M. FOX, STATE BAR NO. 070876Bertrand, Fox & ElliotThe Waterfront Building - 2749 Hyde StreetSan Francisco, California 94109Telephone: 415.353.0999Facsimile: 415.353.0990

Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLANDJOHN A. RUSSO, CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 129729RANDOLPH W. HALL, CHIEF ASSIST. CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 080142ROCIO V. FIERRO, SENIOR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 139565OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYCITY OF OAKLANDOne Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth FloorOakland, California 94612Telephone: 510.238.3601Facsimile: 510.238.6500Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND

ROCKNE A. LUCIA, STATE BAR NO. 109349Rains Lucia Stern, PCAttorneys & Counselors at Law2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 230Pleasant Hill, CA 94523Tel: 925-609-1699Fax: 925-609-1690Attorneys for OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION



3/28

3


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS CURRENT POSITION

This is a further status conference concerning the progress of the non-monetary settlement in

the Riders Litigation which was approved by the Court on January 22, 2003.

The IMTs most recent report stated that the OPD has dropped to full compliance with only10 of the 22 active Tasks meeting the requisite criteria. This is a decline in full compliance by one

Task. The OPD still has not achieved full compliance with critical parts of the MOU including Task

3 (IAD integrity tests), Task 5 (Complaint Procedures for IAD), Task 20 (Span of Control for

Supervisors), Task 24 (Use of Force Reporting Policy), Task 26 (Use of Force Review Board), Task

30 (Firearms Discharge Board of Review), Task 33 (Reporting Misconduct), Task 40 (Personnel

Assessment SystemPurpose), and Task 41 (Use of Personnel Assessment System) and Task 45

(Consistency of Discipline Policy).

The IMT did say that the Department has put considerable effort into remediating core

issues. However, this is not enough. The original NSA contemplated compliance within 5 years, 7

years maximum. It was clear then that the OPD was expected to achieve full compliance no later

than January 2010. The OPD did not achieve compliance during that time because, by its own

admission, it did not take the Agreement seriously for a significant part of the seven year period of

the agreement. During this same period of time, plaintiffs attorneys and others filed three additionalclass actions against the OPD, which cost the City of Oakland millions of dollars and exposed

deficiencies in the OPD that extended beyond the NSA. This, unfortunately, was only a small part of

the settlements, verdicts, and scandals that rocked the OPD during that time.

The agreement was then extended to 2012 by joint agreement between Plaintiffs counsel and

the City of Oakland. The City represented to the Court and plaintiffs counsel that there would be

compliance within that period. Unless there is some dramatic improvement in the next IMT report in

January 2011, full or even substantial compliance will not happen within the life of the MOU given

the one year compliance period that the OPD must achieve after full compliance is attained.

The OPDs attorney, Rocio Fiero, Chief Batts, and City Manager Lindheim each addressed

the Court at the last Case Management Conference. Each of them made statements worthy of

repetition and comment.



4/28

4


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ms. Fierro said Theres simply no reason for the police department not to succeed. When you

look at the developments within police services, you can go back to the 1960s and a lot of what is

being asked of the Oakland Police Department is not new. Its frankly, not innovative. (Transcript

of Proceedings 16:8-11) We agree. This agreement was approved by highly regarded expertsretained by the City of Oakland as well as the OPD itself. The deadlines (long since passed) were

approved by the Police Department itself. Both Monitor teams picked by the parties were

recommended by the OPD and were their first choice. Yet the OPD is not in compliance with its own

agreement and its own deadlines, as measured by its own choice of Monitors. There is only one

reason for that failure: the conduct of the OPD itself.

Chief Batts said: We honestly, Judge, have challenges with following up and following

through. We are solving those. We have dropped the ball, and havent focused on the core issue of

leadership. We are changing that. (Transcript of Proceedings 30: 8-11). We agree that the OPD has

dropped the ball. And it is possible that they are changing that. Yet the OPD was recently

admonished by the Court because their weekly reports do not contain a sufficient appraisal of the

work that needs to be done for the OPD to attain compliance. In fact, the reports are far too positive

given the OPDs level of compliance and even contain complaints that the IMTs rules are unfair.

This is not real change. How long before the OPDs claim that they have changed is translated intocompliance with an agreement that should have been honored long before now? How long before the

OPD will attain compliance? The time is now. Otherwise, there must be immediate, severe

consequences, the same consequences any of us would face if we failed to abide and live up to an

order of the United States District Court.

City Manager Lindheim said: Fortunately and finally, an understanding and an ownership is

taking place. There should have been ownership eight years ago. No dispute. Should have been

ownership eight years ago, six years ago, four years ago. Im observing that there wasnt. Im not

making an excuse for that. Its an observation. To me, one of the most important things that is taking

place is that there is ownership It may require the hand of the court to some extent, heavy or

otherwise (Transcript of proceedings 53:19-25). (Emphasis added)

Plaintiffs counsel agree with the City Manager that the OPD has neglected to take responsibility



5/28

5


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for the agreement in the past. Perhaps, the City Manager is correct that there is finally some

awakening of the responsibility of the OPD to comply with the agreement that is a Order of this

Court. The problem is that there is no objective measure to date that verifies his contention that the

OPD has changed.The time has come and gone for promises. There must be performance and meaningful

recognition of past failures. The proof of what the OPD and the City of Oakland really means by

taking ownership will become readily apparent in the next 90 days.

In January, 2011, the IMT will issue its next report. Plaintiffs attorneys hope there will be

sufficient compliance at that time so that there will be no need for significant further action by either

plaintiffs counsel or the court. However, given both the recent and past performance of the OPD,

plaintiffs counsel are not optimistic that there will be anything approaching full compliance with the

MOU by January 2011.

If there is no compliance, the City will have to decide if it is willing to enter into a new

agreement. The new agreement should not be like the old agreement. The OPD rejected sustained

technical assistance at the time of the drafting of the current MOU. It took a court order to force

them to accept technical assistance by the IMT. The new agreement must have more technical

assistance. It must embrace the concept that there must be on site, sustained, technical assistance bythe IMT. This may include having some on site technical assistance on a far more sustained and

massive level than the current technical assistance. It may include having some people available on a

daily basis. There can be no further delays in compliance and the OPD must agree to whatever it

takes to achieve compliance now.

