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

1 JOHN L. BURRIS, STATE BAR NO. 69888

Law Offices of John L. Burris
2 Airport Corporate Centre
3 7677 Oakport Road, Suite 1120
Oakland, California 94621
4 Telephone: 510.839.5200
Facsimile: 510.839.3882
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7 JAMES B. CHANIN, STATE BAR NO. 76043
JULIE M. HOUK, STATE BAR NO. 114968
8 Law Offices of James B. Chanin
3050 Shattuck Avenue
9 Berkeley, California 94705
10 Telephone: 510.848.4752
Facsimile: 510.848.5819
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12 (Additional Counsel on Next Page)

13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
DELPHINE ALLEN; et al; MASTER CASE NO. C-00-4599 TEH
18
Plaintiff, JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
19
vs. STATEMENT RE NON-MONETARY
20 SETTLEMENT ISSUES
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
21 Date: December 9, 2010
Defendant. Time: 10:30 a.m.
22 Courtroom 2, 17TH FLOOR
23
Honorable Thelton E. Henderson
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page2 of 28

1 GREGORY M. FOX, STATE BAR NO. 070876

Bertrand, Fox & Elliot
2 The Waterfront Building - 2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
3 Telephone: 415.353.0999
Facsimile: 415.353.0990
4 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND
5 JOHN A. RUSSO, CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 129729
RANDOLPH W. HALL, CHIEF ASSIST. CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 080142
6 ROCIO V. FIERRO, SENIOR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 139565
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
7 CITY OF OAKLAND
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor
8 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: 510.238.3601
9 Facsimile: 510.238.6500
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND
10
ROCKNE A. LUCIA, STATE BAR NO. 109349
11 Rains Lucia Stern, PC
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
12 2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 230
13 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel: 925-609-1699
14 Fax: 925-609-1690
Attorneys for OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page3 of 28

1 PLAINTIFFS’ CURRENT POSITION

2 This is a further status conference concerning the progress of the non-monetary settlement in
3 the “Riders Litigation” which was approved by the Court on January 22, 2003.
4 The IMT’s most recent report stated that “the OPD has dropped to full compliance with only
5 10 of the 22 active Tasks meeting the requisite criteria. This is a decline in full compliance by one
6 Task.” The OPD still has not achieved full compliance with critical parts of the MOU including Task
7 3 (IAD integrity tests), Task 5 (Complaint Procedures for IAD), Task 20 (Span of Control for
8 Supervisors), Task 24 (Use of Force Reporting Policy), Task 26 (Use of Force Review Board), Task
9 30 (Firearms Discharge Board of Review), Task 33 (Reporting Misconduct), Task 40 (Personnel
10 Assessment System—Purpose), and Task 41 (Use of Personnel Assessment System) and Task 45
11 (Consistency of Discipline Policy).
12 The IMT did say that the “Department has put considerable effort into remediating core
13 issues”. However, this is not enough. The original NSA contemplated compliance within 5 years, 7
14 years maximum. It was clear then that the OPD was expected to achieve full compliance no later
15 than January 2010. The OPD did not achieve compliance during that time because, by its own
16 admission, it did not take the Agreement seriously for a significant part of the seven year period of
17 the agreement. During this same period of time, plaintiffs’ attorneys and others filed three additional
18 class actions against the OPD, which cost the City of Oakland millions of dollars and exposed
19 deficiencies in the OPD that extended beyond the NSA. This, unfortunately, was only a small part of
20 the settlements, verdicts, and scandals that rocked the OPD during that time.
21 The agreement was then extended to 2012 by joint agreement between Plaintiffs’ counsel and
22 the City of Oakland. The City represented to the Court and plaintiffs’ counsel that there would be
23 compliance within that period. Unless there is some dramatic improvement in the next IMT report in
24 January 2011, full or even substantial compliance will not happen within the life of the MOU given
25 the one year compliance period that the OPD must achieve after full compliance is attained.
26 The OPD’s attorney, Rocio Fiero, Chief Batts, and City Manager Lindheim each addressed
27 the Court at the last Case Management Conference. Each of them made statements worthy of
28 repetition and comment.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page4 of 28

1 Ms. Fierro said “There’s simply no reason for the police department not to succeed. When you
2 look at the developments within police services, you can go back to the 1960s and a lot of what is
3 being asked of the Oakland Police Department is not new. It’s frankly, not innovative”. (Transcript
4 of Proceedings 16:8-11) We agree. This agreement was approved by highly regarded experts
5 retained by the City of Oakland as well as the OPD itself. The deadlines (long since passed) were
6 approved by the Police Department itself. Both Monitor teams picked by the parties were
7 recommended by the OPD and were their first choice. Yet the OPD is not in compliance with its own
8 agreement and its own deadlines, as measured by its own choice of Monitors. There is only one
9 reason for that failure: the conduct of the OPD itself.
10 Chief Batts said: “We honestly, Judge, have challenges with following up and following
11 through. We are solving those. We have dropped the ball, and haven’t focused on the core issue of
12 leadership. We are changing that.” (Transcript of Proceedings 30: 8-11). We agree that the OPD has
13 dropped the ball. And it is possible that they are “changing that”. Yet the OPD was recently
14 admonished by the Court because their weekly reports do not contain a sufficient appraisal of the
15 work that needs to be done for the OPD to attain compliance. In fact, the reports are far too positive
16 given the OPD’s level of compliance and even contain complaints that the IMT’s rules are unfair.
17 This is not real change. How long before the OPD’s claim that they have “changed” is translated into
18 compliance with an agreement that should have been honored long before now? How long before the
19 OPD will attain compliance? The time is now. Otherwise, there must be immediate, severe
20 consequences, the same consequences any of us would face if we failed to abide and live up to an
21 order of the United States District Court.
22 City Manager Lindheim said: “Fortunately and finally, an understanding and an ownership is
23 taking place. There should have been ownership eight years ago. No dispute. Should have been
24 ownership eight years ago, six years ago, four years ago. I’m observing that there wasn’t. I’m not
25 making an excuse for that. It’s an observation. To me, one of the most important things that is taking
26 place is that there is ownership…It may require the hand of the court to some extent, heavy or
27 otherwise… (Transcript of proceedings 53:19-25). (Emphasis added)
28 Plaintiffs’ counsel agree with the City Manager that the OPD has neglected to take responsibility

