Fourth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor for the Oakland Police DepartmentJanuary 27, 2011 page 2
This is the fourth quarterly report of the Monitor of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA)in the case of
Delphine Allen, et al., vs. City of Oakland, et al.
in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of California. In January, 2010, under the direction of Judge Thelton E.Henderson, the Parties agreed to my appointment as Monitor of the Oakland Police Department(OPD). In this capacity, I oversee the monitoring process that began in 2003 under the previousmonitor and produced 14 status reports. The current Monitoring Team conducted our fourthquarterly site visit from November 15, through November 19, 2010, to evaluate the Department’s progress with the NSA during the three-month period of July 1, through September 30, 2010.In the body of this report, we again report the compliance status with the remaining active Tasksof the Agreement. By the end of the seven-year tenure of the previous monitor, the Departmentwas in full compliance with 32 of the 51 required Tasks, and in partial compliance with 16additional Tasks. As a result, the Parties agreed to reduce the number of Tasks under “active”monitoring to the current list of 22.During this reporting period, we continue to find the Department in Phase 1 compliance with all22 of the remaining active Tasks. With regard to Phase 2, or full compliance, we find that OPDis now in compliance with 12 of the remaining 22 Tasks. While this is an increase of two fromthe third reporting period, we reported in our third quarterly report that the Department hadregressed by falling from 11 to 10 compliant requirements. The status of other requirements haschanged in this reporting period, and the bases for these are described below.We acknowledge both the possibility and, perhaps, the likelihood that the Department has, infact, advanced in its road towards compliance. We credit the Department for its earnest attemptsto move the process forward. As a result of Court-ordered technical assistance, the MonitoringTeam and representatives of the Department have met and conferred on several occasions toexplore ways to enhance the Department’s policies and procedures so that they better comportwith the trends and innovations in contemporary American policing. The Department in general – and Chief Anthony Batts, in particular – have been receptive to these dialogues; and we creditthe Chief with a new rigor and infusion of commitment to organizational change. The Court-ordered weekly reports have underscored the active engagement of the Department’s senior executives, who have consistently demonstrated their professional resolve to address theimportant issues at hand.The Plaintiffs’ attorneys, John Burris and James Chanin, have been vigorous advocates for change, and have demonstrated their willingness to explore processes and dialogues to bring thiseffort to a successful plateau.
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document591 Filed01/27/11 Page3 of 78