There must also be personal responsibility for the OPDs failure to comply if that in fact occurs.

This means that command staff will have to take personal responsibility for compliance and be

replaced, by outside people if necessary, it the OPD does not attain compliance. A special master

may have to be appointed if there is no significant change in compliance levels.

The above recommendations are just a small part of what will become plaintiffs attorneys

position if there is no compliance by January 2011. We will not sign any new agreement unless it

contains mechanisms satisfactory to all the parties that guarantee immediate compliance in a short



6/28

6


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

period of time.

Plaintiffs attorneys recommend that, assuming there is no compliance by January 2011, that the

parties be given no more than forty-five days to reach a new agreement. Plaintiffs attorneys do not

believe that a magistrate would be helpful in reaching a new agreement due to the time constraints inthe MOU, the departure of Judge Larson who knew the most about the agreement, and the familiarity

of the parties with each other and the issues at hand.

If no agreement is reached by early March, 2011, plaintiffs attorney recommend that the parties

will meet and confer as to appropriate dates for plaintiffs to bring motions concerning the OPDs

lack of compliance and the remedies for it. We will then ask the court to advise the parties if the

dates are acceptable to the Court.

Plaintiffs counsel recommends a further Case Management Conference take place at the end of

January, 2011. At that time, the court will be able to see if the OPD is in compliance and the parties

will have a chance to review the IMTs January 2011 report. The parties should also be able to report

if there is any agreement as to how the parties should proceed and/or negotiate in light of the IMTs

January 2011 report.

DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLANDS POSITION

I. BASED ON OPDS PROGRESS ACHIEVING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, THECOURT MAY ALLOW THE ONE-YEAR SUSTAINABILITY PHASE TOCOMMENCE IN JANUARY 2011.

As demonstrated below and in the accompanying Exhibits the Oakland Police Department

will achieve the goal of substantial compliance with the MOU for almost all tasks by January 15

2011. We will be ready to move into the final phase of the MOU and will be ready to complete

within one year a showing of sustained collective practice compliance for all remaining MOU Tasks

by January 15, 2012. At that time it is the expectation of OPD that the Monitors term of office will

come to an end and the parties will be able to submit an Order of Final dismissal to this honorable

court. Failure is not an option. There is no need for a receiver. The command staff of OPD under

the leadership of Chief Batts has demonstrated that they are capable of running a police department

committed to Constitutional policing in accordance with contemporary state and national police

practices. OPD is also committed to community policing responsive to the needs of the citizens of



7/28

7


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the City of Oakland. Lawsuits and crime are both down. Notwithstanding economic budget

constraints and massive layoffs the OPD has continued to both serve the people and meet the

requirements of the MOU. At this time OPD is able to police itself in accordance with the NSA and

the MOU.This is an ambitious statement of success. And there may be disagreement regarding OPDs

position. But if the goal of the NSA and the MOU was to change the culture of OPD and put in place

internal systems ensuring Constitutional policing, it is undisputed that those goals have been

substantially achieved. All the parties and the Monitor working together with the assistance of the

Court can accomplish the collective goal of compliance. OPD is ready to continue to engage in

dialogue with the Court, the Monitor, the plaintiffs attorneys and counsel for the OPOA. If all

parties are unable to achieve a consensus opinion that OPDs statement of success is correct, then

OPD requests an evidentiary hearing with this court in open public proceedings to resolve any

differences that may continue to exist about OPDs compliance record.

OPD has been working with and engaging in dialogue with the Monitor. It is a relationship

that requires mutual respect and objectivity. OPD respects the role of the Monitors and their law

enforcement background. There may be subjective differences of opinion between OPD and the

Monitor about how to evaluate OPDs compliance efforts. But both the Monitor and OPD agree onone thing: if OPD is going to achieve the NSA/MOU goal of self sufficient and sustained

Constitutional policing, then OPDs reasonable positions and opinions must be respected and

acknowledged as good faith efforts of professional men and women who have made a long term

commitment to the organization and the people of the City of Oakland. That dialogue, transparency

and commitment must be encouraged by the Monitor and the Parties.

On August 31, 2010, the Court issued an order directing the City to identify senior executives

within OPD who would be responsible for achieving compliance in six specific areas. In response,

senior executives within OPD assumed responsibility for achieving compliance within the specified

areas, as follows: (1) Internal Affairs [Assistant Chief Howard Jordan], (2) Use of Force and

Supervisory Control [Deputy Chief Eric Breshears], (3) Stop Data [Deputy Chief Jeffrey Israel], (4)

the Personnel Assessment System [Deputy Chief Jeffrey Israel], (5) Training [Assistant Chief



8/28

8


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Howard Jordan] and (6) Discipline [Assistant Chief Howard Jordan]. This new work has not been

easy for these police executives whose schedules and work are hugely demanding. But they have

stepped up to the plate and continue to strive toward improving their weekly executive memos while

attending to their work in completing the reforms, providing leadership and support to OPDmembers, and keeping the Oakland residents safe.

To better understand OPDs standing and how to achieve success in this case, City defendants

endeavored to conduct an evaluation and review of their work 1) as accomplished under the previous

monitors, 2) based on the current monitors evaluations and findings, and 3) with increased internal

reviews and inspections. Based on this internal analysis and due to the commitment of individual

command staff, the increased technical assistance of the monitors approved by the City Council just

prior to the last status report, and the support of all members of OPD and the parties, the City believes

that OPD will have achieved or will be close to achieving substantial compliance by December 31,

2010, ensuring the timely commencement of the one-year sustainability period on the remaining

tasks.

II. OPD HAS ACHIEVED PROGRESS ON ALL 22 REMAINING TASKS AND FULLPRACTICE COMPLIANCE ON 10 TASKS

The Monitor's Third Quarterly Report of October 19, 2010 (using April-June, 2010 data)found the Department continued to be in full Phase I compliance (100%) with all 22 Tasks currently

being monitored. Monitor's Third Quarterly Report. In addition, the Monitor reported that OPD was

in practice compliance with 10 tasks. Four of those tasks attained one-year sustained compliance.