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page5 of 28

1 for the agreement in the past. Perhaps, the City Manager is correct that there is finally some
2 awakening of the responsibility of the OPD to comply with the agreement that is a Order of this
3 Court. The problem is that there is no objective measure to date that verifies his contention that the
4 OPD has changed.
5 The time has come and gone for promises. There must be performance and meaningful
6 recognition of past failures. The proof of what the OPD and the City of Oakland really means by
7 “taking ownership” will become readily apparent in the next 90 days.
8 In January, 2011, the IMT will issue its next report. Plaintiffs’ attorneys hope there will be
9 sufficient compliance at that time so that there will be no need for significant further action by either
10 plaintiffs’ counsel or the court. However, given both the recent and past performance of the OPD,
11 plaintiffs’ counsel are not optimistic that there will be anything approaching full compliance with the
12 MOU by January 2011.
13 If there is no compliance, the City will have to decide if it is willing to enter into a new
14 agreement. The new agreement should not be like the old agreement. The OPD rejected sustained
15 technical assistance at the time of the drafting of the current MOU. It took a court order to force
16 them to accept technical assistance by the IMT. The new agreement must have more technical
17 assistance. It must embrace the concept that there must be on site, sustained, technical assistance by
18 the IMT. This may include having some on site technical assistance on a far more sustained and
19 massive level than the current technical assistance. It may include having some people available on a
20 daily basis. There can be no further delays in compliance and the OPD must agree to whatever it
21 takes to achieve compliance now.
22 There must also be personal responsibility for the OPD’s failure to comply if that in fact occurs.
23 This means that command staff will have to take personal responsibility for compliance and be
24 replaced, by outside people if necessary, it the OPD does not attain compliance. A special master
25 may have to be appointed if there is no significant change in compliance levels.
26 The above recommendations are just a small part of what will become plaintiffs’ attorneys’
27 position if there is no compliance by January 2011. We will not sign any new agreement unless it
28 contains mechanisms satisfactory to all the parties that guarantee immediate compliance in a short

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page6 of 28

1 period of time.
2 Plaintiffs’ attorneys recommend that, assuming there is no compliance by January 2011, that the
3 parties be given no more than forty-five days to reach a new agreement. Plaintiffs’ attorneys do not
4 believe that a magistrate would be helpful in reaching a new agreement due to the time constraints in
5 the MOU, the departure of Judge Larson who knew the most about the agreement, and the familiarity
6 of the parties with each other and the issues at hand.
7 If no agreement is reached by early March, 2011, plaintiffs’ attorney recommend that the parties
8 will meet and confer as to appropriate dates for plaintiffs’ to bring motions concerning the OPD’s
9 lack of compliance and the remedies for it. We will then ask the court to advise the parties if the
10 dates are acceptable to the Court.
11 Plaintiffs’ counsel recommends a further Case Management Conference take place at the end of
12 January, 2011. At that time, the court will be able to see if the OPD is in compliance and the parties
13 will have a chance to review the IMT’s January 2011 report. The parties should also be able to report
14 if there is any agreement as to how the parties should proceed and/or negotiate in light of the IMT’s
15 January 2011 report.
16 DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S POSITION
17 I. BASED ON OPD’S PROGRESS ACHIEVING SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE, THE
COURT MAY ALLOW THE ONE-YEAR SUSTAINABILITY PHASE TO
18 COMMENCE IN JANUARY 2011.
19 As demonstrated below and in the accompanying Exhibits the Oakland Police Department
20 will achieve the goal of substantial compliance with the MOU for almost all tasks by January 15
21 2011. We will be ready to move into the final phase of the MOU and will be ready to complete
22 within one year a showing of sustained collective practice compliance for all remaining MOU Tasks
23 by January 15, 2012. At that time it is the expectation of OPD that the Monitor’s term of office will
24 come to an end and the parties will be able to submit an Order of Final dismissal to this honorable
25 court. Failure is not an option. There is no need for a receiver. The command staff of OPD under
26 the leadership of Chief Batts has demonstrated that they are capable of running a police department
27 committed to Constitutional policing in accordance with contemporary state and national police
28 practices. OPD is also committed to community policing responsive to the needs of the citizens of
6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page7 of 28

1 the City of Oakland. Lawsuits and crime are both down. Notwithstanding economic budget
2 constraints and massive layoffs the OPD has continued to both serve the people and meet the
3 requirements of the MOU. At this time OPD is able to police itself in accordance with the NSA and
4 the MOU.
5 This is an ambitious statement of success. And there may be disagreement regarding OPD’s
6 position. But if the goal of the NSA and the MOU was to change the culture of OPD and put in place
7 internal systems ensuring Constitutional policing, it is undisputed that those goals have been
8 substantially achieved. All the parties and the Monitor working together with the assistance of the
9 Court can accomplish the collective goal of compliance. OPD is ready to continue to engage in
10 dialogue with the Court, the Monitor, the plaintiff’s attorneys and counsel for the OPOA. If all
11 parties are unable to achieve a consensus opinion that OPD’s statement of success is correct, then
12 OPD requests an evidentiary hearing with this court in open public proceedings to resolve any
13 differences that may continue to exist about OPD’s compliance record.
14 OPD has been working with and engaging in dialogue with the Monitor. It is a relationship
15 that requires mutual respect and objectivity. OPD respects the role of the Monitors and their law
16 enforcement background. There may be subjective differences of opinion between OPD and the
17 Monitor about how to evaluate OPD’s compliance efforts. But both the Monitor and OPD agree on
18 one thing: if OPD is going to achieve the NSA/MOU goal of self sufficient and sustained
19 Constitutional policing, then OPD’s reasonable positions and opinions must be respected and
20 acknowledged as good faith efforts of professional men and women who have made a long term
21 commitment to the organization and the people of the City of Oakland. That dialogue, transparency
22 and commitment must be encouraged by the Monitor and the Parties.
23 On August 31, 2010, the Court issued an order directing the City to identify senior executives
24 within OPD who would be responsible for achieving compliance in six specific areas. In response,
25 senior executives within OPD assumed responsibility for achieving compliance within the specified
26 areas, as follows: (1) Internal Affairs [Assistant Chief Howard Jordan], (2) Use of Force and
27 Supervisory Control [Deputy Chief Eric Breshears], (3) Stop Data [Deputy Chief Jeffrey Israel], (4)
28 the Personnel Assessment System [Deputy Chief Jeffrey Israel], (5) Training [Assistant Chief

