U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
The Court expresses no views on these disputed factors at this time and will addressthem, if necessary, in further proceedings.
Likewise, it is not clear why Defendants have only recently taken action to“(a) identify the negative norms, mores and values” that “are impeding and, in some cases,undermining the City’s efforts to achieve complete compliance with the NSA,” and“(b) develop a viable strategy for moving forward with implementation of NSA provisions.”Jordan Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8.2likely to provide a relatively quick and efficient remedy.”
at 12 (citing
, Case No. C01-1351 TEH, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8878 at *22 (N.D. Cal.May 10, 2005)). Admitting that “several of the . . . factors exist here,” Defendants concedethat “continued insistence [on] compliance with the Court’s orders would lead only toconfrontation and delay”; that “there is a lack of leadership to turn the tide within areasonable time”; and that “resources are being wasted.”
To overcome these shortcomings, Defendants propose what they consider to be aneffective remedy short of receivership. Specifically, they request “the appointment of both aCompliance Director and Assistant Chief of Constitutional Policing.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 25.While the appointment of an Assistant Chief of Constitutional Policing would need to bedone in consultation with the Monitor under this Court’s January 24, 2012 order, Defendantsdo not indicate why a court order is required to create this position, or why they havepreviously failed to create what they now suggest is an “essential” position that would help“[t]o ensure lasting change.”
at 27. Either the position is unnecessary and would result inwasted resources, or it is necessary and the failure to adopt such a position earlier indicates alack of leadership or will.
As to the proposed Compliance Director, Defendants request that this be a “salaried,full-time, on-site position,” and indicate that a court order is required to create such aposition.
at 25, 28. It is not clear to the Court whether or how this position differs fromthe receiver that Plaintiffs seek. For example, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs seek areceiver who would “have complete control over the entire Department,”
at 25, but it isnot clear that this is the case. Plaintiffs request the appointment of “a receiver who shallhave the power to bring the City and OPD into compliance with the NSA and AMOU.” Mot.