And OPD now believes it has or will achieve practice compliance by December 2010 or early

January 2011 with 10 additional tasks. For the two remaining Tasks, Task 5, Complaint Procedures

(partial compliance), and Task 41, Use of Performance Assessment System, (out of compliance),

OPD believes it is close to reaching compliance but may need until the first or second quarter of 2011

to achieve it. There is confusion over Task 20, Span of Control for Supervisors. The previous

Monitors allowed OPD to use certified acting sergeants, and OPD is significantly complying with this

Task under agreed-upon methodology. The current Monitor, however, has a different opinion about

allowing acting sergeants. OPD does not believe that it can meet the Monitors requirement for this



9/28

9


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

task if acting sergeants are disallowed because of OPDs reduced budget and staffing levels, and due

to the 15% non-discretionary time away from work to which OPD sergeants are entitled. OPD is

optimistic, however, that a viable solution can be reached with the Monitor and has submitted to

proposals that may remedy this issue. We also ask the Court for its assistance so that this issue canbe promptly resolved.

OPD has worked hard and made real strides toward reaching compliance in 2010. The

Department acknowledges that its progress in the early years of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement

was significantly deficient, but the Monitor noted in his Third Quarter Report, "we credit the Chief

with a new rigor and infusion of commitment to organizational change." Third Quarterly Report, p.

2. A very significant component of the progress made this year has been Chief Batts' commitment to

leadership, accountability and institutionalizing the changes so that they become an integral part of

how the Department operates and will continue to operate in the future.

III. FOUR TASKS HAVE REACHED SUSTAINABILITY AND SHOULD BE REMOVEDFROM ACTIVE MONITORING

The Parties, with the assistance of the Court and the former IMT, agreed in the MOU that

those tasks which achieved compliance and a one-year sustainability period shall be removed from

active monitoring. (MOU, p. 6, 20.) Since the last court appearance, OPD can now report that fourtasks have shown sustained compliance for at least one year. Therefore, the City respectfully submits

that these tasks may be removed from active monitoring.

These tasks are:

Task Description When Compliance Achieved

2 Timeliness June 2009 (Aug-Oct 2008 data)

4.7,

4.10*

Complaint Control / Closures May 2009 (July '06-Aug. '08 data)

35 Use of Force - Witness

Identification

January 2010 (Nov. '07 - Feb. '09 data)

43.1.1* Training Plan July 2009 audit from prior IMT

*These are the only subtasks being monitored for these Tasks.



10/28

10


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Recent OIG reviews have shown continued compliance with these tasks, including 100%

compliance with Task 35. Monitor reports reflect continued compliance. There is no reason to

believe that compliance with these Tasks will not be maintained post-monitoring. See Ex. 1, Report

of Chief Anthony Batts ("Chief's Report") for a more detailed description of the compliance recordfor these four Tasks. The Citys MOU Histogram for these Tasks serve to illustrate the compliance

findings and analysis which substantiate sustainability of compliance. See Ex. 6, Histogram.

IV. SIX OTHER TASKS WHICH THE MONITOR FOUND COMPLIANT CAN NOW

COMMENCE THE ONE-YEAR SUSTAINABILITY PHASE

OPD is in practice compliance with six other tasks:

Task Description When Compliance Achieved

6 Refusal to Accept or Refer

Citizen Complaints

Monitor's First Quarterly Report (Oct. -

Dec. 2009 data)

7.3 Anonymous Complaints Monitor's Second Quarterly Report (Jan.

- Mar. 2010 data)

16 Supporting the IA Process Monitor's Second Quarterly Report (Jan.

- Mar. 2010 data)

18.2.2 Witness Identification Monitor's First Quarterly Report (Oct. -

Dec. 2009 data)

25 Use of Force Investigations Monitor's Third Quarterly Report (Apr. -

June 2010 data)

37 Retaliation against Witnesses Monitor's First Quarterly Report (Oct. -

Dec. 2009 data)

The Department has been in compliance with Tasks 6, 18.2.2 and 37 since the First Quarterly

Report, in compliance with Task 7.3 since the Second Quarterly Report and in compliance with Task

25 since the Third Quarterly Report. The Monitor found 100% compliance with Task 7.3. The Third



11/28

11


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Quarterly Report does not provide any reason to believe that compliance with these Tasks will not

continue. Pursuant to the Parties MOU the City respectfully requests that these tasks be moved into

the phase of demonstrating practice compliance for one year.

V. OPD INTENDS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE FOR 16 ADDITIONAL TASKS BY

THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD

The Monitor's Third Quarter Report found the Department to be in partial compliance with

seven Tasks (3, 5, 20, 24, 26, 30 and 45) and out of compliance with three Tasks (33, 40, 41).

Assessment was deferred for Tasks 34 and 42. Those assessments were based on data from April

through June 2010. Now, over five months later, the Department believes it has achieved compliance

with Tasks 3, 20, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 40, 41 and 45 and that the Monitor's future audits will reflect that

success.

The Department appreciates the assistance of the current Monitor and realizes that the

"macro" issues facing OPD are the key to making sure the "micro" issues are resolved and that

changes become institutionalized. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. The implementation of these changes on a

"macro" level was reflected most recently in November 2010, when the Department handled a large

demonstration following the Mehserle sentencing - the third large-scale crowd control incident in asix-month period. Due to planning, training and coordination with outside groups, the Department

was able to limit property damage, use of force and complaints. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. OPD

continues to work with community leaders to further develop and strengthen its community policing

program, and despite significant budgetary challenges overall violent crime is down 14% in Oakland.

Ibid. As this Court noted at the May 9, 2010 hearing, it is clear significant strides have been made

toward making the Department more effective and more responsive to the community it serves.

Due to the renewed commitment of OPD command staff in 2010, the Department expects to

achieve substantial compliance on the following Tasks by December 31, 2010, or within the First

Quarter of 2011. At that time OPD recommends these Tasks be moved into the on-going one year

period of monitoring sustained compliance for all Tasks. It may not be necessary given the overall

status of the MOU to submit these tasks to a full one year of demonstrating sustained compliance.