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page8 of 28

1 Howard Jordan] and (6) Discipline [Assistant Chief Howard Jordan]. This new work has not been
2 easy for these police executives whose schedules and work are hugely demanding. But they have
3 stepped up to the plate and continue to strive toward improving their weekly executive memos while
4 attending to their work in completing the reforms, providing leadership and support to OPD
5 members, and keeping the Oakland residents safe.
6 To better understand OPD’s standing and how to achieve success in this case, City defendants
7 endeavored to conduct an evaluation and review of their work 1) as accomplished under the previous
8 monitors, 2) based on the current monitors’ evaluations and findings, and 3) with increased internal
9 reviews and inspections. Based on this internal analysis and due to the commitment of individual
10 command staff, the increased technical assistance of the monitors approved by the City Council just
11 prior to the last status report, and the support of all members of OPD and the parties, the City believes
12 that OPD will have achieved or will be close to achieving substantial compliance by December 31,
13 2010, ensuring the timely commencement of the one-year sustainability period on the remaining
14 tasks.
15 II. OPD HAS ACHIEVED PROGRESS ON ALL 22 REMAINING TASKS AND FULL
PRACTICE COMPLIANCE ON 10 TASKS
16
17 The Monitor's Third Quarterly Report of October 19, 2010 (using April-June, 2010 data)
18 found the Department continued to be in full Phase I compliance (100%) with all 22 Tasks currently
19 being monitored. Monitor's Third Quarterly Report. In addition, the Monitor reported that OPD was
20 in practice compliance with 10 tasks. Four of those tasks attained one-year sustained compliance.
21 And OPD now believes it has or will achieve practice compliance by December 2010 or early
22 January 2011 with 10 additional tasks. For the two remaining Tasks, Task 5, Complaint Procedures
23 (partial compliance), and Task 41, Use of Performance Assessment System, (out of compliance),
24 OPD believes it is close to reaching compliance but may need until the first or second quarter of 2011
25 to achieve it. There is confusion over Task 20, Span of Control for Supervisors. The previous
26 Monitors allowed OPD to use certified acting sergeants, and OPD is significantly complying with this
27 Task under agreed-upon methodology. The current Monitor, however, has a different opinion about
28 allowing acting sergeants. OPD does not believe that it can meet the Monitor’s requirement for this
8

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page9 of 28

1 task if acting sergeants are disallowed because of OPD’s reduced budget and staffing levels, and due
2 to the 15% non-discretionary time away from work to which OPD sergeants are entitled. OPD is
3 optimistic, however, that a viable solution can be reached with the Monitor and has submitted to
4 proposals that may remedy this issue. We also ask the Court for its assistance so that this issue can
5 be promptly resolved.
6 OPD has worked hard and made real strides toward reaching compliance in 2010. The
7 Department acknowledges that its progress in the early years of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement
8 was significantly deficient, but the Monitor noted in his Third Quarter Report, "we credit the Chief
9 with a new rigor and infusion of commitment to organizational change." Third Quarterly Report, p.
10 2. A very significant component of the progress made this year has been Chief Batts' commitment to
11 leadership, accountability and institutionalizing the changes so that they become an integral part of
12 how the Department operates and will continue to operate in the future.
13 III. FOUR TASKS HAVE REACHED SUSTAINABILITY AND SHOULD BE REMOVED
FROM ACTIVE MONITORING
14
15 The Parties, with the assistance of the Court and the former IMT, agreed in the MOU that
16 those tasks which achieved compliance and a one-year sustainability period “shall” be removed from
17 active monitoring. (MOU, p. 6, ¶ 20.) Since the last court appearance, OPD can now report that four
18 tasks have shown sustained compliance for at least one year. Therefore, the City respectfully submits
19 that these tasks may be removed from active monitoring.
20 These tasks are:
21 Task Description When Compliance Achieved
22 2 Timeliness June 2009 (Aug-Oct 2008 data)
23 4.7, Complaint Control / Closures May 2009 (July '06-Aug. '08 data)
24 4.10*
25 35 Use of Force - Witness January 2010 (Nov. '07 - Feb. '09 data)
26 Identification
27 43.1.1* Training Plan July 2009 audit from prior IMT
28 *These are the only subtasks being monitored for these Tasks.
9

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page10 of 28

1 Recent OIG reviews have shown continued compliance with these tasks, including 100%
2 compliance with Task 35. Monitor reports reflect continued compliance. There is no reason to
3 believe that compliance with these Tasks will not be maintained post-monitoring. See Ex. 1, Report
4 of Chief Anthony Batts ("Chief's Report") for a more detailed description of the compliance record
5 for these four Tasks. The City’s MOU Histogram for these Tasks serve to illustrate the compliance
6 findings and analysis which substantiate sustainability of compliance. See Ex. 6, Histogram.
7
8 IV. SIX OTHER TASKS WHICH THE MONITOR FOUND COMPLIANT CAN NOW
9 COMMENCE THE ONE-YEAR SUSTAINABILITY PHASE
10 OPD is in practice compliance with six other tasks:
11
12 Task Description When Compliance Achieved
13 6 Refusal to Accept or Refer Monitor's First Quarterly Report (Oct. -
14 Citizen Complaints Dec. 2009 data)
15 7.3 Anonymous Complaints Monitor's Second Quarterly Report (Jan.
16 - Mar. 2010 data)
17 16 Supporting the IA Process Monitor's Second Quarterly Report (Jan.
18 - Mar. 2010 data)
19 18.2.2 Witness Identification Monitor's First Quarterly Report (Oct. -
20 Dec. 2009 data)
21 25 Use of Force Investigations Monitor's Third Quarterly Report (Apr. -
22 June 2010 data)
23 37 Retaliation against Witnesses Monitor's First Quarterly Report (Oct. -
24 Dec. 2009 data)
25
26 The Department has been in compliance with Tasks 6, 18.2.2 and 37 since the First Quarterly
27 Report, in compliance with Task 7.3 since the Second Quarterly Report and in compliance with Task
28 25 since the Third Quarterly Report. The Monitor found 100% compliance with Task 7.3. The Third
10

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page11 of 28

1 Quarterly Report does not provide any reason to believe that compliance with these Tasks will not
2 continue. Pursuant to the Parties’ MOU the City respectfully requests that these tasks be moved into
3 the phase of demonstrating practice compliance for one year.
4
5 V. OPD INTENDS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE FOR 16 ADDITIONAL TASKS BY
6 THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD
7 The Monitor's Third Quarter Report found the Department to be in partial compliance with
8 seven Tasks (3, 5, 20, 24, 26, 30 and 45) and out of compliance with three Tasks (33, 40, 41).
9 Assessment was deferred for Tasks 34 and 42. Those assessments were based on data from April
10 through June 2010. Now, over five months later, the Department believes it has achieved compliance
11 with Tasks 3, 20, 24, 26, 30, 33, 34, 40, 41 and 45 and that the Monitor's future audits will reflect that
12 success.
13 The Department appreciates the assistance of the current Monitor and realizes that the
14 "macro" issues facing OPD are the key to making sure the "micro" issues are resolved and that
15 changes become institutionalized. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. The implementation of these changes on a
16 "macro" level was reflected most recently in November 2010, when the Department handled a large
17 demonstration following the Mehserle sentencing - the third large-scale crowd control incident in a
18 six-month period. Due to planning, training and coordination with outside groups, the Department
19 was able to limit property damage, use of force and complaints. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. OPD
20 continues to work with community leaders to further develop and strengthen its community policing
21 program, and despite significant budgetary challenges overall violent crime is down 14% in Oakland.
22 Ibid. As this Court noted at the May 9, 2010 hearing, it is clear significant strides have been made
23 toward making the Department more effective and more responsive to the community it serves.
24 Due to the renewed commitment of OPD command staff in 2010, the Department expects to
25 achieve substantial compliance on the following Tasks by December 31, 2010, or within the First
26 Quarter of 2011. At that time OPD recommends these Tasks be moved into the on-going one year
27 period of monitoring sustained compliance for all Tasks. It may not be necessary given the overall
28 status of the MOU to submit these tasks to a full one year of demonstrating sustained compliance.

11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page12 of 28

1 Task 3: IAD Integrity Tests

2 This Task has two subparts: Task 3.1, which requires IAD to conduct integrity tests where
3 members are the subject of repeated allegations of misconduct (compliance standard: Yes/No) and
4 Task 3.2, which requires that IAD's integrity tests be conducted in accordance with IAD standards
5 (compliance standard 90%). The Monitor found IAD successfully conducted a total of 11 integrity
6 tests. This represented a nearly threefold increase over 2009, when only four integrity tests were
7 conducted. Ex. 4, December 3, 2010 Report of Assistant Chief Howard Jordan. p. 2. Despite the
8 success on all 11 tests and the Monitor's acknowledgment that "OPD has made progress in integrity
9 testing," the Third Quarterly Report indicated "the Department's methods need to be more effective if
10 the Department is to achieve consistent, reliable testing that helps the Department perform at a high
11 level absent a high level of complaints." Third Quarterly Report, p. 11.
12 The Department has taken the following steps to improve the Integrity Testing Unit and
13 testing methods:
14 • The Department drafted a policy and a new General Order (M-3.3) to enhance the frequency
15 of testing by using members from other Bureaus to conduct additional tests.
16 • New IAD Commander Figueroa, formerly the Inspector General, is reorganizing the Integrity
17 Testing Unit ("ITU"), effective mid-December 2010 to enhance efficiency.
18 • An additional experienced supervisor will be added as part of the reorganization to assist with
19 testing.
20 • Executives responsible for this Task consulted with LAPD in September to learn about their
21 integrity testing, and the has already begun to implement some of these strategies. Plans are
22 in the works to hold a Bay Area law enforcement IAD integrity testing meeting to exchange
23 ideas regarding this essential policing concept.
24 • A law enforcement consultant is reviewing the integrity testing program in order to provide
25 additional recommendations to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
26 • In early December, the Chief approved additional staffing for ITU to allow for more frequent
27 and more focused testimony.
28 Ex. 4, Jordan Report, pp. 2-3. Assistant Chief Jordan believes OPD will be in full compliance

12

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page13 of 28

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

2 Task 20: Span of Control
3 Currently subtask 20.2 is the only portion of Task 20 deemed not in compliance. Task 20
4 requires a span of control ratio of at least one supervisor for every eight members. In 2009 many
5 field units did not meet the 1:8 ratio, and the Department saw spans of control up to 1:16. Ex. 5,
6 Report of Deputy Chief Eric Breshears ("Breshears Report"), p. 1. The new Monitor acknowledged
7 that 98% of the total squads reviewed now meet the 1:8 span of control ratio. Third Quarterly
8 Report, p. 31.
9 Subtask 20.2 requires that relevant squads be supervised by their primary, or assigned,
10 supervisors 85% of the time. The Monitor found 76% of the squads reviewed were supervised by
11 their primary supervisors (up from 71% during the last reporting period), and 13% were supervised
12 by certified acting sergeants. Third Quarterly Report, p. 32. The Monitor stated: "we considered
13 certified acting sergeants to be primary supervisors if they were assigned to supervise their particular
14 squads; we considered them in compliance if the Department's weekly Personnel Orders listed the
15 certified acting sergeants' acting assignments." Ibid. The Monitor's findings of 76% supervision by
16 primary supervisory and 13% by certified acting sergeants adds up to an 89% compliance level,
17 which exceeds the compliance standard. Nonetheless, the Monitor found OPD out of compliance
18 with subtask 2.2.
19 The prior monitoring team also determined that certified acting sergeants would be considered
20 primary supervisors in recognition of the fact that "vacations, training, sickness, and the like will
21 prevent every squad from being supervised by their primary supervisors every day." See Ex. 5,
22 Breshears Report. The former IMT added, "we considered the assigned supervisors to be the
23 primary supervisor, even where the assigned supervisor was a certified acting sergeant rather than a
24 real sergeant or the squad to which the supervisor was assigned was open." Ibid.
25 Although both current and former monitors stated that certified acting sergeants would be an
26 acceptable substitute for primary sergeants, it appears that in practice the current Monitor is not
27 accepting these substitutes. If the certified acting sergeants were accepted, OPD would have been in
28 compliance for almost a year now, and this Task would be poised to be transferred to the one-year

13

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page14 of 28

1 sustainability stage. Ex. 5, Breshears Report.

2 If the current Monitor continues not to accept certified acting sergeants, OPD does not believe
3 it will be able to achieve compliance with subtask 20.2. It should be noted at the outset that OPD
4 understands the Monitor's concern about the use of acting sergeants and supports the goal of
5 achieving 85% supervision of field squads by their primary or assigned supervisors. Ex. 5, Breshears
6 Report. As a consequence, the Department has transferred additional sergeants to field duties to try
7 to minimize the use of acting sergeants. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. Nonetheless, an analysis of non-
8 discretionary leave time (vacations and mandatory training) for supervisory personnel for relevant
9 field units disclosed that supervisors were present on the job less than 75% of the time between
10 November 2009 and November 2010. Ex. 5, Breshears Report. Based on this analysis, OPD does not
11 believe it can meet the 85% compliance standard if certified acting sergeants are now disallowed.
12 Task 24 and Task 40: Use of Force Reporting Policy / Personnel Assessment System
13 The Monitor found OPD in compliance with all subtasks in Task 24 except for subtask 24.9,
14 which requires OPD to enter use of force data into the Personnel Assessment System (PAS). The
15 Monitor expressed concern that while iPAS included information on the use of force, the information
16 was limited, which may restrict its utility to supervisors when they review IPAS.
17 Previous monitors assessed Task 24.9 as a part of PAS review for Task 40 since the
18 requirements were considered redundant. The level of detail in iPass was not considered insufficient
19 by the previous Monitor, who found OPD in compliance with Task 24.9. Ex. 5, Breshears Report.
20 The Department is looking at methods to capture additional information in the system, but it believes
21 it is in compliance with its policy and the Task. Ex. 1, Chief's Report.
22 The Third Quarterly Report found Task 40 out of compliance. This Task has 22 subtasks, and
23 the Monitor reported that subtask 40.2 was the focus of his concern. Subtask 40.2, which has 21 sub-
24 categories, requires that iPAS data contain information on each element required by the NSA
25 (compliance standard Yes/No). The Monitor expressed his belief that the newly identified problems
26 with the system could be corrected by "setting short time frames for when each individual data type
27 would need to be entered into the system, and posting those timeframes in the system so that users
28 could understand the currency of all data." Third Quarterly Report, p. 57. This would involve