12/28

12


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Task 3: IAD Integrity Tests

This Task has two subparts: Task 3.1, which requires IAD to conduct integrity tests where

members are the subject of repeated allegations of misconduct (compliance standard: Yes/No) and

Task 3.2, which requires that IAD's integrity tests be conducted in accordance with IAD standards(compliance standard 90%). The Monitor found IAD successfully conducted a total of 11 integrity

tests. This represented a nearly threefold increase over 2009, when only four integrity tests were

conducted. Ex. 4, December 3, 2010 Report of Assistant Chief Howard Jordan. p. 2. Despite the

success on all 11 tests and the Monitor's acknowledgment that "OPD has made progress in integrity

testing," the Third Quarterly Report indicated "the Department's methods need to be more effective if

the Department is to achieve consistent, reliable testing that helps the Department perform at a high

level absent a high level of complaints." Third Quarterly Report, p. 11.

The Department has taken the following steps to improve the Integrity Testing Unit and

testing methods:

The Department drafted a policy and a new General Order (M-3.3) to enhance the frequency

of testing by using members from other Bureaus to conduct additional tests.

New IAD Commander Figueroa, formerly the Inspector General, is reorganizing the Integrity

Testing Unit ("ITU"), effective mid-December 2010 to enhance efficiency. An additional experienced supervisor will be added as part of the reorganization to assist with

testing.

Executives responsible for this Task consulted with LAPD in September to learn about their

integrity testing, and the has already begun to implement some of these strategies. Plans are

in the works to hold a Bay Area law enforcement IAD integrity testing meeting to exchange

ideas regarding this essential policing concept.

A law enforcement consultant is reviewing the integrity testing program in order to provide

additional recommendations to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.

In early December, the Chief approved additional staffing for ITU to allow for more frequent

and more focused testimony.

Ex. 4, Jordan Report, pp. 2-3. Assistant Chief Jordan believes OPD will be in full compliance



13/28

13


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with Task 3 by the end of the year or shortly thereafter. Id. at p. 3.

Task 20: Span of Control

Currently subtask 20.2 is the only portion of Task 20 deemed not in compliance. Task 20

requires a span of control ratio of at least one supervisor for every eight members. In 2009 manyfield units did not meet the 1:8 ratio, and the Department saw spans of control up to 1:16. Ex. 5,

Report of Deputy Chief Eric Breshears ("Breshears Report"), p. 1. The new Monitor acknowledged

that 98% of the total squads reviewed now meet the 1:8 span of control ratio. Third Quarterly

Report, p. 31.

Subtask 20.2 requires that relevant squads be supervised by their primary, or assigned,

supervisors 85% of the time. The Monitor found 76% of the squads reviewed were supervised by

their primary supervisors (up from 71% during the last reporting period), and 13% were supervised

by certified acting sergeants. Third Quarterly Report, p. 32. The Monitor stated: "we considered

certified acting sergeants to be primary supervisors if they were assigned to supervise their particular

squads; we considered them in compliance if the Department's weekly Personnel Orders listed the

certified acting sergeants' acting assignments." Ibid. The Monitor's findings of 76% supervision by

primary supervisory and 13% by certified acting sergeants adds up to an 89% compliance level,

which exceeds the compliance standard. Nonetheless, the Monitor found OPD out of compliancewith subtask 2.2.

The prior monitoring team also determined that certified acting sergeants would be considered

primary supervisors in recognition of the fact that "vacations, training, sickness, and the like will

prevent every squad from being supervised by their primary supervisors every day." See Ex. 5,

Breshears Report. The former IMT added, "we considered the assigned supervisors to be the

primary supervisor, even where the assigned supervisor was a certified acting sergeant rather than a

real sergeant or the squad to which the supervisor was assigned was open." Ibid.

Although both current and former monitors stated that certified acting sergeants would be an

acceptable substitute for primary sergeants, it appears that in practice the current Monitor is not

accepting these substitutes. If the certified acting sergeants were accepted, OPD would have been in

compliance for almost a year now, and this Task would be poised to be transferred to the one-year



14/28

14


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sustainability stage. Ex. 5, Breshears Report.

If the current Monitor continues not to accept certified acting sergeants, OPD does not believe

it will be able to achieve compliance with subtask 20.2. It should be noted at the outset that OPD

understands the Monitor's concern about the use of acting sergeants and supports the goal of achieving 85% supervision of field squads by their primary or assigned supervisors. Ex. 5, Breshears

Report. As a consequence, the Department has transferred additional sergeants to field duties to try

to minimize the use of acting sergeants. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. Nonetheless, an analysis of non-

discretionary leave time (vacations and mandatory training) for supervisory personnel for relevant

field units disclosed that supervisors were present on the job less than 75% of the time between

November 2009 and November 2010. Ex. 5, Breshears Report. Based on this analysis, OPD does not

believe it can meet the 85% compliance standard if certified acting sergeants are now disallowed.

Task 24 and Task 40: Use of Force Reporting Policy / Personnel Assessment System

The Monitor found OPD in compliance with all subtasks in Task 24 except for subtask 24.9,

which requires OPD to enter use of force data into the Personnel Assessment System (PAS). The

Monitor expressed concern that while iPAS included information on the use of force, the information

was limited, which may restrict its utility to supervisors when they review IPAS.

Previous monitors assessed Task 24.9 as a part of PAS review for Task 40 since therequirements were considered redundant. The level of detail in iPass was not considered insufficient

by the previous Monitor, who found OPD in compliance with Task 24.9. Ex. 5, Breshears Report.

The Department is looking at methods to capture additional information in the system, but it believes

it is in compliance with its policy and the Task. Ex. 1, Chief's Report.

The Third Quarterly Report found Task 40 out of compliance. This Task has 22 subtasks, and

the Monitor reported that subtask 40.2 was the focus of his concern. Subtask 40.2, which has 21 sub-

categories, requires that iPAS data contain information on each element required by the NSA

(compliance standard Yes/No). The Monitor expressed his belief that the newly identified problems

with the system could be corrected by "setting short time frames for when each individual data type

would need to be entered into the system, and posting those timeframes in the system so that users

could understand the currency of all data." Third Quarterly Report, p. 57. This would involve



15/28

15


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

quality control measures similar to those already implemented by the Department. Id.