14

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page15 of 28

1 quality control measures similar to those already implemented by the Department. Id.
2 One specific criticism was that certain arrest data was not timely entered. OPD is now
3 entering all arrest data manually on an overtime basis within 10 days of arrest. OPD expects the
4 technology Motorola is developing to allow electronic transfer of arrest data from the County of
5 Alameda to OPD to be fully deployed by April 2011. In the meantime, it will maintain compliance
6 through manual entry. Ex. 2, Report of Deputy Chief Jeffrey Israel ("Israel Report"), p. 4. In
7 addition, OPD has implemented a number of quality controls to improve both the quality and
8 timeliness of iPAS data. For example, every custodian of record for each data element must
9 complete a weekly report documenting the status of data entry efforts, including identification of
10 backlogs and the reasons therefor so that any timeliness problems can be resolved quickly. Daily,
11 weekly and quarterly reports and audits will continue to make sure that problems are identified and
12 quickly resolved. See full list of quality control measures in Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 4.
13 The Monitor also was critical of the quality of the data and, despite extensive efforts to ensure
14 that data is accurate and complete, OPD agrees that further action is needed to provide the highest
15 quality data. Id. at p. 5. OPD has develop a plan to improve the data to meet compliance standards
16 by December 31, 2010. The plan has four action components:
17 1) Each responsible Custodian of Record will identify specific deficiencies affecting data entry,
18 accuracy and completeness by December 8, 2010, develop a sustainable plan to correct the
19 deficiencies and identify a responsible Commander or other Executive Team member
20 responsible for implementing the plan.
21 2) OIG will audit Task 40 before December 24, 2010, focusing on the requirements of the Task
22 and the effectiveness of the solutions implemented to address the deficiencies identified by
23 the Custodians of Record.
24 3) OIG will assess the effectiveness of existing quality controls and recommend further audits or
25 other measures to provide effectual quality control for timely entry and data sufficiency.
26 4) OPD is transitioning to EVALIS, a more advanced and easier to us direct data entry system
27 that will automate supervisory review and provide the ability to enter use of force and other
28 performance data (pursuits, canine deployment, etc.) directly into iPAS, eliminating the

15

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page16 of 28

1 current timeliness and quality problems. EVALIS also allows reviewers easy access to
2 reports not currently accessible online.
3 Ex. 2, Israel Report, pp. 5-7.
4 Task 26: Use of Force Review Board and Task 30: Firearms Discharge Board of Review
5 The only portion of Tasks 26 and 30 that have been out of compliance related to holding the
6 use of force boards in a timely fashion. Previously, FRB hearings were timely 88% of the time, but
7 the compliance standard is 95%. OPD corrected the problem leading to the delays, and audits by
8 OIG's auditing consultant showed consistent compliance for the available data period, July-
9 September 2010. Ex. 1, Chief's Report.
10 Task 33: Reporting Misconduct
11 Task 33 has been out of compliance for two years due to a 2008 case in which OPD did not
12 maintain the confidentiality of a member who report misconduct. OPD disclosed the information
13 because it believed the due process requirements of Skelly hearings mandated disclosure. The City
14 Attorney's office concurred with this conclusion. Members who report misconduct do so
15 anonymously for the most part, and there has only been one confidential case since then. That 2009
16 case, in which confidentiality was maintained, was never reviewed by either monitoring team.
17 Because OPD maintained confidentiality in the only case generated since the 2008 case, and since
18 confidential complaints are rare, OPD believes it is in compliance with this Task. Ex. 4, Jordan
19 Report, p. 7.
20 Task 34: Vehicle Stops, Field Investigations and Detentions
21 The Monitor deferred assessment of this Task due to issuance of a new policy in June 2010.
22 The Task requires collection of stop data information (compliance standard 90% for 34.1.1, 85% for
23 34.2, Yes/No for 34.3.1 and 85% for 34.3.2). Third Quarterly Report, p. 49; Ex. 2, Israel Report, p.
24 1. As set out in more detail in Deputy Chief Israel's Report, pp. 1-3, Ex. 2, the persistent problems
25 created by handwritten forms and inaccurate and incomplete spreadsheets and databases have been
26 eliminated by the new capability to collect all stop-data electronically.
27 With new specially customized software OPD can now collect the data, identify encounters
28 requiring stop data collection, locate related documentation, including CAD entries and verify that

16

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page17 of 28

1 the data was collected. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 2. Using this technology, OPD now performs regular
2 reviews to assess compliance. These reviews regularly show compliance rates exceeding 95% in
3 each sub-task. In addition, the OIG and an outside consultant audited stop data for 584 stops during
4 July-September 2010. The audit disclosed that officers were entering the required data 97% of the
5 time and that the data could be searched, queried, summarize and reported. Id. at p. 3. Thus, OPD is
6 confident that it is compliant with Task 34.
7 OPD also has gone beyond the requirements of the NSA. On the recommendation of the
8 Monitor, OPD implemented a new policy requiring officers to provide radio information about the
9 gender, race and age of the contact and the purpose of the contact. Id. at p. 3. The Department
10 agreed with the Monitor that information would be valuable, and built the procedure into the revision
11 of its policy. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 3.
12 Task 45: Consistency of Discipline Policy
13 The Second Quarterly Report found OPD in compliance with this Task. The Third Quarterly
14 Report found only partial compliance due to the fact that three out of 29 cases audited did not have
15 discipline dates entered into the database. The Department believes only one of these three cases
16 may have been out of compliance, which would not have resulted in a noncompliance finding. For
17 the reasons outlined in Assistant Chief Jordan's Response to the Draft Third Quarterly Report, Ex. 3,
18 p. 6, there appear to have been valid reasons the discipline dates were not entered in the other two
19 cases. OPD believes it has been and will continue to be in compliance with this Task. Ex. 4, Jordan
20 Report, p. 8.
21 VI. OPD IS WORKING DILIGENTLY TO ACHIEVE FULL COMPLIANCE WITH
22 TASK 5 AND TASK 41 BY THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2011
23 Task 5: Complaint Procedures for IAD
24 OPD has remained in compliance for all three quarterly reports for nine out of the 14 subtasks
25 for Task 5. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 3. Following is the status for the subtasks not yet in compliance:
26 5.4: collection and documentation of information on receipt of complaints
27 This subtask requires that certain information be recorded when OPD staff receives a
28 complaint. One place where this information is documented is the Daily Incident Log ("DIL"). The