One specific criticism was that certain arrest data was not timely entered. OPD is now

entering all arrest data manually on an overtime basis within 10 days of arrest. OPD expects the

technology Motorola is developing to allow electronic transfer of arrest data from the County of Alameda to OPD to be fully deployed by April 2011. In the meantime, it will maintain compliance

through manual entry. Ex. 2, Report of Deputy Chief Jeffrey Israel ("Israel Report"), p. 4. In

addition, OPD has implemented a number of quality controls to improve both the quality and

timeliness of iPAS data. For example, every custodian of record for each data element must

complete a weekly report documenting the status of data entry efforts, including identification of

backlogs and the reasons therefor so that any timeliness problems can be resolved quickly. Daily,

weekly and quarterly reports and audits will continue to make sure that problems are identified and

quickly resolved. See full list of quality control measures in Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 4.

The Monitor also was critical of the quality of the data and, despite extensive efforts to ensure

that data is accurate and complete, OPD agrees that further action is needed to provide the highest

quality data. Id. at p. 5. OPD has develop a plan to improve the data to meet compliance standards

by December 31, 2010. The plan has four action components:

1) Each responsible Custodian of Record will identify specific deficiencies affecting data entry,accuracy and completeness by December 8, 2010, develop a sustainable plan to correct the

deficiencies and identify a responsible Commander or other Executive Team member

responsible for implementing the plan.

2) OIG will audit Task 40 before December 24, 2010, focusing on the requirements of the Task

and the effectiveness of the solutions implemented to address the deficiencies identified by

the Custodians of Record.

3) OIG will assess the effectiveness of existing quality controls and recommend further audits or

other measures to provide effectual quality control for timely entry and data sufficiency.

4) OPD is transitioning to EVALIS, a more advanced and easier to us direct data entry system

that will automate supervisory review and provide the ability to enter use of force and other

performance data (pursuits, canine deployment, etc.) directly into iPAS, eliminating the



16/28

16


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

current timeliness and quality problems. EVALIS also allows reviewers easy access to

reports not currently accessible online.

Ex. 2, Israel Report, pp. 5-7.

Task 26: Use of Force Review Board and Task 30: Firearms Discharge Board of ReviewThe only portion of Tasks 26 and 30 that have been out of compliance related to holding the

use of force boards in a timely fashion. Previously, FRB hearings were timely 88% of the time, but

the compliance standard is 95%. OPD corrected the problem leading to the delays, and audits by

OIG's auditing consultant showed consistent compliance for the available data period, July-

September 2010. Ex. 1, Chief's Report.

Task 33: Reporting Misconduct

Task 33 has been out of compliance for two years due to a 2008 case in which OPD did not

maintain the confidentiality of a member who report misconduct. OPD disclosed the information

because it believed the due process requirements of Skelly hearings mandated disclosure. The City

Attorney's office concurred with this conclusion. Members who report misconduct do so

anonymously for the most part, and there has only been one confidential case since then. That 2009

case, in which confidentiality was maintained, was never reviewed by either monitoring team.

Because OPD maintained confidentiality in the only case generated since the 2008 case, and sinceconfidential complaints are rare, OPD believes it is in compliance with this Task. Ex. 4, Jordan

Report, p. 7.

Task 34: Vehicle Stops, Field Investigations and Detentions

The Monitor deferred assessment of this Task due to issuance of a new policy in June 2010.

The Task requires collection of stop data information (compliance standard 90% for 34.1.1, 85% for

34.2, Yes/No for 34.3.1 and 85% for 34.3.2). Third Quarterly Report, p. 49; Ex. 2, Israel Report, p.

1. As set out in more detail in Deputy Chief Israel's Report, pp. 1-3, Ex. 2, the persistent problems

created by handwritten forms and inaccurate and incomplete spreadsheets and databases have been

eliminated by the new capability to collect all stop-data electronically.

With new specially customized software OPD can now collect the data, identify encounters

requiring stop data collection, locate related documentation, including CAD entries and verify that



17/28

17


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the data was collected. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 2. Using this technology, OPD now performs regular

reviews to assess compliance. These reviews regularly show compliance rates exceeding 95% in

each sub-task. In addition, the OIG and an outside consultant audited stop data for 584 stops during

July-September 2010. The audit disclosed that officers were entering the required data 97% of thetime and that the data could be searched, queried, summarize and reported. Id. at p. 3. Thus, OPD is

confident that it is compliant with Task 34.

OPD also has gone beyond the requirements of the NSA. On the recommendation of the

Monitor, OPD implemented a new policy requiring officers to provide radio information about the

gender, race and age of the contact and the purpose of the contact. Id. at p. 3. The Department

agreed with the Monitor that information would be valuable, and built the procedure into the revision

of its policy. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 3.

Task 45: Consistency of Discipline Policy

The Second Quarterly Report found OPD in compliance with this Task. The Third Quarterly

Report found only partial compliance due to the fact that three out of 29 cases audited did not have

discipline dates entered into the database. The Department believes only one of these three cases

may have been out of compliance, which would not have resulted in a noncompliance finding. For

the reasons outlined in Assistant Chief Jordan's Response to the Draft Third Quarterly Report, Ex. 3,p. 6, there appear to have been valid reasons the discipline dates were not entered in the other two

cases. OPD believes it has been and will continue to be in compliance with this Task. Ex. 4, Jordan

Report, p. 8.

VI. OPD IS WORKING DILIGENTLY TO ACHIEVE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH

TASK 5 AND TASK 41 BY THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2011

Task 5: Complaint Procedures for IAD

OPD has remained in compliance for all three quarterly reports for nine out of the 14 subtasks

for Task 5. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 3. Following is the status for the subtasks not yet in compliance:

5.4: collection and documentation of information on receipt of complaints

This subtask requires that certain information be recorded when OPD staff receives a

complaint. One place where this information is documented is the Daily Incident Log ("DIL"). The



18/28

18


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

previous IMT found the Department in conditional compliance with this requirement based on a

determination that the DIL need not include all information as long as it had an incident number since

the DIL, the incident number and the complaint memoranda sent to IAD captured all necessary

information. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.Every record reviewed by the current Monitor contained an incident number; thus, OPD

would be in compliance with this subtask under previous standards. The current Monitor, however,

does not accept the previous monitor's interpretation of compliance, and will look for all required

information to be recorded on the DIL regardless of whether it contains an incident number.

Accordingly, in September, 2010, the Department began conducting weekly audits of the DIL to

ensure that all required information was captured. The Department also trained Communications

Section staff to make sure they are aware of the new requirements. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.

5.15 and 5.16: consideration of all evidence, making credibility determinations and resolving

inconsistent statements

The lack of thorough credibility assessment continues to be a challenge for Division Level

cases. OIG's audit for cases from October 25 to November 17, 2010 (before the cases were turned

into IAD) found excellent documentation of thorough credibility assessments in some case, but others

had to be returned to the Bureaus for further work-up. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.OIG also audited several IAD cases in the last month, including closed and new cases and

found that all relevant evidence had been collected and adequate credibility assessments had been

done in 95% of the cases. In 90% of the cases, all necessary statements had been taken. To address

pre-IAD cases deficiencies, the Department provided training to investigators on documentation of

their credibility assessments and has taken corrective action against command level officers who have

approved cases without sufficient credibility assessments. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.

5.17: retention of investigative notes

OIG's August 2010 audit revealed the Department is now in compliance with this subtask,

which requires investigative notes to be retained for internal investigation. A more recent review of

39 IAD cases confirmed this finding. See Ex. 4, Jordan Report, pp. 4-5, for further detail regarding

these audits. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.



19/28

19


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5.18: preponderance of evidence standard

This subtask requires that OPD resolve all allegations in a complaint using the preponderance

of evidence standard. The Third Quarterly Report showed OPD had an 84% compliance rate

(compliance standard 90%) OIG's review of recent cases found a 90% compliance rate. Ex. 4,Jordan Report, p. 5.

The Department has undertaken a number of steps to gain compliance with Task 5, including:

1) Scheduling additional division level investigation training for January 2011, including

credibility assessments and preponderance of evidence standards;

2) Honing IAD's focus on credibility assessments within Division Level investigations;

3) Maintaining personal contact between Division Level investigators and reviewers when

reviewers observe inadequate credibility assessments, providing guidance on how to correct

the deficiencies and advising the investigator's Bureau Commander of inadequate credibility

assessments;

4) Continuing OIG audits of Division Level and IAD investigations;

5) Retaining a use of force expert, pending approval of funding, to provide use of force

investigation training to supervisors/commanders at OPD.

Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 5.The Department believes the impact of the steps taken will show up in audits in the near

future and that compliance with the above subtasks can be achieved by the first or second quarter of

2011. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 5.

Task 41: Use of Personnel Assessment System (PAS)

With respect to Task 41, which focuses on the use of PAS, OPD has had extensive

conversations with the Monitor regarding this Task. It demonstrated iPAS to Plaintiffs' attorneys and

to the Monitor, after which Mr. Burris stated: "This is exactly what we envisioned." Ex. 2, Israel

Report, p. 16. The Monitor brought law enforcement officials from Detroit to Oakland to view the

iPAS system, and the system recently was demonstrated to Berkeley Police Department officials. Id.

In the Third Quarterly Report the Monitor expressed "the highest regard for the dedicated

staff working on the risk management system and for those in OIG who oversee the compliance



20/28

20


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

process. In fact, PAS, which had received strong reviews prior to our first visit, has continued to

improve over time." Third Quarterly Report, p. 65. The Monitor also acknowledged the significant

steps OPD had taken to increase supervisory review of the data. Id. at p. 63.

OPD initiated a comprehensive review of each of the 41 sub-tasks of Task 41 to assessprogress and review recommendations. The results were promising. Twenty-six subtasks (63%) are

in compliance and five are believed to be in compliance but require further inspections. (See Ex. 2,

Israel Report, pp. 7-16 for greater detail regarding the subtasks currently in compliance.) Thus, 31

(76%) of the subtasks either are in compliance or are believed to be in compliance. Compliance for

seven subtasks could not be determined and require further review. Two subtasks are not in

compliance. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 7. One subtask cannot be assessed currently. One subtask was

not applicable and was not assessed. Id. at p. 11, subtask 41.14.

1. Tasks for which OPD Believes Compliance Will Be Found

The five subtasks for which OPD believes compliance will be found, and the basis for OPD's

belief are set forth below. All page number references are to the Israel Report, Ex. 2.

41.7: quarterly supervisory review and analysis

Commanders/managers prepare Quarterly PAS Command Review Meeting Reports

documenting their review of PAS data for personnel under their chain of command to detect patterns.The reports have steadily improved and are tracked by the PAS Administration Unit. (Page 9.)

41.19: extension of PAS jurisdiction beyond one-year

Intervention has been extended for at least three months for three members. OPD believes an

audit will show this subtask to be in compliance. (Page 12.)

41.21: Quarterly watch commander/manager meetings with supervisory staff to identify

problems

PAS Command Review Meeting Reports track attendance, document supervisor assessments

of subordinates and identify potential or actual performance problems. Reports are tracked by the

PAS Admin. Unit, and all reports have been submitted for 2008 through the second quarter of 2010.

(Pages 12-13.)

41.21.1: consideration of all relevant PAS data at meetings



21/28

21


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The above-referenced meetings consider all relevant PAS data to look for potential patterns of

at-risk behavior, use of force, sick leave, line-of-duty injuries, narcotics-related offenses and vehicle

collisions. As noted above, PAS Command Review Meeting Reports document the meetings, and all

reports have been submitted through the second quarter of 2010. (Page 13.) 41.21.3: appropriate action taken

Recent reports show improved documentation that commanders/managers have taken

appropriate action where patterns of at-risk behavior or misconduct are identified. (Page 13.) The

Third Quarterly Report acknowledged that supervisory and command sign-offs showed a "much

greater attention to detail. "Notes were longer and more detailed, and informal corrective measures

were common." Ex. 3, Third Quarterly Report, p. 63.

2. Tasks for which Compliance Is yet To Be Determined

41.15: documentation of intervention options

The vast majority of PAS Activity Reviews received by the PAS Admin Unit reflected one or

more of the four potential dispositions. Oversight and supporting documentation have been

monitored closely by Deputy Chief Israel and have improved. An audit is necessary to determine

compliance. (Page 11.)