17

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page18 of 28

1 previous IMT found the Department in conditional compliance with this requirement based on a
2 determination that the DIL need not include all information as long as it had an incident number since
3 the DIL, the incident number and the complaint memoranda sent to IAD captured all necessary
4 information. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.
5 Every record reviewed by the current Monitor contained an incident number; thus, OPD
6 would be in compliance with this subtask under previous standards. The current Monitor, however,
7 does not accept the previous monitor's interpretation of compliance, and will look for all required
8 information to be recorded on the DIL regardless of whether it contains an incident number.
9 Accordingly, in September, 2010, the Department began conducting weekly audits of the DIL to
10 ensure that all required information was captured. The Department also trained Communications
11 Section staff to make sure they are aware of the new requirements. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.
12 5.15 and 5.16: consideration of all evidence, making credibility determinations and resolving
13 inconsistent statements
14 The lack of thorough credibility assessment continues to be a challenge for Division Level
15 cases. OIG's audit for cases from October 25 to November 17, 2010 (before the cases were turned
16 into IAD) found excellent documentation of thorough credibility assessments in some case, but others
17 had to be returned to the Bureaus for further work-up. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.
18 OIG also audited several IAD cases in the last month, including closed and new cases and
19 found that all relevant evidence had been collected and adequate credibility assessments had been
20 done in 95% of the cases. In 90% of the cases, all necessary statements had been taken. To address
21 pre-IAD cases deficiencies, the Department provided training to investigators on documentation of
22 their credibility assessments and has taken corrective action against command level officers who have
23 approved cases without sufficient credibility assessments. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.
24 5.17: retention of investigative notes
25 OIG's August 2010 audit revealed the Department is now in compliance with this subtask,
26 which requires investigative notes to be retained for internal investigation. A more recent review of
27 39 IAD cases confirmed this finding. See Ex. 4, Jordan Report, pp. 4-5, for further detail regarding
28 these audits. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 4.

18

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page19 of 28

1 5.18: preponderance of evidence standard

2 This subtask requires that OPD resolve all allegations in a complaint using the preponderance
3 of evidence standard. The Third Quarterly Report showed OPD had an 84% compliance rate
4 (compliance standard 90%) OIG's review of recent cases found a 90% compliance rate. Ex. 4,
5 Jordan Report, p. 5.
6 The Department has undertaken a number of steps to gain compliance with Task 5, including:
7 1) Scheduling additional division level investigation training for January 2011, including
8 credibility assessments and preponderance of evidence standards;
9 2) Honing IAD's focus on credibility assessments within Division Level investigations;
10 3) Maintaining personal contact between Division Level investigators and reviewers when
11 reviewers observe inadequate credibility assessments, providing guidance on how to correct
12 the deficiencies and advising the investigator's Bureau Commander of inadequate credibility
13 assessments;
14 4) Continuing OIG audits of Division Level and IAD investigations;
15 5) Retaining a use of force expert, pending approval of funding, to provide use of force
16 investigation training to supervisors/commanders at OPD.
17 Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 5.
18 The Department believes the impact of the steps taken will show up in audits in the near
19 future and that compliance with the above subtasks can be achieved by the first or second quarter of
20 2011. Ex. 4, Jordan Report, p. 5.
21 Task 41: Use of Personnel Assessment System (PAS)
22 With respect to Task 41, which focuses on the use of PAS, OPD has had extensive
23 conversations with the Monitor regarding this Task. It demonstrated iPAS to Plaintiffs' attorneys and
24 to the Monitor, after which Mr. Burris stated: "This is exactly what we envisioned." Ex. 2, Israel
25 Report, p. 16. The Monitor brought law enforcement officials from Detroit to Oakland to view the
26 iPAS system, and the system recently was demonstrated to Berkeley Police Department officials. Id.
27 In the Third Quarterly Report the Monitor expressed "the highest regard for the dedicated
28 staff working on the risk management system and for those in OIG who oversee the compliance

19

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page20 of 28

1 process. In fact, PAS, which had received strong reviews prior to our first visit, has continued to
2 improve over time." Third Quarterly Report, p. 65. The Monitor also acknowledged the significant
3 steps OPD had taken to increase supervisory review of the data. Id. at p. 63.
4 OPD initiated a comprehensive review of each of the 41 sub-tasks of Task 41 to assess
5 progress and review recommendations. The results were promising. Twenty-six subtasks (63%) are
6 in compliance and five are believed to be in compliance but require further inspections. (See Ex. 2,
7 Israel Report, pp. 7-16 for greater detail regarding the subtasks currently in compliance.) Thus, 31
8 (76%) of the subtasks either are in compliance or are believed to be in compliance. Compliance for
9 seven subtasks could not be determined and require further review. Two subtasks are not in
10 compliance. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 7. One subtask cannot be assessed currently. One subtask was
11 not applicable and was not assessed. Id. at p. 11, subtask 41.14.
12 1. Tasks for which OPD Believes Compliance Will Be Found
13 The five subtasks for which OPD believes compliance will be found, and the basis for OPD's
14 belief are set forth below. All page number references are to the Israel Report, Ex. 2.
15 • 41.7: quarterly supervisory review and analysis
16 Commanders/managers prepare Quarterly PAS Command Review Meeting Reports
17 documenting their review of PAS data for personnel under their chain of command to detect patterns.
18 The reports have steadily improved and are tracked by the PAS Administration Unit. (Page 9.)
19 • 41.19: extension of PAS jurisdiction beyond one-year
20 Intervention has been extended for at least three months for three members. OPD believes an
21 audit will show this subtask to be in compliance. (Page 12.)
22 • 41.21: Quarterly watch commander/manager meetings with supervisory staff to identify
23 problems
24 PAS Command Review Meeting Reports track attendance, document supervisor assessments
25 of subordinates and identify potential or actual performance problems. Reports are tracked by the
26 PAS Admin. Unit, and all reports have been submitted for 2008 through the second quarter of 2010.
27 (Pages 12-13.)
28 • 41.21.1: consideration of all relevant PAS data at meetings
20

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page21 of 28

1 The above-referenced meetings consider all relevant PAS data to look for potential patterns of
2 at-risk behavior, use of force, sick leave, line-of-duty injuries, narcotics-related offenses and vehicle
3 collisions. As noted above, PAS Command Review Meeting Reports document the meetings, and all
4 reports have been submitted through the second quarter of 2010. (Page 13.)
5 • 41.21.3: appropriate action taken
6 Recent reports show improved documentation that commanders/managers have taken
7 appropriate action where patterns of at-risk behavior or misconduct are identified. (Page 13.) The
8 Third Quarterly Report acknowledged that supervisory and command sign-offs showed a "much
9 greater attention to detail. "Notes were longer and more detailed, and informal corrective measures
10 were common." Ex. 3, Third Quarterly Report, p. 63.
11 2. Tasks for which Compliance Is yet To Be Determined
12 • 41.15: documentation of intervention options
13 The vast majority of PAS Activity Reviews received by the PAS Admin Unit reflected one or
14 more of the four potential dispositions. Oversight and supporting documentation have been
15 monitored closely by Deputy Chief Israel and have improved. An audit is necessary to determine
16 compliance. (Page 11.)
17 • 41.16: minimum monitoring of three months for those under supervisory monitoring
18 Compliance cannot be determined until the Admin Unit receives reports returned for
19 additional work. (Page 11.)
20 • 41.17: minimum monitoring for 12 months for those under intervention
21 Compliance cannot be determined until the Admin Unit receives reports returned for
22 additional work. (Page 11.)
23 • 41.20: quarterly review of subordinate commander/managers/supervisors
24 All report have been submitted, and compliance will be determined upon review of these
25 reports. (Page 12.)
26 • 41.23: supervisory development of plans to ensure accountability and address problems
27 Compliance is to be determined upon review of these plans. (Page 13.)
28 • 41.24: PAS information taken into account for other employment actions
21