41.16: minimum monitoring of three months for those under supervisory monitoringCompliance cannot be determined until the Admin Unit receives reports returned for

additional work. (Page 11.)

41.17: minimum monitoring for 12 months for those under intervention

Compliance cannot be determined until the Admin Unit receives reports returned for

additional work. (Page 11.)

41.20: quarterly review of subordinate commander/managers/supervisors

All report have been submitted, and compliance will be determined upon review of these

reports. (Page 12.)

41.23: supervisory development of plans to ensure accountability and address problems

Compliance is to be determined upon review of these plans. (Page 13.)

41.24: PAS information taken into account for other employment actions



22/28

22


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Although internal audits show extensive use of the PAS system for the required purposes

(such as when a member/employee is up for commendation, promotion, transfer or special

assignment), an audit of specific materials is necessary to determine compliance. (Page 14.)

41.26: PAS information taken into account for discipline for sustained misconduct allegationsThe Monitor audits IAD for this task. (Page 14.)

41.27: commanders/managers schedule PAS review within 20 days of notification of

threshold

Due to delayed reports and reports returned for additional work, compliance cannot be

determined until reports are resubmitted. (Page 14.)

3. One subtask could not be assessed

Subtask 41.4 requires retention of PAS data for five years. The system has not been live for

five years, so no final assessment is possible at this time. DIT assured the Department that iPAS will

maintain data for at least five years. Paper copies will be maintained in the PAS Administration Unit

for a minimum of five years per PAS Policy II, H. (Page 8.) Conditional assessment may be

appropriate for this subtask since final assessment is not possible.

4. Subtasks not in Compliance

41.19.1: additional review meetings at least every three months when PAS jurisdictionextended beyond one year

Internal review revealed that two members were not reviewed by their designated

commander/manager and immediate supervisor within the required time period. (Page 12.)

41.25: timely documentation of intervention strategies

Notification should be made within 10 days, but they are not reported in a timely manner.

Although the Monitor acknowledged the substantial progress made by OPD during the April-

June period covered by the Third Quarterly report, he also voiced concern that the data did not reflect

the number of expected potential risks, that the information in iPAS was limited and that the review

process did not adequately explain findings in some of the cases reviewed. Although "optimistic"

about the Department's progress, the above concerns led the Monitor to question the reliability of the

data and issue a finding of non-compliance. Third Quarterly Report, p. 63



23/28

23


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Subjects are identified for risk assessment when they cross a complaint threshold, are referred

by their supervisors or meet a single event threshold. OPD consulted with Dr. Walker from U.C.

Berkeley to develop a histogram comparison formula. The IMT, OPD and Dr. Walker approved the

histogram analyses and process for identifying outliers in place of the original standard deviationprocess because histogram review is a more efficient way to identify actual outliers. During the April

2010 histogram reviews, over 7% of the Department's sworn staff was identified using the current

and approved histogram review process. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 19.

The process used by the Monitor, however, found only one quarter of one percent of sworn

officer met requirements for PAS meetings, and the Monitor noted that standard deviation from the

mean should select 5% of the group. Third Quarterly Report, p. 62. The April 2010 histogram

analysis exceeded this expected 5% deviation. The chart on p. 19 of the Israel Report, Ex. 2, reflects

some of the reasons why outliers were not recommended during the April 2010 histogram analysis.

Over half of the outliers actually had zero or less than two incidents since their last review or were

currently in the review or intervention stage. Review based on peer group comparison, not simply

raw numbers, leads to much more effective review and identification. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 20.

While OPD values the significant input and assistance the Monitor has given the Department

regarding Task 41, it is concerned that the Monitor is assessing compliance using criteria unrelated tothe NSA or compliance standards. One example is the risk management chart (dashboard) that

appeared in the Second Quarterly Report. Such a comparison chart does not appear anywhere in the

agreed upon compliance standards, the NSA, or the MOU. OPD was assured by the designated

assessor and the Monitor that the chart would not be used to assess compliance. Ex. 2, Israel Report,

p. 17. Nonetheless, in the Third Quarterly Report, the Monitor indicated he would continue to

assemble dashboard data as a means of tracking PAS implementation. The Monitor's inability to

replicate the dashboard created in the Second Quarterly Report with data from the third quarter

reporting period led to the concerns over data reliability. Third Quarterly Report, p. 65. OPD will

cooperate with the Monitor to discuss a revision of compliance standards, but the Department does

not agree that the dashboard is an effective assessment tool. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 17.

The Monitor also was critical of the failure to automate the review element of the PAS



24/28

24


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

system. Third Quarterly Report, p. 63. OPD is not required to automate this process, and compliance

should not be withheld for failure to perform a task not previously agreed upon by the parties. See

list of all subtasks for Task 41 in Ex. 2, Israel Report, pp. 7-16. Notwithstanding this, the PAS

Administration Unit does maintain a PAS Notification database that tracks case status from openthrough closed. Review progress also is computerized. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 20.

The Third Quarterly Report reflected concern over the level of detail in the PAS data,

specifically the lack of narrative regarding the circumstances for use of force events. This lack of

detail meant supervisors would have to request copies of original reports to conduct a thorough

assessment. Third Quarterly Report, p. 63. While OPD agrees that providing more data in iPAS

would be useful, the NSA does not require it, and it is not a basis for determining compliance. See

list of all subtasks for Task 41 in Ex. 2, Israel Report, pp. 7-16.

Notwithstanding this, OPD recently implemented several improvements suggested by the

Monitor that exceed NSA requirements. The Department employed EVALIS, an advanced system

that allows direct data entry for use of force, vehicle pursuit and other high-risk incidents. EVALIS's

workflow component also will allow the chain of command to have more input during the review

stage as is described on p. 5 of the Israel Report, Ex. 2. In addition, bi-weekly PAS inspection

meetings provide significant opportunities to share information and strategies, and the CITY's Risk Manager recently provided additional training regarding reducing and managing risk. Third, all OPD

commanders are scheduled for training to improve data analysis and documentation. The Deputy

Chiefs continue to inspect individual supervisory analyses for sufficiency both of analysis and of

justification for recommended action. Id. at p. 21. Semi-annual PAS Administration Unit reports

comparing use of force incidents, complaints, sick leave and vehicle collisions by bureau and sub-

units can be used to determine whether a member is below or above the averages for these units.

While not 100% compliant with Task 41, OPD strongly believes that through the PAS

program and iPAS, the Department is achieving goals never before realized in Oakland. Ex. 2, Israel

Report, p. 18. The dozens of members identified for participation in supervisory monitoring and

intervention, along with the successful reduction of incidents of at-risk behavior, demonstrate the

effectiveness of the program. OPD is in compliance with 85% of the subtasks and is confident all



25/28

25


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

subtasks will be in compliance by the first quarter of 2011. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 21.

VII. OPD CONTINUES TO MAKE ITS OPERATIONS MORE TRANSPARENT,INCLUSIVE AND FOCUSED ON INTERNAL MONITORING

The primary goals of the NSA are to provide for the best available practices and proceduresfor police management in the areas of supervision, training and accountability mechanisms for the

benefit of and the protection of the rights of Oakland residents and the public as a whole. MOU, p. 2,

3. This picture of institutional integrity requires that OPD reach out to the community, share

information about the operations of the Department and build community partnerships. Institutional

integrity, in other words, is both internal and external, and a Constitutional police department must

aim for both at all times.

OPD has and continues to strive for both internal and external integrity. For example, in 2010

OPD began holding Compstat meetings with the community in which OPD discusses how it analyzes

crime and develops strategies to make Oakland safe. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. Chief Batts and OPD

Commanders attend these meetings and are available for questions. Chief Batts intends to continue

these meetings quarterly to educate the community about the nature of police work, identification of

crime and as a way of keeping the community safe. The Compstat meetings also serve as an

opportunity for OPD to learn about community concerns relative to police services. Ex. 1, Chief'sReport.

The OPD values community inclusiveness and understands its importance to strong and

healthy police-community relations. The Department continues to meet the requirements of its

Community Policing policy and recently authored a Community Policing Manual which was

distributed to select members of the community for input. Id. In addition OPD through the OIG

recently convened a community-based workgroup comprised of members from the faith community,

civil rights organizations and other community leaders. The purpose of this workgroup is for OIG to

inform the community of its role within OPD and to seek their input on how OIG can identify areas

of concern and service deficiencies so that OIG can use its audits, monitoring and reviews protocols

for addressing valid community concerns. Id.

As the City nears the completion of the MOU next year, OPD has devoted substantial



26/28

26


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

resources in staff, money and time to improve and increase its self-monitoring functions. As the

official internal monitoring unit for OPD, the OIG conducted all the NSA/MOU required audits and

conducted numerous additional audits, reviews and inspections of OPD operations and systems. This

has strengthened OPDs capacity to monitor itself and manage the risks and liabilities associated withpolice operations. Not only has OIG grown in this area but the Department as a whole has learned to

conduct more inspections and reviews of OPD operations.

Through these efforts and others, OPD and its leaders continue to show they value police

integrity and are committed to continuing to work with the community to build public confidence.

Without question, this goal is not only consistent with the NSA/MOU but is integral to the

sustainability of a reformed institution.

VIII. CONCLUSION

We will continue to work with the Monitor and the Parties to reach consensus on outstanding

issues so that the compliance work may move forward. We will ask for the assistance of the Court

when necessary. And we will achieve success with the assistance of the Court.

POSITION OF INTERVENOR: OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

As Intervener in this action, the Oakland Police Officers Association (OPOA) hascontinuously assisted the parties efforts in fully implementing the terms of the Negotiated Settlement

Agreement (NSA). The OPOA has demonstrated over the last eight years that the organization is

committed to implementing the terms and spirit of the NSA. As evidenced by OPOAs

representations to this Court on numerous occasions over the years, there has been a cultural change

in the Oakland Police Department. The cultural change has manifested itself in many ways, but in

particular by way of demonstrated compliance with nearly all of the NSA-related tasks. While the

Department may experience isolated instances of behavior falling outside of the parameters of the

NSA and perhaps accepted police practices, there has been a complete void and absence of any

repetitious or demonstrated pattern of improper police practices.

While the OPOA as an organization is not involved in many of the details and decisions

related to the implementation of the NSA, the organization and its members feel the impact of those



27/28

27


1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

decisions and are bound to abide by them. The members of the OPOA and the organization itself

have a proven track record to support substantial compliance.

Since the last case management conference, the OPOA has affirmatively been involved in

many of the ongoing efforts to assist in the Departments effort to become compliant with the NSA.Counsel for the OPOA has engaged in numerous and lengthy meetings and conversations with the

Independent Monitoring Team as well as Department command staff members in order to offer

assistance in the effort to bring the Department into compliance. The meetings and discussions with

the IMT have been productive and enlightening. The OPOA has extended its offer to assist the

Department and the IMT whenever and wherever necessary. While the OPOAs involvement over

the last few months has merely been advisory in nature, the OPOA stands ready to continue to engage

in more detailed and thorough discussions concerning NSA compliance. Moreover, the OPOA

remains deeply interested in becoming more engaged in the ongoing efforts to bring the Department

into compliance.

Finally, the IMT has assured the OPOA that its role in the effort to bring the Department into

compliance has been positive and helpful. There was some concern on the part of the OPOA that the

court had been left with the impression that the organization had not been fully engaged and

committed to compliance with the NSA. The OPOA believes that the matter has been resolved andlooks forward to continuing with the Court, the IMT, and the Department to confirm that substantial

compliance has been accomplished.

Dated: December 2, 2010

/s/ JOHN L. BURRIS

Attorney for Plaintiffs


/s/ JAMES B. CHANINAttorney for Plaintiffs



28/28

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


/s/ GREGORY M. FOX

Attorney for the Defendant


/s/ Rocio V. FierroAttorney for the Defendant


N/ARockne A. Lucia Jr.Attorney for the OPOA

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have received telephonic or email authorization for any signatures

indicated by a conformed signature (/s/) within this E-filed document.

Dated: December 2, 2010 /s/ GREGORY M. FOX


Documents

12/2/2010 Status Conference in Delphine Allen v. Oakland