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page22 of 28

1 Although internal audits show extensive use of the PAS system for the required purposes
2 (such as when a member/employee is up for commendation, promotion, transfer or special
3 assignment), an audit of specific materials is necessary to determine compliance. (Page 14.)
4 • 41.26: PAS information taken into account for discipline for sustained misconduct allegations
5 The Monitor audits IAD for this task. (Page 14.)
6 • 41.27: commanders/managers schedule PAS review within 20 days of notification of
7 threshold
8 Due to delayed reports and reports returned for additional work, compliance cannot be
9 determined until reports are resubmitted. (Page 14.)
10 3. One subtask could not be assessed
11 Subtask 41.4 requires retention of PAS data for five years. The system has not been live for
12 five years, so no final assessment is possible at this time. DIT assured the Department that iPAS will
13 maintain data for at least five years. Paper copies will be maintained in the PAS Administration Unit
14 for a minimum of five years per PAS Policy § II, H. (Page 8.) Conditional assessment may be
15 appropriate for this subtask since final assessment is not possible.
16 4. Subtasks not in Compliance
17 • 41.19.1: additional review meetings at least every three months when PAS jurisdiction
18 extended beyond one year
19 Internal review revealed that two members were not reviewed by their designated
20 commander/manager and immediate supervisor within the required time period. (Page 12.)
21 • 41.25: timely documentation of intervention strategies
22 Notification should be made within 10 days, but they are not reported in a timely manner.
23 Although the Monitor acknowledged the substantial progress made by OPD during the April-
24 June period covered by the Third Quarterly report, he also voiced concern that the data did not reflect
25 the number of expected potential risks, that the information in iPAS was limited and that the review
26 process did not adequately explain findings in some of the cases reviewed. Although "optimistic"
27 about the Department's progress, the above concerns led the Monitor to question the reliability of the
28 data and issue a finding of non-compliance. Third Quarterly Report, p. 63

22

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page23 of 28

1 Subjects are identified for risk assessment when they cross a complaint threshold, are referred
2 by their supervisors or meet a single event threshold. OPD consulted with Dr. Walker from U.C.
3 Berkeley to develop a histogram comparison formula. The IMT, OPD and Dr. Walker approved the
4 histogram analyses and process for identifying outliers in place of the original standard deviation
5 process because histogram review is a more efficient way to identify actual outliers. During the April
6 2010 histogram reviews, over 7% of the Department's sworn staff was identified using the current
7 and approved histogram review process. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 19.
8 The process used by the Monitor, however, found only one quarter of one percent of sworn
9 officer met requirements for PAS meetings, and the Monitor noted that standard deviation from the
10 mean should select 5% of the group. Third Quarterly Report, p. 62. The April 2010 histogram
11 analysis exceeded this expected 5% deviation. The chart on p. 19 of the Israel Report, Ex. 2, reflects
12 some of the reasons why outliers were not recommended during the April 2010 histogram analysis.
13 Over half of the outliers actually had zero or less than two incidents since their last review or were
14 currently in the review or intervention stage. Review based on peer group comparison, not simply
15 raw numbers, leads to much more effective review and identification. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 20.
16 While OPD values the significant input and assistance the Monitor has given the Department
17 regarding Task 41, it is concerned that the Monitor is assessing compliance using criteria unrelated to
18 the NSA or compliance standards. One example is the risk management chart (dashboard) that
19 appeared in the Second Quarterly Report. Such a comparison chart does not appear anywhere in the
20 agreed upon compliance standards, the NSA, or the MOU. OPD was assured by the designated
21 assessor and the Monitor that the chart would not be used to assess compliance. Ex. 2, Israel Report,
22 p. 17. Nonetheless, in the Third Quarterly Report, the Monitor indicated he would continue to
23 assemble dashboard data as a means of tracking PAS implementation. The Monitor's inability to
24 replicate the dashboard created in the Second Quarterly Report with data from the third quarter
25 reporting period led to the concerns over data reliability. Third Quarterly Report, p. 65. OPD will
26 cooperate with the Monitor to discuss a revision of compliance standards, but the Department does
27 not agree that the dashboard is an effective assessment tool. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 17.
28 The Monitor also was critical of the failure to automate the review element of the PAS

23

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page24 of 28

1 system. Third Quarterly Report, p. 63. OPD is not required to automate this process, and compliance
2 should not be withheld for failure to perform a task not previously agreed upon by the parties. See
3 list of all subtasks for Task 41 in Ex. 2, Israel Report, pp. 7-16. Notwithstanding this, the PAS
4 Administration Unit does maintain a PAS Notification database that tracks case status from open
5 through closed. Review progress also is computerized. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 20.
6 The Third Quarterly Report reflected concern over the level of detail in the PAS data,
7 specifically the lack of narrative regarding the circumstances for use of force events. This lack of
8 detail meant supervisors would have to request copies of original reports to conduct a thorough
9 assessment. Third Quarterly Report, p. 63. While OPD agrees that providing more data in iPAS
10 would be useful, the NSA does not require it, and it is not a basis for determining compliance. See
11 list of all subtasks for Task 41 in Ex. 2, Israel Report, pp. 7-16.
12 Notwithstanding this, OPD recently implemented several improvements suggested by the
13 Monitor that exceed NSA requirements. The Department employed EVALIS, an advanced system
14 that allows direct data entry for use of force, vehicle pursuit and other high-risk incidents. EVALIS's
15 workflow component also will allow the chain of command to have more input during the review
16 stage as is described on p. 5 of the Israel Report, Ex. 2. In addition, bi-weekly PAS inspection
17 meetings provide significant opportunities to share information and strategies, and the CITY's Risk
18 Manager recently provided additional training regarding reducing and managing risk. Third, all OPD
19 commanders are scheduled for training to improve data analysis and documentation. The Deputy
20 Chiefs continue to inspect individual supervisory analyses for sufficiency both of analysis and of
21 justification for recommended action. Id. at p. 21. Semi-annual PAS Administration Unit reports
22 comparing use of force incidents, complaints, sick leave and vehicle collisions by bureau and sub-
23 units can be used to determine whether a member is below or above the averages for these units.
24 While not 100% compliant with Task 41, OPD strongly believes that through the PAS
25 program and iPAS, the Department is achieving goals never before realized in Oakland. Ex. 2, Israel
26 Report, p. 18. The dozens of members identified for participation in supervisory monitoring and
27 intervention, along with the successful reduction of incidents of at-risk behavior, demonstrate the
28 effectiveness of the program. OPD is in compliance with 85% of the subtasks and is confident all

24

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page25 of 28

1 subtasks will be in compliance by the first quarter of 2011. Ex. 2, Israel Report, p. 21.
2 VII. OPD CONTINUES TO MAKE ITS OPERATIONS MORE TRANSPARENT,
INCLUSIVE AND FOCUSED ON INTERNAL MONITORING
3
4 The primary goals of the NSA are to provide for “the best available practices and procedures
5 for police management in the areas of supervision, training and accountability mechanisms” for the
6 benefit of and the protection of the rights of Oakland residents and the public as a whole. MOU, p. 2,
7 ¶ 3. This picture of “institutional integrity” requires that OPD reach out to the community, share
8 information about the operations of the Department and build community partnerships. Institutional
9 integrity, in other words, is both internal and external, and a Constitutional police department must
10 aim for both at all times.
11 OPD has and continues to strive for both internal and external integrity. For example, in 2010
12 OPD began holding Compstat meetings with the community in which OPD discusses how it analyzes
13 crime and develops strategies to make Oakland safe. Ex. 1, Chief's Report. Chief Batts and OPD
14 Commanders attend these meetings and are available for questions. Chief Batts intends to continue
15 these meetings quarterly to educate the community about the nature of police work, identification of
16 crime and as a way of keeping the community safe. The Compstat meetings also serve as an
17 opportunity for OPD to learn about community concerns relative to police services. Ex. 1, Chief's
18 Report.
19 The OPD values community “inclusiveness” and understands its importance to strong and
20 healthy police-community relations. The Department continues to meet the requirements of its
21 Community Policing policy and recently authored a Community Policing Manual which was
22 distributed to select members of the community for input. Id. In addition OPD through the OIG
23 recently convened a community-based workgroup comprised of members from the faith community,
24 civil rights organizations and other community leaders. The purpose of this workgroup is for OIG to
25 inform the community of its role within OPD and to seek their input on how OIG can identify areas
26 of concern and service deficiencies so that OIG can use its audits, monitoring and reviews protocols
27 for addressing valid community concerns. Id.
28 As the City nears the completion of the MOU next year, OPD has devoted substantial
25

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page26 of 28

1 resources in staff, money and time to improve and increase its self-monitoring functions. As the
2 official internal monitoring unit for OPD, the OIG conducted all the NSA/MOU required audits and
3 conducted numerous additional audits, reviews and inspections of OPD operations and systems. This
4 has strengthened OPD’s capacity to monitor itself and manage the risks and liabilities associated with
5 police operations. Not only has OIG grown in this area but the Department as a whole has learned to
6 conduct more inspections and reviews of OPD operations.
7 Through these efforts and others, OPD and its leaders continue to show they value police
8 integrity and are committed to continuing to work with the community to build public confidence.
9 Without question, this goal is not only consistent with the NSA/MOU but is integral to the
10 sustainability of a reformed institution.
11 VIII. CONCLUSION
12 We will continue to work with the Monitor and the Parties to reach consensus on outstanding
13 issues so that the compliance work may move forward. We will ask for the assistance of the Court
14 when necessary. And we will achieve success with the assistance of the Court.
15
16 POSITION OF INTERVENOR: OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
17 As Intervener in this action, the Oakland Police Officers’ Association (“OPOA”) has
18 continuously assisted the parties’ efforts in fully implementing the terms of the Negotiated Settlement
19 Agreement (“NSA”). The OPOA has demonstrated over the last eight years that the organization is
20 committed to implementing the terms and spirit of the NSA. As evidenced by OPOA’s
21 representations to this Court on numerous occasions over the years, there has been a cultural change
22 in the Oakland Police Department. The cultural change has manifested itself in many ways, but in
23 particular by way of demonstrated compliance with nearly all of the NSA-related tasks. While the
24 Department may experience isolated instances of behavior falling outside of the parameters of the
25 NSA and perhaps accepted police practices, there has been a complete void and absence of any
26 repetitious or demonstrated pattern of improper police practices.
27 While the OPOA as an organization is not involved in many of the details and decisions
28 related to the implementation of the NSA, the organization and its members feel the impact of those

26

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page27 of 28

1 decisions and are bound to abide by them. The members of the OPOA and the organization itself
2 have a proven track record to support substantial compliance.
3 Since the last case management conference, the OPOA has affirmatively been involved in
4 many of the ongoing efforts to assist in the Department’s effort to become compliant with the NSA.
5 Counsel for the OPOA has engaged in numerous and lengthy meetings and conversations with the
6 Independent Monitoring Team as well as Department command staff members in order to offer
7 assistance in the effort to bring the Department into compliance. The meetings and discussions with
8 the IMT have been productive and enlightening. The OPOA has extended its offer to assist the
9 Department and the IMT whenever and wherever necessary. While the OPOA’s involvement over
10 the last few months has merely been advisory in nature, the OPOA stands ready to continue to engage
11 in more detailed and thorough discussions concerning NSA compliance. Moreover, the OPOA
12 remains deeply interested in becoming more engaged in the ongoing efforts to bring the Department
13 into compliance.
14 Finally, the IMT has assured the OPOA that its role in the effort to bring the Department into
15 compliance has been positive and helpful. There was some concern on the part of the OPOA that the
16 court had been left with the impression that the organization had not been fully engaged and
17 committed to compliance with the NSA. The OPOA believes that the matter has been resolved and
18 looks forward to continuing with the Court, the IMT, and the Department to confirm that substantial
19 compliance has been accomplished.
20
21 Dated: December 2, 2010
22 /s/
JOHN L. BURRIS
23
Attorney for Plaintiffs
24
25 Dated: December 2, 2010

26 /s/
JAMES B. CHANIN
27 Attorney for Plaintiffs
28

27

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document582 Filed12/02/10 Page28 of 28

1
Dated: December 2, 2010
2
/s/
3
GREGORY M. FOX
4 Attorney for the Defendant
5
6 Dated: December 2, 2010
7 /s/
8 Rocio V. Fierro
Attorney for the Defendant
9 Dated: December 2, 2010
10 N/A
11 Rockne A. Lucia Jr.
Attorney for the OPOA
12
13 ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
14
I hereby attest that I have received telephonic or email authorization for any signatures
15
indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this E-filed document.
16
17
Dated: December 2, 2010 /s/
18 GREGORY M. FOX

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT