Alex Katzs Emails PDF

"Katz, Alex" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/KATZ9A>
Sent: 2/4/2015 8:59:24 PM +00:00
To:
Daniel Borenstein <dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Subject
RE: Checking in
:
From:
Not yet, but Im trying.
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
Oakland City Attorney's Office
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
On line at: http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org
Sign up for the City Attorney's Newsletter
From: Daniel Borenstein [mailto:dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com]

Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 12:35 PM
To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Checking in
Alex,
Checking in to see if you were able to reach anyone for me.
thanks,
Dan
OCA 000001
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Columnist and editorial writer
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
Bay Area News Group/East Bay
(925) 943-8248
dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com
www.contracostatimes.com/daniel-borenstein
Twitter: @BorensteinDan
New address: 175 Lennon Lane, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94598
OCA 000002
From:
Sent:
To:
Darwin BondGraham <Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com>

4/16/2015 9:54:51 PM +00:00
Comment on Swanson report?
Subject:
Attachments
1054-main.pdf
:
Hi Alex,
Does the City Attorneys office have any immediate comment to make about the
Swanson report issued today about OPD and the Citys police officer disciplinary
process? Im going to blog about this in a couple hours.
Attached is a copy of the report. Among other things the report states:
The Oakland City Attorneys Office demonstrated neglect and indifference in

its handling of OPD disciplinary cases and arbitrations.
OCA has generally done a poor job of representing the Citys interest. For
years, the OCA handled disciplinary arbitrations haphazardly, often waiting
until the last minute to prepare for hearings or to assign cases to outside
counsel, and showing little regard for the importance of police arbitration to
the integrity of the entire police discipline process. While there have been
notable improvements in the OCAs handling of arbitrations in recent months,
there is little evidence he OCA was taking action to address its poor record in
arbitrations before the Court ordered this investigation.
Im at 510-879-3733
-Darwin
OCA 000003
--Darwin BondGraham
Staff Writer, East Bay Express
318 Harrison Street, Suite 302
Oakland, CA 94607
510.879.3733
darwin.bondgraham@eastbayexpress.com
OCA 000004
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page1 of 46
ReportoftheCourtAppointedInvestigatorin
DelphineAllenv.CityofOakland
EdwardSwanson
Swanson&McNamara,LLP
April16,2015
OCA 000005
TABLEOFCONTENTS
I.
OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................................1
II.
FACTUALBACKGROUND..................................................................................................................3
III.
A.
TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentsDisciplinaryProcess.....................................................3
B.
TheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement.............................................................................6
C.
TheCourtsSeptember2011OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations...................6
D.
TheCourtsAugust2014OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations..........................7
E.
TheScopeoftheInvestigation...........................................................................................8
FACTUALFINDINGS..........................................................................................................................9
A.
OverviewoftheCitysArbitrationResults........................................................................10
B.
ShortcomingsintheDisciplinaryProcess.........................................................................11
1.
OPDFailstoProvideClearRulesandPolicies......................................................12
2.
InvestigationsFailtoConsiderAllRelevantFactsorWitnesses..........................13
3.
InvestigationsDoNotAdequatelyConsiderthePossibleResponsibilityof
Supervisors...........................................................................................................15
4.
OPDsProcessforDeterminingDisciplineRendersThoseDecisionsVulnerableto
Attack...................................................................................................................17
a.
InconsistentRecommendationsinthePreDisciplineReport................17
b.
LackofEvidencetoSupporttheChiefsDisciplinaryDecision...............17
c.
ProblemsWithSkellyOfficerSelectionandPerformance.....................18
5.
TheOCAsLackofMeaningfulParticipationinOPDInvestigationsorDisciplinary
DecisionsUnderminesDisciplineCases...............................................................20
6.
TheOCAsDelayinPreparingorAssigningCasestoOutsideCounselUndermines
DisciplineCases....................................................................................................21
7.
8.
a.
FailuretoPrepare...................................................................................21
b.
DelayinAssigningCasestoOutsideCounsel..........................................23
TheOCAsProcessforSelectingOutsideCounselHasBeenIneffective.............26
a.
TheRFQProcessFailstoResultinSelectionoftheMostAppropriate
AttorneyfortheJob................................................................................27
b.
OCAsIneffectiveSelectionProcessHasGivenRisetoConcernsAbout
theIntegrityoftheProcess....................................................................28
TheOCAHasFailedtoLitigateasAggressivelyandEffectivelyasitShould.......30
a.
FailuretoRequestPreHearingDiscovery..............................................30
OCA 000006
9.
IV.
b.
FailuretoCallCivilianWitnesses............................................................30
c.
FailuretoUseOutsideExpertWitnesses................................................31
d.
FailuretoTrackDataEssentialtoSuccessinArbitration.......................31
OPDandtheOCAHaveNoSystemtoIdentifyProblemsthatareLearned
ThroughtheDisciplineProcessandtoMakeTheNecessaryImprovements......32
C.
TheRelationshipBetweenOPDandtheOCAHasBeenDysfunctional............................33
D.
TherehasBeenNoMeaningfulAccountabilityfortheCitysFailedDisciplinarySystem.34
E.
ACloserExaminationofOneArbitrationHelpstoDemonstrateWhatHappensWhen
TheDisciplineSystemisDysfunctional.............................................................................34
RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................39
ii
OCA 000007
I.
OVERVIEW
Asthenationhasfocusedonastringofrecenthighprofilecasesinvolvingpolice
conductfromFergusontoStatenIslandtoNorthCharlestontheissueofpolicediscipline
hastakencenterstage.Theseincidentsraisethevitalquestionofwhetherpolicedepartments
canbetrustedtopolicethemselves.Ifapolicedepartmentsinternaldisciplinesystemdoes
notwork,theentiredepartmentsuffers.Abrokendisciplineprocessmeansbadofficers
remainontheforceaclearthreattopublicsafety.Italsomeansgoodofficerslosefaithin
theprocess.Anditerodesthepublicstrustinlocallawenforcement.
Foryears,Oaklandspolicedisciplineprocesshasfailedtodeliverfair,consistent,and
effectivediscipline.Timeandagain,whentheOaklandPoliceDepartment(theDepartment,
orOPD)hasattemptedtoimposesignificantdiscipline,itsdecisionshavebeenreversedor
guttedatthearbitrationstage,causingthepublictoquestionwhethertheCityhandles
disciplinarycasesappropriately.Theresultisthatmany,bothinsideandoutsideofthe
Department,havelittlefaithintheintegrityoftheprocess.
Therearemanyreasonsthedisciplinesystemisbroken,buttheyfallintofourbroad
categories.
First,theDepartmenthasnotdonewhatitneedstodotoensurefairand
consistentdiscipline.Itsinternalinvestigationshaveoftenbeeninadequate,
resultinginrepeatedreversalsofdisciplinedecisionsinarbitration.Becauseinternal
investigationsserveasthefoundationfortheDepartmentsdisciplinarydecisions,
mistakesoroversightsintheinvestigationstageunderminetheDepartments
effortstoimposelastingdiscipline.Further,OPDspolicesarevagueorinconsistent
inwaysthathaverepeatedlycomeunderfirefromarbitrators.Andperhapsmost
alarming,whileOPDsdisciplinedecisionswererepeatedlyreversed,Department
leadershipdidnotpubliclyexpressindignationwithanyofthearbitratorsdecisions,
anditdidnotmakeitaprioritytofixthedisciplinesystem.
Second,theOaklandCityAttorneysOffice(OCA)demonstratedneglectand
indifferenceinitshandlingofOPDdisciplinarycasesandarbitrations.TheCityof
OaklandhaslostarbitrationstimeandagainbecausetheOCAhasgenerallydonea
poorjobofrepresentingtheCitysinterests.Foryears,theOCAhandleddisciplinary
arbitrationshaphazardly,oftenwaitinguntilthelastminutetoprepareforhearings
ortoassigncasestooutsidecounsel,andshowinglittleregardfortheimportanceof
policearbitrationstotheintegrityoftheentirepolicedisciplineprocess.While
therehavebeennotableimprovementsintheOCAshandlingofarbitrationsin
recentmonths,thereislittleevidencetheOCAwastakingactiontoaddressitspoor
recordinarbitrationsbeforetheCourtorderedthisinvestigation.
OCA 000008
Third,therelationshipbetweentheDepartmentandtheOCAhasbeen
dysfunctional.Thetwoofficeshaveviewedeachotherwarily,andtheyhavenot
consistentlysupportedeachothersneedsinthedisciplineprocess.Thetensionin
thisrelationshiphasonlyexacerbatedproblemswiththedisciplinesystem.
Fourth,therehasnotbeenacultureofaccountabilityregardingpolicedisciplinein
Oakland.TheproblemswithpolicedisciplinearenotjustanOPDproblem;theyare
aCityofOaklandproblem.Apolicedisciplineprocessthatisnotfairandconsistent
corrodesboththerelationshipbetweenofficersandtheirsuperiorsandthe
relationshipbetweencitizensandtheirpolicedepartment.ButtheOaklandCity
administrationtheMayor,theCityAdministrator,andtheCityCouncilhasnot
heldanyonetoaccountforthesefailures.TheCityadministrationhasdonenothing
todemandorenforceaneffectivedisciplinesystem.Simplyput,itshouldnothave
takenacourtordertofocustheCitysattentionontheseproblems.
Ofcourse,evenwhenthesystemisworkingwell,noteverydisciplinarydecisionmade
bytheDepartmentiscorrect;suchdecisionsaresubjecttohumanerrorandfundamental
differencesinopinion.ButtheproblemstheCityofOaklandfacesarenotjusttheresultofthe
challengesofarbitrationorthepossibilityoferror.Theyaretheresultofabrokenand
inadequatesystemthathasevadedthepublicsscrutinyfortoolong.
TheCitycanandmustdobetter.Thereisnoeasyfixtothisproblem,butthereare
manystraightforwardandfairlysimplestepsthatOPDandtheCityAttorneysOfficecantake
toimprovethecurrentsystem.AndthesearestepstheCityhasunderstooditshouldtakefor
sometime,asweheardthemrepeatedlyfromseveralwitnessesweinterviewed.Thisreport
recommendsimprovementsinanumberofareas,includingthefollowing:
OPDshouldreviseitsinvestigationproceduresandtrainingsothattheresulting
investigationsaremorerobustandthusmoreresilientatthearbitrationstage.
OPDshouldrevampitsSkellyhearingprocessbyretrainingitshearingofficersandby
allowingonlyDeputyChiefsorhighertohearseriouscases.
OPDshouldhireaciviliansupervisorandprofessionalinvestigatorsinIADtoensure
morecontinuityinthedivision.
TheOCAshouldstationaDeputyCityAttorneyinOPDsInternalAffairsDivision.This
attorneywouldtrainIAinvestigators,helpthemworkupcases,adviseOPDinthe
disciplineprocess,andpreparecasesforarbitration.
Witheveryseriouscomplaint,theOCAshouldassignoneattorneytoassistOPDfrom
theoutsetoftheinvestigationofthecomplaintthroughtheresolutionofthecase,
includingrepresentingtheCityinthatcaseatarbitration.
Inhiringoutsidecounsel,theOCAshouldprioritizeexpertiseinpolicedisciplinecases
andensurethatoutsidecounselreceivethecaseswithmorethanjustafewdaysor
weekstoprepare.
2
OCA 000009
OPDandtheOCAshouldusecivilianandexpertwitnessesmoreeffectivelyto
investigateandsupportdisciplinaryfindings.
OPDandtheOCAshouldimplementproceduresthatenablethemtolearnfrom
mistakesorshortcomingsrevealedindisciplinecasesandmakenecessarychanges.
TheMayor,theCityAdministrator,andtheCityCouncilshouldholdOPDandtheOCA
accountableforfailingsinthepolicedisciplinaryprocessbyrequiringbothofficesto
provideregularupdatesonseriousdisciplinecasesandeffortstoreformthediscipline
process.
ThereisnoquestionthatifOPDandtheOCAimplementthesechanges,thediscipline
systemwillbegreatlyimproved.Investigationswillbestronger.Internaldiscipline
recommendationswillbemoreconsistent.AndwhiletheCitywillnotwineverypolice
arbitration,itwillprevailinmoreofthecaseswhereOPDsdisciplinarydecisionswere
meritorious.
Thebenefitsofanimproveddisciplinesystemwillbemany.Officerswhohavedone
nothingwrongwillbeclearedearlierintheprocess.Officerswhohaveengagedinmisconduct
willbeappropriatelydisciplined;arbitrationwillnolongerofferagetoutofdisciplinefree
card.Perhapsmostimportant,aneffectivedisciplineprocesswillbuildpublictrustinthe
Departmentandpromotepublicsafety.IfOPDhasadisciplinesystemthatworks,thecitizens
ofOaklandwillknowthatofficerswhoengageinmisconductwillnotjustbeputbackonthe
jobovertheChiefsandDepartmentsobjections.Then,andonlythen,willtheDepartment
andtheCitybeabletosaythepolicedisciplinesystemisfairandconsistentasignificantstep
towardendingtheneedforjudicialoversight.
II.
A.
FACTUALBACKGROUND
TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentsDisciplinaryProcess.
WhentheDepartmentreceivesacomplaint,whetherfromthepublicorfroman
internalsource,theInternalAffairsDivision(InternalAffairs,IA,orIAD)determines
whetherthecomplaintshouldbereferredforinvestigation.Generally,InternalAffairs
investigatesmoreseriousallegations(ClassIallegations),whilefieldsupervisorsresolveless
seriouscharges(ClassIIallegations).1UndertheDepartmentscurrentprotocol,ifInternal
Affairsconductsaninvestigation,itmustcompletetheinvestigationwithin180daysof
receivingthecomplaint.Thisrequirestheinvestigatortodeterminewhethereachallegation
OPDclassifiesmisconductaseitherClassIorClassII.PerDepartmentGeneralOrderM03,ClassIoffenses
arethemostseriousallegationsofmisconductand,ifsustained,shallresultindisciplinaryactionuptoand
includingdismissalandmayserveasthebasisforcriminalprosecution.ClassIIoffensesincludeallminor
misconductoffenses.
OCA 000010
shouldbeconsideredsustained,notsustained,unfounded,orexonerated,applyingthe
preponderanceoftheevidencestandard.2Toconductaninvestigation,theIAinvestigator
reviewsallrelevantdocumentationandreports,includinganyavailableaudioorvideo
recordings.Theinvestigatoralsointerviewsrelevantwitnesses,includingthesubjectofficer,to
determinewhatoccurredandwhetheritconstitutesaviolationofDepartmentpolicy.Subject
officerstypicallyhavetheirattorneypresentfortheirinterview.
IfthecomplaintinvolvesaLevel1orLevel2useofforce,InternalAffairsandthe
CriminalInvestigationsDivision(CID)conductinvestigationsconcurrently.3Bothdivisions
reporttheirfindingsandconclusionstoanExecutiveForceReviewBoardorEFRB(forLevel1
usesofforce)oraForceReviewBoardorFRB(forLevel2usesofforce).Thereviewboard
considersboththeIADandCIDinvestigationsanddetermineswhethertheuseofforcefalls
withinDepartmentalpolicy.
Followingallinvestigations,theChiefreviewstheinvestigatorsconclusions(aswellas
anyconclusionsbytheEFRBorFRB)anddetermineswhethertosustainthefindings,reject
them,orconductfurtherinvestigation.IftheChiefagreesthataviolationoccurred,theChief
alsoreceivesandreviewsaPreDisciplineReport,whichcontainswrittendiscipline
recommendationsfromthesubjectofficerschainofcommand.
TheChiefmayimposevariouslevelsofdiscipline,includingcounselingandtraining,
writtenreprimand,suspension,fine,demotion,ortermination.TheDepartmentsDiscipline
Matrixsetsoutguidelinesfordisciplinebasedontheseverityoftheoffenseandhowmany
prioroffensesthesubjectofficerhas.Perpolicy,theChiefhasdiscretiontoimposealevelof
disciplineoutsidetherangecalledforbythematrix.OncetheChiefhasdecidedwhatdiscipline
toimpose,theDepartmentissuesaLetterofIntenttoDisciplineinformingthesubjectofficer
thattheDepartmenthassustainedafindingofmisconduct,identifyingthespecificrulesthe
Afindingofsustainedmeans[t]heinvestigationdisclosedsufficientevidencetodeterminethatthealleged
conductdidoccurandwasinviolationoflawand/orOaklandPoliceDepartmentrules,regulations,orpolicies.
SeeNSAat10.Afindingofnotsustainedmeans[t]heinvestigationdidnotdisclosesufficientevidenceto
determinewhetherornottheallegedconductoccurred.Id.Afindingofunfoundedmeans[t]heinvestigation
disclosedsufficientevidencetodeterminethattheallegedconductdidnotoccur.Id.Italsoappliestocasesin
whichindividualsnamedinthecomplaintwerenotinvolvedintheallegedact.Id.Andafindingof
exoneratedmeans[t]heinvestigationdisclosedsufficientevidencetodeterminethattheallegedconductdid
occur,butwasinaccordwithlawandwithallOaklandPoliceDepartmentrules,regulations,orpolicies.Id.
PerDepartmentGeneralOrderK4,aLevel1useofforceisdefinedasanyuseofforceresultingindeath;any
intentionalfirearmdischargeataperson,regardlessofinjury;anyforcewhichcreatesasubstantialriskofcausing
death;anyuseofforceresultinginlossofconsciousness;oranyintentionalimpactweaponstriketothehead.A
Level2useofforceisdefinedasanyuseofforceinvolvinganunintentionalstriketothehead;useofimpact
weapons,includingspecialtymunitions,wherecontactismadewiththesubject;anyunintentionalfirearm
dischargethatdoesnotresultininjury;apolicecaninebitetoclothingorskinofasubject;oranyuseofforce
resultinginthesubjectrequiringemergencymedicaltreatmentorhospitaladmittance.
OCA 000011
Departmentbelievestheofficerviolated,andsettingouttheChiefsrecommendedlevelof
discipline.
Ifthedisciplineinvolvesafine,demotion,suspension,ortermination,theDepartment
alsonotifiesthesubjectofficerofthedateandtimeoftheofficersSkellyhearing.4Atthe
Skellyhearing,thesubjectofficerandhisorherlegalrepresentativemaypresentdefensesto
thechargesorevidenceinmitigationofthediscipline.AtOPD,DeputyChiefsandcaptainsare
eligibletoserveasSkellyhearingofficers,andthehearingofficerischargedwithmakingan
independentassessmentafterreviewingtheDepartmentsfindingsinlightofevidenceor
argumentpresentedbythesubjectofficerortheofficersattorney.Followingthisreview,the
SkellyhearingofficerissuesamemorandumrecommendingthattheChiefuphold,reverse,or
modifytheproposeddiscipline.TheChiefthenmakesanotationontheSkellyreportindicating
whetherhefullyaccepts,partiallyaccepts,orrejectstheSkellyhearingofficers
recommendation.
Atthatstage,ifthecaseinvolvesademotion,termination,orsuspensionoffivedaysor
more,theDepartmentmustpresentittotheCityAdministratortoapproveimpositionoffinal
discipline.IftheCityAdministratoracceptstheDepartmentsproposeddiscipline,theCity
AdministratorwillsendthesubjectofficeraNoticeofDiscipline,triggeringtheofficersappeal
andgrievancerightsundertheCitysMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)withthe
OaklandPoliceOfficersAssociation(theUnion).5Atthatpoint,thesubjectofficermayoptto
movethroughseveralsteps:heorshemaysubmitagrievancetotheCityOfficeofEmployee
Relations;proceedtoinformalconflictresolution;and,ultimately,proceedtoarbitration.
UnderthecurrentMOU,theofficermaytaketoarbitrationanydisciplinerangingfroma
writtenreprimandtoatermination.6TheMOUprovidesthatthearbitratorsdecisionwillbe
finalandbinding.OncetheCityAttorneysOfficereceivesnotificationofanofficersgrievance,
itproceedstorepresenttheCitysintereststhroughoutthearbitrationandposthearing
briefing.
TheSkellyhearingprocesstakesitsnamefromthecaseofSkellyv.StatePersonnelBoard(1975)15Cal.3d194,
539P.2d774.Inthatcase,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatpublicemployeeshavecertaindueprocess
rightsthatthegovernmentmustfulfillbeforeimposingdisciplineagainstthem.Id.at215.Theserightsinclude
noticeoftheproposedaction,thereasonstherefor,acopyofthechargesandmaterialsuponwhichtheactionis
based,andtherighttorespond,eitherorallyorinwriting,totheauthorityinitiallyimposingthediscipline.Id.
5
TheOaklandPoliceOfficersAssociationisfrequentlyreferredtoastheOPOAortheUnion,includingbyits
ownmembers.Foreaseofreferencethroughout,thisreportwillrefertoitastheUnion.
Inlieuofarbitration,theofficermaychoosetosubmitagrievanceconcerningasuspension,fine,demotion,or
terminationtotheCivilServiceBoard.Officersalmostunanimouslyoptforarbitration.
OCA 000012
B.
TheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement.
InJanuary2003,theCityofOaklandenteredintotheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement
(theNSA)withplaintiffscounselinDelphineAllen,etal.v.CityofOakland,etal.,
consolidatedcasenumberC004599TEH,otherwiseknownastheRiderscase.Theplaintiffs
intheRiderscaseallegedthatOPDhadbeendeliberatelyindifferenttoorencouragedan
ongoingpracticeofmisconducttoviolatetheplaintiffscivilrights,includingbyfailingto
exerciseappropriatehiring,training,supervision,anddisciplineofitsofficers.IntheNSA,the
CityandOPDagreedtoenactanextensivelistoftasksandpolicyreformstoimproveoperation
oftheDepartment.TheCourtappointedaMonitortoensureongoingcompliancewiththe
NSAsprovisions.
TheNSAincludesseveralreformsdirectedatimprovingthepolicedisciplineprocess.
Forexample,Task5focusesontheIADcomplaintprocessandincludesseveralsubtasks,such
asTasks5.15and5.16,whichrequiretheCitytoensureOPDconductsreliableinternal
investigationsbygatheringallrelevantevidence;conductingfollowupinterviewsasnecessary;
adequatelyconsideringtheevidencegathered;makingcredibilityassessmentswherefeasible;
andresolvinginconsistentstatements.Task16requirestheCitytoensurethatOPDholds
supervisorsandmanagersaccountableindisciplinarymatterswhereappropriate,includingfor
failuretosupervisesubordinateswhocommitseriousoffenses.Task45requirestheCityto
ensurethatOPDimposesdisciplineinafairandconsistentmanner.
TostrengthentheNSAandensuremeaningfulcompliancewithitsterms,theCourt
appointedaComplianceDirectorinMarch2013withbroadauthoritytoenforcetheparties
agreement.SeeDkt.Nos.885,911.AssetforthintheCourtsorder,theComplianceDirector
overseestheCityscompliancewithallobligationsundertheNSA,includingdisciplinary
matters.TheComplianceDirectormay,athisorhersolediscretion,developacorrective
actionplanforanytaskforwhichtheMonitorfindsDefendantstobeoutofcompliance.Dkt.
No.885at6.TheComplianceDirectoralsohasthepowertoreview,investigate,andtake
correctiveactionregardingOPDpolicies,procedures,andpracticesthatarerelatedtotheNSA
andMOU,evenifsuchpolicies,procedures,orpracticesdonotfallsquarelywithinanyspecific
NSAtask.Id.TheCourtalsoprovidedtheComplianceDirectorwiththeauthoritytodirect
specificactionsbytheCityorOPDtoattainorimprovecompliancelevels,orremedy
complianceerrors,regardingallportionsoftheNSA.Id.PursuanttotheCourtsorderdated
February2,2014,therolesoftheComplianceDirectorandtheMonitorwereconcentratedinto
asingleposition.SeeDkt.No.973.
C.
TheCourtsSeptember2011OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations.
InSeptember2011,theCourtorderedthepartiestoappearatastatusconferenceto
addressanarbitrationdecisionreinstatingOfficerHectorJimenez,whomOPDterminatedafter
heshotandkilledanunarmedcivilian.SeeDkt.No.630.TheCourtexpressedconcernabout
theeffectthefailedarbitrationcouldhaveontheDepartmentsdisciplinaryprocess:
6
OCA 000013
While Defendants may be unableto overturn the arbitrators decision that the
shooting was justified and that the Department did not have just cause to
terminate Jimenezs employment, Defendants shall address whether they have
plans to return Officer Jimenez to patrol duty or some other assignment. If
Defendantsquestiontheexpertiseofthearbitratorwhodecidedthiscase,they
shallalsoexplainwhythisparticulararbitratorwasselectedandwhatstepsthey
aretakingtoensurethatfuturearbitrationsaresubmittedtoindividualswhom
theybelievetobequalifiedtodecideforcerelatedissues.
SeeDkt.No.6301(redactedorderrequestingCitytoaddressthearbitrationdecision).
InresponsetotheCourtsorder,theCityinformedtheCourtitwouldimplement
reformsdirectedatimprovingitsrepresentationandperformanceinarbitrationproceedings.
SeeDkt.No.633(Citysredactedresponse);Dkt.No.637(minutesofstatusconference);Dkt.
No.1015(orderreferringtotheCityspromisestocorrectdeficienciesfollowingthe
reinstatementofOfficerJimenez).
D.
TheCourtsAugust2014OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations.
InJuly2014,anarbitratororderedthereinstatementofOfficerRobertRoche,whomthe
Departmenthadattemptedtofireasaresultofhisallegedwrongfuluseofforceduringthe
OccupyOaklandeventsofOctober2011.AccordingtotheDepartment,Rochehadviolated
DepartmentpoliciesbythrowingaCSblastdispersiongrenadedirectlyintoasmallcrowdof
peoplewhowereattemptingtoassistaninjuredprotester.Theprotester,ScottOlsen,was
lyingontheground,semiconsciousandbleedingafterbeingshotintheheadatcloserange
withabeanbaground,whenRochesCSblastgrenadedetonatedclosetohishead,potentially
compoundingOlsensalreadyseriousinjuries.
Followinganinvestigation,theDepartmentterminatedRoche,andtheCityenteredinto
a$4.5millionsettlementwithOlsen.However,theCityfailedtoupholdtheterminationat
arbitration.Instead,thearbitratorsustainedRochesgrievanceandorderedthathebe
reinstatedtohispreviouspositionwithintheDepartment,withbackpayforthetimehespent
awayfromwork.
Ashasbeenwidelyreported,Rocheandotherofficersmadepublicsocialmediaposts
abouthiscasebothbeforeandafterthearbitrationhearing.Forexample,fourdaysbeforethe
arbitration,RochepostedonFacebookapictureofhimselfwithfourotherofficersatabar
apparentlyabouttotakeshotsofliquor.Thecaptionofthepictureread:Fourmoredaysuntil
arbitration.Itsaboutf**kingtime.Shootersready,standby.Severalotherusers
commentedonthepicture,expressingexcitementtoseeRochebackatworksoon.For
example,oneindividualwrote:Iftheirarbitrationrecordisanyindicatortheyshouldstart
pressingyouruniformnow.
OCA 000014
TheRochearbitrationdecisionbroughtOPDsdisciplinaryprocessandtheOCAsrolein
thatprocessbacktotheCourtsattentionwithaddedurgency.Shortlyafterthedecision,the
Courtissuedanordernotingthatthedecisionwasnotthefirsttimeanarbitratorhas
overturnedanofficersterminationby[theCity].SeeDkt.No.1015at1.AstheCourt
explained,thepartieshadpreviouslybeenorderedtodiscussthereinstatementofOfficer
JimenezbyarbitrationattheSeptember22,2011statusconference.Id.TheCourtobserved
that[t]heCityspromisestocorrectdeficienciesatthattimehavefallenshort,andfurther
interventionby[the]Courtisnowrequired.Id.
TheCourtidentifiedadirectconnectionbetweentheCitysrepeatedfailurestoenforce
disciplineatarbitrationandtheCitysobligationstocomplywiththeNSA,remarkingthat
failuretoaddresstheissues[inpolicedisciplinaryarbitrations]willpreventcompliance,let
alonesustainablecompliance,withtheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement.Id.Forexample,
theCourtheldthattheCitycannotbeincompliancewithTask5iftheinternalinvestigations
leadingtotheDepartmentsdisciplinarydecisionsareinadequate.Althoughnotingitwas
reasonabletoexpectdifferencesofopinionandsomeunfavorablearbitrationdecisions,the
CourtalsostatedthattheCitycannotdemonstratecompliancewithTask45,requiring
impositionoffairandconsistentdiscipline,ifthedisciplineisregularlyoverturned.Asthe
Courtexplained,impositionofdisciplineismeaninglessifitisnotfinal.Id.TheCourt
questionedwhethertheCitywasadequatelypreparingcasesforarbitrationsuchthat
consistencyofdisciplinecanbeassuredtothegreatestextentpossible.Id.at2.
TheCourtfoundthattheCitysregularfailuretoenforceandupholddisciplineatthe
arbitrationstageunderminestheveryobjectivesoftheNSA:topromotepoliceintegrityand
toenhancetheabilityoftheOaklandPoliceDepartment[to]protectthelives,rights,dignity
andpropertyofthecommunityitserves.Id.Accordingly,theCourtdirectedtheCompliance
Directortoinvestigatetheentirepolicedisciplinaryprocess,includingspecificareasidentified
bytheCourtaspotentiallyproblematic.Id.TheCourtsaidthatfollowingtheinvestigation,the
ComplianceDirectorshould,whereappropriate,directtheCitytotakecorrectiveactionto
ensuresustainablereforms,including,ifnecessary,immediatecorrectiveactionpending
furtherinvestigation.Id.InafollowuporderdatedAugust20,2014,theCourtappointedme
toserveasinvestigatorandfacilitatetheCourtorderedinvestigationintothedisciplinary
process.SeeDkt.No.1017.
E.
TheScopeoftheInvestigation.
ToconducttheCourtorderedinvestigation,myteamandIrevieweddocuments,
interviewedwitnesses,andanalyzedinvestigationandarbitrationfiles.Thefollowingsummary
describesthescopeofourinvestigativeefforts.
Toobtainrelevantdocumentsandcorrespondence,weissueddocumentrequeststo
bothOPDandtheCityAttorneysOffice.Inresponsetoourrequests,wereceivedand
reviewedmorethan7,500pagesofemailcorrespondence.PursuanttotheCourtsorder
8
OCA 000015
regardingdiscoveryinthiscase,andovertheOCAsobjection,wewereabletoreview
correspondencebetweentheOCAandOPDtowhichtheCityassertedprivilege.
ToassesstheeffectivenessoftheCitysrepresentationinpolicearbitrationproceedings,
wereviewedarbitrationfilesforthe26arbitrationsofswornofficersthattookplaceoverthe
lastfiveyears.Foreach,weexaminedtheDepartmentscompletedisciplinaryfileleadingupto
thearbitration;allrelevantcorrespondencewithOCA,OPD,oroutsidecounsel;thearbitration
transcript;thepartiesposthearingbriefing;andthearbitratorsdecision.Intotal,wereceived
andreviewedwellover10,000pagesofarbitrationtranscripts,briefings,anddecisions.
ToassesstheeffectivenessofOPDsinternaldisciplinaryprocesses,wealsoreviewed
OPDcasefilesformorethan150disciplinarycasesthatresultedinSkellyhearingsoverthelast
fiveyears.Aspartofourreviewofeachcasefile,weexaminedtheInternalAffairs
investigationandreport,anyExecutiveForceReviewBoardorForceReviewBoardfindings,the
Skellyhearingofficersreport,anyrelevantemailcorrespondence,andtheChiefsfinal
disciplinarydecision.Intotal,wereceivedandreviewedseveralthousandpagesofOPD
disciplinaryfiles.
WealsoreviewedtheCityofOaklandsJointReportonthePoliceDisciplineProcess,
whichwaspreparedduringthecourseofourinvestigationandsignedbyCityAttorneyBarbara
Parker,PoliceChiefSeanWhent,andformerInterimCityAdministratorHenryGardner.The
CitysJointReportcontainstheCitysanalysisofthepolicedisciplinaryprocessandproposed
recommendationsforimprovingtheoutcomesofdisciplinecases.TheCitysJointReportis
attachedasExhibitA.
WealsoconductedwitnessinterviewswithrepresentativesofOPD,theOCA,Oakland
Citygovernment,otherlawenforcementpersonnel,andlegalandsubjectmatterexpertsinthe
fieldofpolicediscipline.Intotal,weconductedmorethan40interviews.Wealsoattendeda
trainingsessionwiththeCityOfficeofEmployeeRelationsinwhichOPDsergeantsweretrained
ontheapplicationofdisciplineanditsrelationtothearbitrationprocess.
Finally,wenotethatwereceivedandappreciatethefullcooperationofboththe
DepartmentandtheCityAttorneysOfficeinseekingaccesstodocumentsandwitnesses.Both
theDepartmentandtheCityAttorneysOfficeprovideduswithrelevantmaterialsandmade
availabletousallwitnesseswithwhomwewishedtospeak.Wealsoappreciatethetimeand
thoughtfulnessofmanyindividualsoutsideofOPDandtheOCAwhogenerouslyagreedto
speakwithusandcontributetheirthoughtsandexperiencestoouranalysis.
III.
FACTUALFINDINGS
Wemakethefollowingfactualfindingsbasedonourinterviewswithwitnesses,our
reviewofcorrespondenceandotherrelevantdocuments,andourconsiderationofthe
arbitrationbriefs,transcripts,anddecisions.Wewillpresentourfactualfindingsinthe
followingformat:First,wewillreviewtheCitysrecordatarbitration;second,wewillhighlight
9
OCA 000016
specificdeficiencieswithinthedisciplinaryprocessthathavecontributedtotheCitysfailureto
imposeconsistentdiscipline;third,wewilladdresstherelationshipbetweenOPDandtheOCA;
fourth,wewilladdressthelackofaccountabilitythathasallowedthesefailuresinthe
disciplinaryprocesstogouncorrected;andfifth,wewillreviewmorecloselyasinglecasethat
demonstratestheeffectsofadysfunctionaldisciplinesystem.
A.
OverviewoftheCitysArbitrationResults.
Aspartofourinvestigation,wereviewedthelast26OPDarbitrationsthattookplace
overthepastfiveyears.7Foreacharbitration,weconsideredtheDepartmentsInternalAffairs
investigation;thefindingsoftheEFRB/FRB,whereapplicable;theSkellyhearingofficers
report;theChiefsimpositionofdiscipline;allrelevantcorrespondenceproducedbytheOCAin
responsetoourdocumentrequests;thetranscriptsfromthearbitrationhearing;theparties
posthearingbriefs;andthearbitratorsdecision.
Thearbitratorupheldthedisciplineimposedinonlysevenof26arbitrations.Ofthe
sevencasesinwhichdisciplinewasupheld,fourcases,whichdatefrom2010,wererelated
mattersinvolvingofficerswhohadliedonsearchwarrantaffidavits.Ofthe19caseswherethe
disciplinewasnotupheld,arbitratorsvacatedthedisciplineentirelyin11cases.Infourofthe
remainingeightcases,thearbitratorsreducedthedisciplinetoacounselingmemorandumor
writtenreprimand.Thus,15ofthe26casesthatwenttoarbitrationinthepastfiveyearssaw
thedisciplineofsuspension,demotion,orterminationreducedtowrittenreprimandsorno
disciplineatall.
TheCityssuccessrateatarbitrationisevenlowerifwelookonlyatdecisionsduringthe
tenureofthecurrentCityAttorney,whotookofficeinJuly2011.Thirteenarbitrationstook
placeduringthatperiod.Inonlythreeofthosecasesdidthearbitratorupholdthediscipline;in
fourcases,thearbitratorreducedthedisciplineconsiderably(tworesultedonlyinwritten
reprimands);andintheremainingsixcases(almosthalf),thearbitratorsustainedthe
grievance,vacatingthedisciplineentirely.
Theseresultsarecauseforgraveconcern.Whattheysuggestisthat,inrecentyears,
theoddshavebeenveryhighthattheCitywillloseatarbitration.Tobeclear,wearenot
sayingthattheCityshouldalwayswin.Butthecasesthatmakeittothearbitrationstephave
undergoneanexhaustivereviewprocess.OPDhassupposedlythoroughlyreviewedand
investigatedtheallegations;theSkellyhearingofficerhasconsideredtheofficersargumentsin
mitigation;thecommandstructureatOPDhasconsideredallofitsavailableoptionsinlightof
thefindings;andtheChiefhasreachedadisciplinedecision.ThefactthattheCitycanmake
Forpurposesofthisanalysis,wetreatasseparatearbitrationsthosecasesinwhichtwoofficersgrievanceswere
groupedtogetherintoasinglearbitrationproceeding.
10
OCA 000017
thatdecisionstickinonlyasmallnumberofthesecases,evenaftersuchextensiveinvestigation
andreview,indicatesthattherearefundamentalproblemsinthedisciplineprocess.
TheOCAclaimsthatoneexplanationfortheCityspoorarbitrationresultsisthat
arbitratorstendtowanttosplitthebaby,imposingalevelofdisciplinesomewherebetween
upholdingtheDepartmentslevelofdisciplineandvacatingitentirely.SeeCitysJointReportat
5.Butthatisnotaccurate.Infact,arbitratorsappearedmorelikelytovacatethediscipline
entirelythantoawardsomethinginthemiddleofthepartiesrespectivepositions.
TheCitytakesamorefavorableviewofitswinlossrecordthanwedo.8SeeJoint
Reportat5.Forexample,theCitysreportportraysseveralarbitrationdecisionsreducing
suspensionstomerewrittenreprimandsascasesinwhichtheCityprevailedinitseffortto
imposediscipline.Id.at6.Inourview,anarbitrationwhereasuspensionisreducedtoa
writtenreprimandisnotevidencetheCityprevailedatarbitration.
ArecentarticleintheWallStreetJournalexaminingtheissueofpolicedisciplinestated
that[p]oliceunionswinreversalsormodificationsinmorethan60%ofdisciplinarycasesthat
gotoarbitrationnationwide.9InOakland,thenumberofUnionwinsisfarhigher.Duringthe
currentCityAttorneystenure,theUnionhaswonreversalsormodificationsinmorethan75%
ofdisciplinarycasesthatwenttoarbitration.AndpriortotheCourtsAugust2014order,the
Unionhadwonreversalsormodificationsofdisciplineinnineconsecutivearbitrations.These
statisticsalonesuggestthatthedisciplinaryprocessrequiresscrutiny.
B.
ShortcomingsintheDisciplinaryProcess.
OPDsdisciplinaryproceedingshavebeenplaguedwithbothproceduralandsubstantive
problems.Thissectionofthereportwilldescribetheshortcomingsourinvestigationrevealed,
fromOPDsrulesandpolicies,throughtheinvestigationanddisciplineprocess,topost
arbitrationfollowup.
WenotesomedifferencesbetweentheCityscalculationsandourown.First,theCityconsidersastwoseparate
arbitrationsacaseinvolvingtwoofficersandresultinginoneofficersdisciplinebeingupheldandtheother
officersdisciplinebeingreduced.SeeReportat6.Atthesametime,itconsidersasasingledecisionacasein
whichtwoofficersbothhadtheirdemotionsvacated.Id.Forpurposesofouranalysis,weconsistentlytreatcases
involvingtwoofficersastwoindividualcases.TheCityalsoconsideredonecasereducingaterminationtoa
writtenreprimandasreversed,althoughitconsideredothercasesresultinginreductionstowrittenreprimands
asUpheld/Modified.Id.Forpurposesofouranalysis,eventhoughthediscrepancybetweenthediscipline
imposedbytheDepartment(termination)andthefinaldiscipline(writtenreprimand)wasgreat,weconsidered
thiscaseasoneinwhichthearbitratorreducedthedisciplinebutdidnotreverseitentirely.
SeeZushaElinson,PunishmentofPoliceUnderScrutiny(WallStreetJournal,Nov.21,2014)(availableat
http://www.wsj.com/articles/punishmentofpoliceunderscrutiny1416598682).
11
OCA 000018
1.
OPDFailstoProvideClearRulesandPolicies.
ThepurposeofanIAinvestigationistodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationof
Departmentrulesandpolicies.Clearinternalrulesandpoliciesareessentialtopredictableand
effectivediscipline.Aconsistentthemeinthearbitrationswereviewed,however,hasbeenthe
Departmentsfailuretoprovideclearrulesandpoliciesthatnotifyofficersof(1)whatconduct
isprohibited,and(2)whattheconsequencesareforaviolation.Arbitratorsregularlydeclineto
upholddisciplineiftheruleorpolicyatissueisvagueorunclear,especiallywherethe
Departmentfailedtoprovidetheofficerwithsuitabletrainingandguidancetounderstandthe
Departmentsexpectations.
ThefollowingareexamplesofcasesinwhicharbitratorsfoundtheDepartments
policiestobeinsufficientlycleartosupportdiscipline:10
ArbitrationL:
ThereisasignificantgapinOPDspublishedpoliciesForpurposesof
thisDecision,whatiskeyisthatthelanguageatissuewasdraftedby
OPD,andthereforeanyambiguityinthetextproperlyisheldagainstthe
Department.
ArbitrationQ:
Foranemployeetobedisciplinedforviolatingarule,theemployee
mustreceivenoticeoftheexistenceoftheruleaswellasnoticeofthe
consequencesfornotfollowingitAlthough[theDepartments
representative]firmlybelievedtherules.wereblackandwhitewith
noroomfordiscretionorflexibility,theCityhasnotestablishedthat
members,employeesorsupervisorsreceivedtrainingorwerealertedto
thisrigidview.
ArbitrationR:
TheessentialproblemfortheCityisthatthepolicytheyciteisnot
specificenoughtobecomethebasisofdisciplineinthiscase.Inour
case,theCityfailedinitsburdentoshowthataclearpolicy,oreven
training,existedtoguidetheGrievantinherdecision.
ArbitrationT:
[T]heCityhadtheobligationtomake[thescopeoftherule]clear.It
didnotdoso.Moreover,asbothCitywitnessesindicated,itdidnotdo
sointraining.Inshort,whateverthemeritsofitsviewtheCitydid
notclearlyandunambiguouslyestablishthescopeofprohibited
conduct.
10
Topreservetheconfidentialityandprivacyrightsofsubjectofficers,andforconsistencyandeaseofreference,
thisReportwillrefertothearbitrationsindividuallyasArbitrationA,ArbitrationB,andsoon.However,where
thearbitrationbecameamatterofpublicrecordduetoextensivemediacoverage,commentsbycounsel,orprior
courtproceedings,wedoreferencethesubjectofficersbyname.
12
OCA 000019
ArbitrationU:
TheGrievanthadnoadvancenoticeandtraininginthespecific
proceduresandtechniquesthattheIAinvestigatorandCityofficials
wouldlaterexpecthimtohavefollowed.Hewasalsounawarehewould
besubjecttodisciplinaryactionifhefailedtofollowthoseunknown
procedures.
ArbitrationV:
[T]heproblemwith[theCitys]argumentisthatneitherthepolicynor
thetrainingidentifieswhatconstitutesa[violation].
Foradisciplinarysystemtowork,therulesmustbeclear.Iftherulesareunclear,the
Departmentmightenforcethemunevenly,oratleastthatwillbetheperception.Thisseverely
limitstheCitysabilitytocomplywithTask45oftheNSA,whichrequiresthatdisciplinebe
imposedinafairandconsistentmanner.Andinthecontextofarbitrations,iftheDepartment
failstoimplementclearrulesandpoliciesthatcommunicateitsexpectations,theCitywill
continuetoseeitsdisciplinedecisionsundonebyarbitratorswhoaretroubledbyvaguerules
orinadequatetraining.
2.
InvestigationsFailtoConsiderAllRelevantFactsorWitnesses.
SincethesigningoftheNSA,theInternalAffairsDivisionhasimprovedthequalityofits
investigations,workproduct,andinvestigatortraining.Nevertheless,theinsufficiencyof
investigationsremainsaconsistentthemeinarbitrationsandisfrequentlycitedbyarbitrators
asajustificationforreversingOPDsdiscipline.
OnefactorcontributingtoinconsistentInternalAffairsinvestigationsishighturnover.
InvestigatorsinIADareregularlytransferredtootherassignments,andinrecentyearsthere
havebeenseveraldifferentcommandersofthedivision.Therearecertainlybenefitstohaving
officersmovethroughIADaspartoftheircareerpath,sinceitmeansmoreofficerswillbe
familiarwiththeDepartmentsinternaldisciplinefunctionandprocesses.Anditisapositive
developmentthatinrecentyearstheheadsofIADhavebeenpromotedtotopmanagement
positionsincluding,ofcourse,thecurrentChief,AssistantChief,andthreeDeputyChiefsas
itdemonstratesthatservingasIAcommanderisnotanobstacletoadvancementwithinthe
Department.
However,thehighturnoverrateinIADalsohasacost.Newinvestigatorsmustbe
trained.Newcommanderslaunchinitiativestheyareunabletocompletebeforetransferringto
anotherpositioninOPD.InthewordsofmorethanoneDepartmentofficial,theconstant
cyclingofofficersandcommandershasresultedinmattersfallingthroughthecracks.
Whetherbecauseofthehighturnoverrateorbecauseofmorepersistentcultural
problemsinthetrainingandsupervisionofinvestigators,itiscleartherecontinuetobe
deficienciesinIADthatcontributetopoorarbitrationresults.WefoundseveralcaseswhereIA
investigatorsfailedtointervieworidentifypotentiallycriticalfactwitnessesorfailedto
consideralltheevidence.Insomecases,thesefailuresgavearbitratorstheimpression,
13
OCA 000020
whetheraccurateornot,thattheinvestigationwasdirectedatupholdingacomplaintrather
thanreachinganobjectiveconclusion.Thesemistakesresultinlossesatarbitration.
ArbitrationB:
Thearbitratorexpresseddiscomfortwiththeunrelentingmannerin
whichevidencewasgatheredtosupportthechargeswithoutsufficient
considerationofalltherelevantfactsandevidence.Forexample,the
arbitratornotedtheinvestigationhadapparentlydisregardedthe
testimonyofanindependentwitnesswhocorroboratedthesubject
officersaccountofevents.Thearbitratorvacatedtheofficers
terminationandorderedthathebereinstatedtohisformerposition.
ArbitrationD:
Thiscaseinvolvedanofficersallegedlyfalsestatementsonsearch
warrants.TestimonyatarbitrationrevealedthattheIAinvestigatorhad
failedtointerviewthesubjectofficerspartnerwhohadpotentially
relevant,exculpatoryinformationaboutthecharges.Thearbitrator
foundtheinvestigatorsoversighttobeapersuasivepointinfavorofthe
grievant,explainingthat[i]itisafundamentalelementoftheMOUsjust
causeprovisionthattheinvestigationmustbethorough,fair,and
comprehensive.Citingthatfailureandothers,thearbitratorconcluded
thattheDepartmenthadarrivedatitsconclusionwithoutinterviewing
individualswhomayhavehadrelevantorexculpatoryinformation.The
arbitratorvacatedtheofficersterminationandorderedthathebe
reinstatedtohisformerpositionwithonlyawrittenreprimand.
ArbitrationU:
Theinvestigatorfailedtointerviewseveralwitnessesthesubjectofficer
hadidentifiedashavingpotentiallyexculpatoryinformation.Inpart
becauseofthisfailure,thearbitratorfoundtheinformationintheIA
reporttobeincomplete,biasedanddirectedatfindingthe[officer]
responsibleforintentionallyviolatinghisduties.Thearbitratorthus
ruledthatIAsfindingswerenotfairlyreachedorsupportedbyreliable,
relevant,andtruthfulevidence.Thearbitratorvacatedthesubject
officerssuspensionandorderedthattheCitypayupto$10,000ofthe
officersattorneysfeesfortheCitysbadfaith.
Becausetheabovecasesinvolvedchallengestodisciplineatthearbitrationstage,itis
notsurprisingtheyfocusedontheinvestigatorsfailuretoconsiderpotentiallyexculpatory
evidence.Ourconclusion,however,isnotthattheDepartmentsinvestigationsaretypically
biasedinfavoroffindingaviolation.Wehavealsoseeninstancesinwhichinvestigationsfailed
toincludeinterviewswithpotentiallyinculpatorywitnessesorwheretheinvestigatorsconduct
raisedquestionsaboutwhethertheinvestigatormighthavebeenbiasedinfavorofthesubject
officer.
14
OCA 000021
Forexample,inconnectionwiththeJimenezarbitration,theplaintiffsattorneyinthe
decedentswrongfuldeathactionagainsttheCitywasabletolocateacivilianwhoclaimedto
havewitnessedtheshooting.Theattorneyhadthecivilianeyewitnessdeposedinthecivil
proceedings,duringwhichthecivilianprovidedhisaccountoftheevents,includingthatthe
decedent,JodyMackWoodfoxIII,hadbeenrunningawayfromofficerswhenJimenezshot
himinthebackandkilledhim.ItappearsfromtheavailabledocumentationthatnoIA
investigatoreverinterviewedthisindividual,eventhoughamemberoftheCityAttorneys
Officeattendedthedepositionatwhichthistestimonywasprovided.
IssuesofpossibleinvestigatorbiasinfavorofthesubjectofficeralsoaroseinRoches
case.Asnotedabove,theDepartmentsinvestigationintowhetherRochesconductduringthe
OccupyOaklandprotestsconstitutedcriminalbehaviorconcludedthatRochehadnot
committedanycrime.AfterthearbitratororderedRochereinstated,however,oneofthe
sergeantswhohadinvestigatedthecasechangedherFacebookprofilepicturetoanimageofa
saintwithRochesface.TheinvestigatorsprofilepictureincludedthewordsWellDeserved
VictoryandSaintRob.
Foradisciplinedecisiontobefair,itmustbeunbiasedandbasedonfullconsideration
ofallrelevantfactsandthoroughinterviewswithallrelevantwitnesses.Thedangersofdoing
anythinglessareclear:officerswhoaredisciplinedmayfeeltheresultisnotfair,becausethe
disciplinewasbasedonanincompleteexamination,andofficerswholegitimatelyshouldbe
disciplinedmayprevailatarbitrationbecausethearbitratorfindsthattheinvestigationwas
incomplete.Bothresultsaretoxictoafunctioningdisciplinesystemanddiminishthepublics
faithintheprocess.
3.
Supervisors.
Underthejustcausestandard,employersmustshowtheyhaveimposeddisciplineina
fairandevenhandedmanner.Inpolicearbitrations,thismeanstheDepartmentmusthave
consideredtheculpabilitynotjustoftheofficerwhoisthesubjectofthecomplaintbutalsoof
supervisorsandcommandlevelrepresentativeswhoseownfailingsinsupervision,trainingor
directionmighthavecontributedtoorfacilitatedtheofficersmisconduct.Inseveralcases,
arbitratorshaveconcludedthattheDepartmentfocuseditsdisciplineonlowerlevelofficersto
theexclusionoftheirpeersorsuperiors.Inthesecases,thearbitratorsfoundtheDepartment
appearedmoreintentondemonstratingthatittooksomeactioninresponsetomisconduct
thanonseekingtoidentifyhowwidespreadthemisconductactuallywasorhowhighupinthe
Departmentitreached.
ThefollowingaresomeexamplesofcasesinwhicharbitratorscriticizedtheDepartment
forfailingtoconsideradequatelytheresponsibilityofsupervisors:
ArbitrationB:
AttheheartoftheCitysargumentisthecontentionthattheGrievant
actedoutsidethescopeofwhathiscommandershadapproved.This
15
OCA 000022
contentionisunsupportedbytheevidence.[Thegrievantslieutenant]
unequivocallyexplainedthattheGrievantexecutedtheplanwhichhad
beenapprovedbyhissuperiorsatthecommandpost
WhenitsubsequentlydevelopedthattheGrievantwasbeingcharged
withaseriousviolation,[hislieutenant]wasbeingchargedwithaless
seriousviolation,and[theDeputyChief]wasnotbeingchargedwithany
violation,[theGrievantslieutenant]wasastonished.
Consistentwiththearbitratorsdetermination,theGrievantwas
awardedamedalofcommendationforthesameeventswhicharethe
subjectofdisciplinaryactionandnoneofhissupervisorshavebeen
disciplinedfortheirparticipationintheincident.
ArbitrationL:
IfindtheDepartmentactedimproperlyinsinglingout[theGrievant]for
discipline,whenotherswithinOPD(includingothersseniorinrankto
[Grievant])alsowerepresentandparticipatingindecisionmaking(or,per
OPDpolicies,shouldhavebeenparticipatingindecisionmaking),but
werenotsimilarlyheldaccountable
IfOPDisgoingtohold[Grievant]toastrictinterpretationoftheGeneral
Orderswhenjustifyingitsdecisiontoterminatehim,thenitisreasonable
toquestionwhyotherOPDpersonnelarenotheldtoasimilarlystrict
readingoftheGeneralOrders
InthisArbitratorsviewtheCitysdecisiontosingleout[Grievant]for
disciplinedoesnotadequatelyrecognizetheresponsibilityofothers
includingtheirorganizationalpeers,andalsosomeofthesenior
managementoftheDepartment.[T]hedecisiontodiscipline[Grievant]
hastheappearanceoftheDepartmentneedingtoholdsomeone
individuallyaccountablebutnotconsideringthepossibilitythatsenior
levelmanagementdecisionsalsocontributedtothechainofevents.
ArbitrationU:
TheDepartmentallegedthatanofficerhadintentionallyfailedtotake
reportsofexcessiveforcefromseveralarresteesfollowingaprotest.The
subjectofficerclaimedhehadsimplybeenfollowinginstructionsfrom
severalcommandingofficerswhowerepresentonthesceneashewas
compilingthereports.TheIAinvestigatorneverinterviewedtwoofthe
threesupervisorswhomthesubjectofficerhadidentifiedasproviding
thoseinstructions,andtheDepartmentmadenoefforttodetermine
whetheranyofthesupervisorsboreculpabilityforthesubjectofficers
allegedviolation.
16
OCA 000023
Nodisciplinarysystemcanbeeffectiveifitisperceivedasfocusingontheculpabilityof
lowerlevelofficerswithoutadequatelyconsideringtheresponsibilityofsupervisors,as
requiredbyTask16oftheNSA.Itcouldwellbethatthesupervisorsintheabovecasesand
othersdidnothingwrong,butOPDsfailuretoconductathoroughevaluationoftheir
culpabilityhasundermineddisciplinecasesandcontributedtoreversalsatarbitration.
4.
OPDsProcessforDeterminingDisciplineRendersThoseDecisionsVulnerable
toAttack.
AftertheIAinvestigationconcludes,theDepartmentmustdecidewhethertodiscipline
thesubjectofficerand,ifso,whatlevelofdisciplinetoimpose.Thereareseveralstagestothis
process,includingthePreDisciplineReport,theChiefsdisciplinarydecision,andtheSkelly
hearing.Thisprocesstooofteninvolvesinconsistent,disjointed,andevencontradictory
recommendationsanddecisions.
a. InconsistentRecommendationsinthePreDisciplineReport.
WhenIAdeterminesthatanallegationissustained,allindividualsinthesubjectofficers
chainofcommandincludingthesergeant,lieutenant,andcaptaincompleteawrittenPre
DisciplineReportstatingtheirrecommendedlevelofdisciplinefortheoffense.These
recommendationsareforwardedtotheChief,whomakesthefinaldecisiononimposing
discipline.WeunderstandthatthePreDisciplineReportpracticewasdesignedtoensurethat
allindividualsinanofficerschainofcommandtakeownershipofthedisciplinaryprocess
throughdocumentingtheiranalysisandrecommendationsforappropriatediscipline.For
example,whenasergeantsubmitsasigneddisciplinaryrecommendationforanofficerunder
thesergeantscommand,thatsergeantsparticipationhelpstoensurethatdisciplineremainsa
Departmentwideresponsibilityandisnotentrustedsolelytothehighestrankingindividuals.
However,numerouswitnessestoldusthatthePreDisciplineReportprocessmakesit
unnecessarilydifficultfortheDepartmenttoenforcedisciplineatarbitrationbecausethe
reportcancreateadisparateevidentiaryrecordtheUnioncouldlateruseagainstthe
Department.Forexample,ifoneoftheindividualsinthechainofcommandrecommendsa
levelofdisciplinesignificantlylowerthanthedisciplinetheChiefultimatelyimposes,theUnion
mightofferthePreDisciplineReportinarbitrationtosuggestthattheChiefsdecisionwas
overlyharsh.Whileweunderstandandappreciatethebenefitsofthispractice,wealso
recognizethehurdlesithasposedtoupholdingdisciplineinsomecases.
b. LackofEvidencetoSupporttheChiefsDisciplinaryDecision.
Insomecaseswereviewed,itwasuncleartoarbitratorswhatbasistheChiefhadfor
selectingaparticularlevelofdisciplinewheretherewassignificantcontradictoryevidencein
therecord.Thislackofclarityunderminedthedisciplinedecisioninsomecases.
InArbitrationU,forexample,theofficerscompletingthePreDisciplineReport
unanimouslyrecommendedafivedaysuspensionwithtwodaysheldinabeyance.However,
17
OCA 000024
thethenChief,withoutanyexplanation,anddespitemitigatingevidence,imposedfivedays
suspensionwithnodaysheldinabeyance.ItisunclearwhatbasistheChiefhadfordeparting
upwardfromtheunanimousrecommendationinthePreDisciplineReport.Thearbitrator
commentedonthisapparentconfusion,notingthatitisunclearwhethertheChiefwasaware
thatthereviewershadrecommendedthattwoofthesuspensiondaysbeheldinabeyanceor,
ifheweresoaware,whyhedisagreedwiththeirrecommendation.TheChiefsfailureto
explainhisdecisioncreatedtheimpressionthattheDepartmentdidnotpaysufficientattention
toitsownprocessesorrecommendations,anditcontributedtothearbitratorsdecisionto
reducethedisciplineimposed.
Similarly,inArbitrationB,theDepartmentattemptedtoterminateanofficerbasedin
partonhisallegedinappropriateresponsetoadangeroussituationfollowingtheshootingof
anotherofficer.Shortlyaftertheincident,thethenChiefhadawardedthesubjectofficerthe
DepartmentsMedalofMeritinrecognitionofhisperformance.Afteracivillawsuitwasfiled
againsttheCity,however,theChiefaskedthatthemedalbewithdrawn,andtheDepartment
attemptedtoterminatetheofficerbasedontheverysameincidentforwhichithadearlier
awardedhimoneofitshighesthonors.Invacatingthedisciplineandorderingthattheofficer
bereinstated,thearbitratoralsonotedaspersuasivethattheofficerwasawardedamedalof
commendationforthesameeventswhicharethesubjectofdisciplinaryaction.Again,the
Chiefsfailuretoexplainthediscrepancywascitedbythearbitratorasareasontoreducethe
discipline.
c. ProblemswithSkellyOfficerSelectionandPerformance.
OncetheChiefhasmadeaninitialdeterminationoftheappropriatelevelofdisciplineto
impose,thesubjectofficerhastherighttopresentmitigatingorexculpatoryevidenceata
Skellyhearing.UponreceivingnoticeofanofficersrequestforaSkellyhearing,OPD
administrativestaffschedulesthehearingdateandassignsanavailablehearingofficerwhois
notinthesubjectofficersdirectchainofcommand.TheDepartmentsDeputyChiefsand
captainsarealleligibletoserveashearingofficers,withDeputyChiefsbeingassignedtohear
themostseriouscases.Fromourinterviews,itappearstheDepartmentassignshearing
officerstocasesbasedprimarilyonwhicheligibleDeputyChieforcaptainisavailabletohear
thecaseratherthanonwhoisbestqualifiedtoconsiderthesubjectmatter.
SeveralwitnessesweinterviewedexpressedconcernsthatindividualSkellyhearing
officersapplyinconsistentstandards,andthatanofficerschancesofhavingdisciplinereduced
orvacatedattheSkellystagedependinpartonwhichhearingofficerisassignedtothecase.
Severalwitnessesexpressedconcernthathearingofficersmaybeconflictedininstanceswhere
they(asfellowofficersoftheDepartment)arerepresentedbythesamelawfirmand,insome
cases,eventheverysameattorneythatrepresentsthesubjectofficersappearingbefore
them.
18
OCA 000025
AbiasedorincorrectSkellyrecommendationcanhavedamagingeffectsonthe
disciplineprocess.AlthoughtheChiefisfreetodisregardaSkellyofficersrecommendation,in
arbitrationtheUnionoftenusesdisagreementbetweentheChiefandtheSkellyofficertocast
doubtonthefinallevelofdiscipline,evengoingsofarastocalltheSkellyofficerasawitnessat
arbitrationtotestifyaboutthedisagreement.Fromourreview,thathasbeenaneffective
tactic.Inaddition,theperceptionthatthelikelyoutcomeofaSkellyhearingdependsonwhich
officerisassignedtohearthecaseunderminesOPDseffortstobuildconfidenceinits
discipline.
ToassesstheperformanceofSkellyhearingofficers,wereviewedallInternalAffairs
casesthatresultedinSkellyhearingsoverthelastfiveyears,regardlesswhetherthosecases
proceededtoarbitration.ForeachSkellyhearing,wenotedwhoservedastheSkellyhearing
officer,thelevelofdisciplinerecommendedbeforethehearing,theSkellyofficersfindingand
recommendation,thelevelofdisciplinefollowingthehearing,andanyothernotablefeatures
ofthecase.Intotal,wecompiledandreviewedstatisticsfor27differentSkellyhearingofficers
throughapproximately200Skellyhearings.
Becauseeachcaseisdifferent,itisdifficulttoknowforcertainwhetherhearingofficers
applysimilarstandardsindecidingcases.However,fromareviewofallSkellydecisionsover
thepastfiveyears,itappearstheoutcomemaybeaffectedbywhichhearingofficergetsthe
case.Forexample,oneSkellyhearingofficerwereviewedheard28casesandrecommended
sustainingthedisciplinein18cases,reducingthedisciplinein6,andvacatingthedisciplinein4.
Ofthe18caseswherethehearingofficerhadrecommendedsustainingthediscipline,though,
7involvedofficerswhoeitherdidnotevenshowuptotheSkellyhearingorshoweduponlyto
admitresponsibilityandacceptthediscipline.
Byalmostanymeasure,thesenumbersputthisparticularSkellyofficerdramaticallyout
oflinewiththedecisionsofotherSkellyofficers.Forexample,intheperiodwereviewedfrom
2009to2014,theDepartmentheldalmost200Skellyhearings.Inthosecases,Skellyofficers
recommendedvacatingthedisciplineentirelyinjust7cases.ThisparticularSkellyofficerheard
onlyabout15%ofthetotalcases,buthewaspersonallyresponsibleformorethanhalfofthe
recommendationstovacatetheChiefsdisciplinarydecisions.Anecdotally,wealsoheardfrom
severalwitnessesthatthisparticularSkellyofficersdecisionsweremorelikelytobefavorable
tosubjectofficersthanwerethoseofotherSkellyofficers.
AnotherproblemwehavenotedisthatSkellyofficerssometimesdonotleavea
sufficientrecordoftheirinvestigationtoprotecttheirdecisionfromattackatarbitration.Skelly
hearingofficershavetheauthoritytorequestadditionalinvestigationintounresolvedissues,
includinggatheringadditionalevidenceorfurtherinterviewsofrelevantwitnesses.IfaSkelly
hearingofficer,beforeissuingadecision,ensuresthattheinvestigationiscompletebyordering
moreinvestigationifnecessary,andifheorshemakesarecordofhavingreviewedallofthe
evidence,theDepartmentshouldnothavetostrugglewithallegationsofanincompleteor
biasedinvestigationatthearbitrationstage.
19
OCA 000026
5.
TheOCAsLackofMeaningfulParticipationinOPDInvestigationsor
DisciplinaryDecisionsUnderminesDisciplineCases.
Inseveralcases,theOCAfailedtoprovideOPDwiththehelpitneededinits
investigationordisciplinarydecisions.ItistruethattheOCAhasbeenaffectedbystaffand
budgetcutsinrecentyears,buttheabsenceofOCAattorneysfromkeystagesofthe
investigationandimpositionofdisciplinehasharmedtheentiredisciplineprocess.TheCitys
caseatarbitrationisshapedlargelybytheDepartmentsdecisionsandactionsduringthe
investigationandimpositionofdiscipline.ThecasessufferwhentheDepartmenthastomake
thosedecisionswithoutmeaningfulparticipationfromcounsel.11
OneexampleofthisinvolvesthedraftingoftheDepartmentsLetterofIntentto
Discipline.TheletterisprovidedtothesubjectofficeraftertheChiefmakesafinal
determinationregardingdiscipline.Itisacriticallyimportantdocumentthatsetsthe
frameworkforanydisciplineimposed;ifaparticularbasisfordisciplineisnotincludedinthe
letter,itcannotbeincludedaspartoftheCityscaseatarbitration.Ineffect,theletterserves
asthechargingdocument,anditshouldbereviewedbycounsel.ItappearsOCAhas
traditionallyplayednoroleinreviewingordraftingthisletter.Infact,itappearsOPDhasbeen
usingaformlettercompletedbyadministrativestaff.
ArbitrationVprovidesavividdemonstrationoftheproblem.CounselfortheCityhad
arguedthattheofficersconductviolatedtheDepartmentscrowdcontrolpolicy.The
arbitratorrejectedtheargument,explainingthattheDepartmenthadnotpreviouslycharged
theofficerwithviolatingthatpolicy.TheOCAalsoarguedtheofficercouldbedisciplinedfor
misusingaweaponinattemptingtocontrolprotesters.Althoughthearbitratorconcededthat
itmaybethatsuchausewouldbeaviolation,henotedtheCityhadsimilarlyfailedto
identifythatpolicyasaviolationinitsnoticetotheemployee.Thus,theCitywasprecluded
fromraisingeitherofthetwopoliciesasabasisforthediscipline.Theseproblemsmighthave
beenavoidedifcounselhadbeeninvolvedindraftingthenotice.
TheOCAslackofinvolvementintheinvestigationanddisciplineprocesshasother
damagingconsequences.Forexample,severalwitnessessharedwithusthatsome
investigatorsareinexperiencedininterviewtechniquesorunclearhowaninterviewmaybe
usedatarbitration.OCAattorneyscouldtraintheseinvestigatorsorparticipateinimportant
interviews.Theycouldalsohelptoensurethattheinvestigatorsinterviewtherightwitnesses,
asktheappropriatequestions,andgatherthenecessaryevidence.Butforthemostpart,OCA
hasnotdonethesethings,oftenwaitinguntilshortlybeforethearbitrationhearingbefore
becomingactivelyinvolvedinthecase.
11
Ofcourse,fortheOCAtobeinvolvedinameaningfulway,theDepartmentmustgivetheOCAsufficienttimeto
researchtheissuesandprovidecompetentadvice.WeobservedseveralinstancesinwhichofficerssenttheOCA
requestsforlegaladviceonlyadayortwobeforetheyneededananswer.
20
OCA 000027
EvenwhentheOCAisinvolvedintheprocess,however,itsinvolvementhasfrequently
beenunproductive.Thedecisionofwhetherandhowtodisciplineanofficerisadifficultone,
andOPDshouldhavethebenefitofcounselsadvicewhenitneedsit.WhiletheOCAhasbeen
involvedinsomeofthesedecisions,numerouswitnessestoldusthatOCAattorneysareoften
unwillingtoprovideclearadvicetotheDepartmentandinsteadhedgetheiropinionsinan
efforttoavoidtakingapositionthatcouldlaterbeprovenwrong.Andinsomecases,theOCA
tooksolongtorespondthatOPDhadnochoicebuttoproceedwithoutlegaladvice.
6.
TheOCAsDelayinPreparingorAssigningCasestoOutsideCounsel
UnderminesDisciplineCases.
WhentheCityAttorneysOfficereceivesnoticethatanofficerhasrequested
arbitration,theofficeopensacasefileandrequeststheofficerspersonnelfile.Afterthat,
though,thecasehastendedtolanguishformonths,oftenuntiljustamonthorevenafew
weeksbeforethearbitrationhearing,whentheOCAfinallybeginstoprepareforthehearingor
assignsthecasetooutsidecounsel.
a. FailuretoPrepare.
ArbitrationUprovidesacompellingexampleoftheeffectsofOCAsfailingtoprepare
sufficientlyforadisciplinarycase.InFebruary2013,lawyersfortheUnionnotifiedtheCity
AttorneysOfficethatthesubjectofficerwasgrievinghisfivedaysuspensiontoarbitration.
Uponreceivingnoticeoftheofficersarbitrationrequest,aDeputyCityAttorneyrequestedthat
acasebeopenedforthematterandassignedtoher,andthattheofficerspersonneland
disciplinaryfilesbetransferredtoheroffice.
InSeptember2013,sevenmonthsaftertheOCAreceivedthecase,theUnionattorney
andtheDeputyCityAttorneyselectedanarbitratorandagreedonaDecemberdateforthe
arbitrationhearing.However,approximatelytwoweeksbeforethathearing,theDeputyCity
Attorneycontactedthearbitratortorequestacontinuance,citingabusyworkscheduleand
insufficienttimetoprepareforthehearing.Thearbitratordeniedtherequest,notingthatthe
sameDeputyCityAttorneyhadagreedtotheDecemberhearingdateseveralmonthsearlier.
OnDecember5,2013,thedayofthearbitration,theDeputyCityAttorneyarrivedan
hourlatetothearbitrationhearing.Whenthehearingbegan,theUnionattorneystatedonthe
recordthatshebelievedtheDeputyCityAttorneywassounpreparedthattheCitywasactingin
badfaithbyproceeding.Forexample,theUnionattorneynotedthattheDeputyCityAttorney
hadwaiteduntilthedaybeforethearbitrationhearingtoprovidetheUnionwithawitnesslist,
whichcontainedthenamesofindividualstheUnionknewtheDeputyCityAttorneyhadnot
contactedanddidnotintendtocallatthearbitration.
ThearbitratoraskedtheDeputyCityAttorneytorespondtotheallegations.Onthe
record,theDeputyCityAttorneyexplainedthatthecasehadbeenhandedtoheratthelast
minute,eventhoughshehadreceivednoticeofthearbitrationalmost10monthsearlier.The
21
OCA 000028
DeputyCityAttorneyalsostatedontherecordthatshehadnotbegunpreparingforthecase
untilthedaybeforethearbitrationhearing.AstheDeputyCityAttorneystated:Thewitness
listthatIproducedwasIstatedinmyemail,whichIccdthearbitratoron,thatthiswasa
tentativewitnesslistasIwasjustnowbeginningtoprepareforthecase,andthatwas
yesterday.
Duringopeningstatements,theDeputyCityAttorneyappearedconfusedaboutthe
factsofthecaseandtherelevantstagesofOPDsdisciplinaryprocess.Afteropening
statements,shecalledonlyasinglewitnesstheformerChief,whomtheUnionhadbroughtto
thehearingandhadidentifiedassupportingitscase.ItsoonbecameclearthattheDeputyCity
Attorneyhaddonenothingtocontactthewitnesspriortothehearing.Despitebeingcalledby
theCity,theformerChieftestifiedagainsttheCityscase,disagreeingwiththelevelof
disciplineandexplainingthathenowbelievedthatthesuspensionshouldhavebeenreduced
toawrittenreprimand.TheDeputyCityAttorneyappearedunawarethattheformerChiefs
testimonywoulddifferfromhisearlierdecisionondiscipline.
Followingthissinglewitnesssdamagingtestimony,theDeputyCityAttorneyrestedand
callednofurtherwitnessesnottheIAinvestigator;notanyoftheDepartmentofficialswho
hadreviewedandapprovedthefindings;andnottheseveralcivilianswhoallegedlyhad
informationthatwouldbehelpfultotheCity.Aswithallthearbitrations,theCity,asemployer,
hadtheburdenofestablishingjustcausetoimposethediscipline.Inthisinstance,however,
theonlytestimonytheOCApresentedinsupportofthedisciplinewasthatofasinglewitness
whobelievedtheCitywaswrongtoimposethediscipline.TheUnionthencalledtwo
thoroughlypreparedwitnesseswhobothtestifiedpersuasivelyagainstthediscipline.
Inthearbitratorswrittendecision,thearbitratorreferredtothecaseasextraordinary
andheldthattheCityhadcommittedanegregiousviolationofthepartiescollective
bargainingagreementbydiscipliningtheofficerwithoutanysupportingevidence.Withno
witnesstestimonytosupporttheCityspositionandwithconsiderabletestimonyand
evidenceinoppositionthearbitratorruledthattheCityhadfailedtoproveanyelementof
justcause,muchlessallofthem.ThearbitratoralsoruledthattheCityfailedtoprovethatit
treatedtheGrievantfairlyduringtheadministrativeIAinvestigationandsubsequentreview
process,orthatitseriouslyandfairlyprovidedtheGrievantthedueprocessthatisrequiredby
Skelly[]andtheMOUsgrievanceprocedure.
Thearbitratorsustainedthegrievance,vacatedthesuspension,andorderedthatthe
officerreceivebackpaywithinterestfortheperiodhehadbeenonsuspension.Thearbitrator
alsoruledthattheCityhadactedarbitrarily,capriciously,andinbadfaithbyimposingthe
disciplineandproceedingtoarbitration.Accordingly,inadditiontoawardingbackpaywith
interest,thearbitratoralsoorderedthattheCitypayupto$10,000oftheofficersattorneys
fees.
22
OCA 000029
Whilethisisadmittedlyanextremeexampleoflackofpreparedness,itwasfarfromthe
onlyonethatwelearnedofinourinvestigation.Timeandagain,witnessestoldusthatthe
OCAhadbeencontactedthematthelastminutefrequentlytheweekbeforethehearing
andpreparedthemfortestimonyinacursoryfashion.Thiswasinmarkedcontrastwiththe
early,repeated,andcomprehensivepreparationthatUnionwitnessestoldustheyunderwent.
b. DelayinAssigningCasestoOutsideCounsel.
Innearlyallofthepolicearbitrationssince2011,theCityAttorneysOfficehasengaged
outsidecounselfromprivatelawfirmstorepresenttheCity.AccordingtotheOCA,ithashired
outsidecounselinthesecasesbecauseseveralyearsofstaffreductionsandbudgetcutshave
leftitunabletohandlethearbitrationsinternally.Inseveralcases,however,theOCAwaitedso
longtoretainaprivateattorneyinonecase,untiljustoneweekbeforethearbitrationthat
itsdelayvirtuallyguaranteedfailure.
ThereisnogoodreasonfortheOCAsdelaysinpreparingcasesorassigningthemto
outsidecounsel;ineachcase,theOCAreceivedtimelynoticeofthearbitrationdemandand
hadplentyoftimetoprepareforthehearinginternallyortoidentifyandengageoutside
counsel.Thefollowingareexamplesofpolicearbitrationsthatwerenottimelyassignedto
outsidecounsel:
ArbitrationS:
TheOCAreceivednoticeofthearbitrationbyNovember16,2012and
scheduledthearbitrationforSeptember1617,2013.However,itdid
notbegincontactingoutsidecounseltohandlethecaseuntillateAugust
2013almost10monthsafteritreceivedthecase.TheCityAttorney
selectedanoutsidefirmonAugust29,2013.Outsidecounselreceived
thecasefileandconductedaninitialreviewonoraboutSeptember4,
2013,leavingcounselonly12daystoprepareforthearbitration.
Ultimately,thearbitratorsustainedthegrievanceinpart,reducingthe
threedaysuspensiontoawrittenreprimand.
ArbitrationT:
TheOCAreceivednotificationofthearbitrationrequestbyNovember15,
2012,whenaDeputyCityAttorneyrequestedthattheOCAopenacase
fileonthematterandassignittoher.TheOCAlaterselectedan
arbitratorandscheduledthearbitrationhearingforOctober18,2013.
TheOCAassignedthemattertooutsidecounselonOctober11,2013
oneweekbeforethearbitrationhearing.Thearbitratorsustainedthe
grievance,vacatingtheofficers10daysuspension.
ArbitrationO:
TheOCAreceivednotificationoftheofficersgrievancebyMay21,2012.
Thepartieslaterselectedanarbitratorandscheduledthehearingfor
September18,2012.TheOCAapparentlydidnothingtoprepareor
engageoutsidecounseluntilitwastoolate,however,becausetheOCA
unilaterallycancelledthearbitrationhearing.Inassigningthecaseto
23
OCA 000030
outsidecounselonSeptember26morethanaweekaftertheinitial
hearingdatetheDeputyCityAttorneynotedthatboththearbitrator
andtheUnionattorneywerenothappywiththeOCAforcancellingthe
initialhearingdate.TheCitywentontoloseatarbitration,withthe
arbitratorvacatingtheofficersfivedaysuspensionandawardingfull
backpay.
ArbitrationR:
ThepartiesscheduledthearbitrationhearingforSeptember9,2013.
However,theOCAdidnotselectanoutsidefirmuntilAugust13,2013
lessthanamonthbeforethehearingdate.TheOCAsrecordsonthis
pointarenotclear,butitappearsthefirmbeganworkonthecaseonor
aboutAugust20,2013,leavingcounselonlyabout20daystopreparefor
thearbitration.Followingthearbitrationproceedings,thearbitrator
reducedtheofficers10daysuspensiontoamerewrittenreprimand.
PerhapsevenmoretroublingthantheOCAshandlingofthesecasesisitsunwillingness
toconcedeitsmistakes.Forexample,inresponsetoanEastBayExpressarticlethatwashighly
criticaloftheOCAshandlingoftheRochearbitration,includingitsdecisiontosendthematter
tooutsidecounselshortlybeforethehearing,CityAttorneyBarbaraParkerherselfwroteto
defendherofficesperformanceanddemandthattheEastBayExpressissueacorrection.12In
hercomment,theCityAttorneymadeseveralclaimsaboutherofficeshandlingofthecase,
includingthattimingoftheassignmentwasnotafactorintheoutcomeofthecase,andthat
theattorneywhohandledthecaseactuallywasassignedinFebruary,aboutamonthanda
halfbeforethehearing.
TheCityAttorneysclaimdoesnottellthewholestory.InternalOCArecordsshowthat
theofficereceivedformalnotificationofRochesarbitrationdemandnolaterthanNovember
12,2013.DuringthethreeandahalfmonthstheOCAhadthecase,itappearstheOCAdidno
substantiveworktoprepareforthearbitration.Thecasewaseventuallyassignedtoanoutside
lawfirmonFebruary27,2014.However,theattorneywhomtheOCAintendedtohandlethe
casewasnotavailableforanApril7arbitration,sohercolleaguetookoverascounsel.Records
showthattheattorneywhohandledthearbitrationhearingdidnotevenconducta
preliminaryreviewofthefileuntilMarch14only24daysbeforethearbitration.
Moretothepoint,itisalarmingthattheCityAttorneybelievesthatthetimingofthis
assignmentwasnotafactorintheoutcomeofthecase.TheUnionhadbeenworkingupthe
caseformonths,anditisclearfromtherecordofthehearingthatitsattorneysspentlong
hourspreparingwitnessesanddevelopingastrategyforthehearing.Incontrast,theattorney
representingtheCitywashandedthecasewhichapparentlyhadnotbeenworkedupinany
12
SeeAliWinston,WhyCantOaklandFireBadCops?(EastBayExpress,Sept.17,2014)(availableat
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/whyoaklandcantfirebadcops/Content?oid=4074076).
24
OCA 000031
wayforarbitrationjustoverthreeweeksbeforethehearing.Havingreviewedthetranscript
ofthehearingandhavingspokentomanyindividualsinvolvedinthecase,wecansay
categoricallythatthismismatchinpreparationofthetwosideshadaneffectontheoutcome.
ItisnotjusttheCityAttorneywhoclaimsOCAsdelayinchoosingoutsidecounselhad
littleeffectontheoutcomeofarbitrations.ThisargumentisalsomadeintheCitysJoint
ReportsignedbytheChiefofPoliceandthethenInterimCityAdministrator.TheReportnotes
that,
due to insufficient staffing and personnel issues, timing of assignment of
arbitrations to counsel was not optimal in some cases. In all cases except
possiblyone,timingoftheassignmentdoesnotappeartohavebeenafactorin
the outcome of the arbitration. In that nontermination case, which did not
involveuseofforcebytheofficer,longerleadtimewouldhaveallowedcounsel
moretimetoprepare.However,thearbitratorsdecisionnotedthattheparties
were thoroughly and competently represented by their respective advocates
throughoutthehearing.
SeeJointReportat25.
Thisraisesseveralconcerns:
First,wearetroubledthattheChief,theCityAttorney,andtheCityAdministratorhave
allattemptedtodownplaythenegativeeffectsofassigningcasestooutsidecounselshortly
beforethearbitrationhearing.Wequestionwhatgavetheseindividualsconfidencethat
handlingcasesinthishaphazardmanner,including,forexample,byassigningoutsidecounsel
toanarbitrationoneweekbeforethehearing,doesnotappeartohavebeenafactorinthe
outcome.
Second,assigningcasestooutsidecounseljustdaysorweeksbeforearbitrationhashad
aneffectontheCitysrecordatarbitration.Unionattorneysoftenspendseveralmonths
diligentlypreparingtheircase,identifyingandworkingwiththeirwitnesses,closelyanalyzing
theevidence,andperfectingtheirtrialstrategy.TheCitysoutsidecounseloftenreceivesthe
casefilejustweeksbeforethehearing,withlittletimetoprepareastrategyforthehearing,
muchlesstoidentify,locate,andpreparewitnesses.WespokewithseveralOPDwitnesses
whosaidtheyhadreceivednoticeofhearingsfromoutsidecounseljustdaysbeforetheyhad
totestify,andwhodescribedpreparationfortestimonythatwasplainlyinadequate.An
attorneywhohasjustweekstoprepareforahearingisatanenormousdisadvantageagainst
anattorneywhohaspreparedformonths.Ourreviewofthetranscriptsofthesehearings
bearsthisout:Unionattorneysandwitnessesareconsistentlybetterprepared.
Third,theOCAsinadequatestaffingisnotanexcuseforfailingtoassigncasesto
outsidecounselinatimelymanner.Inadequatestaffingmaybeareasontohireoutside
counselinthefirstplace,butitdoesnotjustifywaitinguntilthelastminutetodoso.
25
OCA 000032
Andfourth,unliketheCity,wedonottakecomfortinthefactthatanarbitratorstated
inawrittendecisionthatthepartieswerethoroughlyandcompetentlyrepresented.Whatever
themotivationforanarbitratortomakesuchastatement,therecordsofthesearbitrations
showthatrepresentationfortheCityinmanyinstanceswasfarfromthorough.Indeed,in
ArbitrationU,inwhichtheOCAfailedtocallasinglefavorablewitnessorsubmitanynon
hearsayevidenceinsupportofthediscipline,thearbitratornotedthatbothpartieshad
receivedeffectiverepresentationandthendemandedtheCitypayupto$10,000ofthe
subjectofficersattorneyfeesforproceedinginbadfaith.
7.
TheOCAsProcessforSelectingOutsideCounselHasBeenIneffective.
TheCityAttorneysOfficeestablishedthecurrentprotocolforselectingoutsidecounsel
shortlyafterthecurrentCityAttorneytookofficeinJuly2011.TheOCApurportedlyenacted
thischangetoincreasetransparency,improvetheuseofobjectivecriteriainevaluatingoutside
counsel,andbroadenthepoolofqualifiedlawfirmsthatcouldbeconsideredforCity
contracts.13ThecurrentselectionprotocolincludesaRequestforQualifications(RFQ)by
whichprivatelawfirmsmayseektobeincludedinalistoffirmsapprovedforhandlinglegal
mattersfortheCity.AccordingtotheOCA,[s]electionofoutsidecounselforallmatters,
includingarbitrations,isbasedonexpertiseintherelevantpracticeareas,qualityofwork,
commitmenttocontrollingcosts,adherencetobudgets,thefirmsdiversity,andwhetherthe
firmislocal(Oaklandbased).IftheOCAdeterminesafirmmeetsthequalificationsfora
particulartypeoflegalassignment,thatfirmsnamewillbeaddedtoalistoffirmseligibleto
receiveworkinthatsubjectmatter.
Underthecurrentprotocol,whentheOCAdeterminesthatamattershouldbeassigned
tooutsidecounsel,theassignedDeputyCityAttorneyselectsatleastthreefirmsfromthelistof
qualifiedfirms.TheDeputyCityAttorneycontactseachfirmtodetermine:(1)whatratethe
firmwillcharge;(2)thefirmsproposednottoexceedamount;and(3)whichattorney(s)atthe
firmwillhandlethematter.TheDeputyCityAttorneythenforwardsthatinformationtothe
ChiefAssistantCityAttorney,notingwhetherthefirmsarediverseand/orbasedinOakland,
andmakingarecommendationofwhichfirmshouldberetained.TheChiefAssistantCity
AttorneysendsarecommendationtotheCityAttorney,whohasfinaldecisionmaking
authorityanddiscretiontochooseadifferentfirmifnecessary.Ifaparticularmatterisurgent,
orifthelistdoesnotincludesufficientlyqualifiedfirms,theCityAttorneyalsohasdiscretionto
contactotherfirmsnotonthelist.
AlthoughtheOCAscurrentselectionprotocolforoutsidecounselwasapparently
intendedtoincreasetransparencyandobjectivity,inpracticeitisnotsignificantlydifferent
fromtheunstructuredprocessitreplaced,anditraisesseveralconcerns.
13
UndertheearlierselectionprotocolofthepreviousCityAttorney,itappearstheCityAttorneysOfficecould
selectoutsidecounselwithoutconductinganyformalinternalreview.
26
OCA 000033
a. TheRFQProcessFailstoResultinSelectionoftheMostAppropriate
AttorneyfortheJob.
Ourmostseriousconcernwiththeselectionprocessisthatitfailsinitsmostimportant
task:findingtherightattorneyforthejob.TheOCAhasnotpreservedallrelevantdocuments
orcommunicationsrelatedtothisprocess,sotherecordswereceivedwerenotcompleteon
thispoint.Nevertheless,fromtherecordstheOCAdidpreserve,wesawdiscussionsabout
hiringmoresmallfirms,ormorelocalfirms,ormorefirmsthathavenotpreviouslybeenhired.
Whatwesawfartoolittleof,however,wereeffortstofindexpertsinpolicedisciplinary
arbitrations.Forexample,inonecase,anOCAmemorecommendedhiringaparticularfirmin
apolicedisciplinarymatterinpartbecausethefirmhadhandledseveralrealestatemattersfor
theCity;thememodidnotdiscusswhatspecificqualificationstheattorneyhandlingthematter
wouldbringtoapolicearbitrationcase.
Representingapartyinpolicedisciplinearbitrationscallsforaparticularskillset.Aswe
heardfrommanywitnesses,inordertoprevailinthesehearings,anattorneyneedstobe
familiarwiththecultureofpolicedepartments,andofthespecificdepartmentinquestion.The
attorneyneedstounderstandhowtheinternaldisciplineprocessworks,whatstandardsthe
departmentusesinselectingdiscipline,andhowtherecommendedsanctioncompareswith
sanctionshandeddowninothercases.Andtheattorneyneedstoappreciatethewaysinwhich
arbitratorstreatswornpoliceofficersdifferentlythanotherpublicemployees.Theseareall
skillsanattorneycanlearn,butittakestimeandexperiencetolearnthem.
SomeoftheattorneyshiredbytheOCAappearedtohavelittleornopriorexperiencein
policedisciplinecases.Forexample,inArbitrationP,theoutsideattorneyhiredbytheCity
seemedunfamiliarwithissuesthatregularlyariseinpolicedisciplinarycases.Forexample,the
Citysoutsidecounselsuggestedthearbitratorhadtodeterminewhethertheofficerhadjust
causetofirehisgun,ratherthanwhetherOPDhadjustcausetoimposethediscipline.The
questionbeforethearbitratorwas,ofcourse,thelatter,andthearbitratorandtheUnion
attorneyeasilyagreedonthatissue.Numerouswitnessestoldusthat,althoughthisattorney
andotherschosenbytheOCAwerecompetent,theyhadacripplinglackofknowledgeabout
policedisciplineingeneralandtheDepartmentsdisciplinaryprocessinparticular.And
becausetheOCAtendedtoengagecounsellateintheprocess,itoftenfelltoOPDwitnessesto
trytoeducateoutsidecounselonnotjustthefactsofthecasebutthedisciplinaryprocessin
general.
Onthispoint,wenotethat,oftheseveralfactorstheOCAgenerallyconsideredin
assigningcasestooutsidecounsel,twofactorsinparticularweremissingfromtheselections
wereviewed:(1)athoughtfulconsiderationoftherelevantexperienceofthespecificattorney
whowouldbehandlingthematter(theOCAoftenappearedtoconcentratemoreonthefirm
thatwouldhandleamatterratherthanthespecificattorneywhowouldrepresenttheCity);
and(2)inputfromtheChiefandfeedbackfromDepartmentwitnesseswhohadtoworkwith
outsidecounsel.ItisremarkablethatinselectingattorneystorepresentOPDsinterestsand
27
OCA 000034
workwithOPDwitnessesinsuchimportantcases,theOCAalmostneversoughtOPDs
feedbackontheOCAsselectionprocessoroutsidecounselsperformance.TheOCAspractice
ofselectingoutsidecounselwithoutseekinginputfromOPDdemonstratesalackof
appreciationfortheDepartmentseffortsandtheimportanceofaneffectiveattorneyclient
relationship.
Tobeclear,whiletheremaynotbeasurfeitofcounselexperiencedinpolice
arbitrations,therearecertainlyattorneysinCaliforniawhohavemadethattheirpracticeand
arehighlysuccessfulatit.Wenotonlyspokewithsuchattorneysinthecourseofour
investigation,wealsolearnedthatotherlawenforcementdepartmentshavemadeitapractice
toseekoutandhirepreciselythosetypesofattorneysforthejob.Itisnotimpossibletofind
attorneyswithexpertiseinthisareaifthatisapriority.
b. OCAsIneffectiveSelectionProcessHasGivenRisetoConcernsAboutthe
IntegrityoftheProcess.
SeveralwitnessesexpressedconcernsthattheOCAsprocessforselectingoutside
counselmaybebasedonapaytoplayscheme,wherefirmsthatcontributedtotheCity
Attorneyspoliticalcampaignswouldbemorelikelytoreceivework.
FromourreviewofthedocumentsproducedtousbytheCityAttorneysOffice,wedid
notfindthatithiredoutsidecounselforpolicedisciplinecasesbasedonpaytoplay.Inthe
caseswereviewed,wesawsomeinstancesinwhichtheOCAhiredfirmsthathaddonatedto
theCityAttorneyscampaign,butwesawotherswheretheofficehiredfirmsthat(asfaraswe
coulddetermine)hadneverdonatedanythingtoadvancetheCityAttorneyspoliticalinterests.
Andwhilewesawsomeinstanceswherecontributinglawfirmswereselectedovernon
contributinglawfirms,wedidnotseeevidencethattheselectionwasbasedonwhetherthe
firmshadcontributedtotheCityAttorneyscampaigns.Frankly,giventheCitysincomplete
records,itwasoftendifficulttounderstandwhyanygivenfirmhadbeenselected.
However,itisnotdifficulttounderstandwhyoutsideobservershavesuspectedapay
toplayscheme.TheCityAttorneyhasnotselectedfirmsthatappeartohavesubstantial
experienceinandareputationforhandlingpolicearbitrationcases,andthatbegsthequestion
ofwhatisbehindthechoiceofcounsel.WhatwehaveseenisthattheCityAttorneys
decisionshavebeenbasedonmattersunrelatedtopriorexpertiseinpolicearbitration,
includingconsiderationssuchasOCAsfamiliaritywithaparticularlawfirm,itsdesiretospread
workaround,itsdesiretoworkwithanewfirm,oronanynumberoffactorsotherthanwho
canbestrepresenttheCityinapolicearbitrationcase.Thefollowingcasesdemonstratethe
problem:
ArbitrationN:
Inthiscase,arepresentativeoftheOCAresponsibleforrecommending
outsidecounselbasedhisrecommendationforaspecificfirminparton
thefactthatithadworkedonsomerealestatemattersthattransferred
therewithanotherpartner.Therecommendationdidnotexplainwhy
28
OCA 000035
thefirmsexperienceinrealestatematterswasrelevanttoitsselection
inapolicedisciplinaryarbitration.Therecommendationalsodidnot
explainindetailwhythelawyerwhowouldhandlethematterwas
qualified,orevenwhattypeofissuesthematterinvolved.(The
arbitratorultimatelyreducedthesubjectofficers11daysuspensiontoa
threedaysuspension.)
ArbitrationS:
InamemodatedAugust20,2013,anOCArepresentativerecommended
hiringFirmAfromalistofthreefirms,butdidnotexplainthereasoning
behindtherecommendationorprovideanydetailsabouttheothertwo
firmsbesidestheirlocationandminorityownedstatus(andthefactthat
oneofthefirmsdidnothandlepolicedisciplinarymatters).TheCity
Attorneyrequestedadditionalinformation,includingadescriptionofthe
matterandthefirmshourlyrates.TheOCArepresentativerespondedby
changingtherecommendationtosuggestinsteadthattheOCAselect
FirmBfromthelist.
TheCityAttorneydisagreedwiththenewrecommendationand,without
explanation,approvedhiringFirmA.TheChiefAssistantAttorneythen
wrotetoexplainthathepreferredsendingthemattertoFirmB,asFirm
Awasalreadyhandlingandbillinglargeamountsonseveralmatters
fortheCity.TheChiefAssistantAttorneystatedthatretainingFirmB
wouldleadtoabetterdistributionoftheCityscases.TheCityAttorney
notedthedisagreementbutdeclinedtochangeherdecision,offeringno
writtenexplanation.
Noticeablyabsentthroughoutthisexchange,however,wasany
discussionofwhichspecificattorneywouldhandlethematterfrom
eitherfirm,muchlesswhatrelevantexperiencethatattorneywould
bringtothematter.(Followingthehearing,thearbitratorruledagainst
theCity,reducingtheofficers10daysuspensiontoamerewritten
reprimand.)
Fromourreviewoftherecords,itisoftenimpossibletotellwhytheCityAttorneys
OfficeselectedanattorneytorepresenttheCityinanyparticularpolicearbitration.Thereis
verylittleintherecordswereceivedfromtheOCAshowingthatitsgoalwastohirethebest
attorneysforthejob.TheapparentfailureoftheOCAtoprioritizeexpertiseinthefieldof
policedisciplinewhenselectingcounselinthesecaseshascreatedtwoproblems.First,ithas
leftmanywonderingwhatisbehindtheCityAttorneysprocessforselectingoutsidecounsel,
sinceitdoesnotappeartobesubjectmatterexpertise.Second,andfarmoreimportant,ithas
riskedplacingtheseextremelyimportantcases,andtosomeextenttheveryintegrityofthe
Departmentsdisciplineprocess,inthewronghands.
29
OCA 000036
8.
TheOCAHasFailedtoLitigateasAggressivelyandEffectivelyasitShould.
Inmanyofthesecases,therehasbeenanoticeablelackofzealous,aggressiveadvocacy
onbehalfoftheCity.ThisislikelybecausetheOCAoritsoutsidecounselhaveinmanycases
startedpreparingtoolateintheprocesstomakestrategiclitigationdecisionsforhowto
prepareandpresentthecase.Forexample,engaginginprehearinglitigation,includingby
makingdiscoveryrequests,takestime,justasittakestimetolocateandpreparecivilian
witnessesorconsultwithoutsideexpertsonforensicissues.
Inseveralinterviews,representativesofotherlawenforcementagenciesconfirmedthat
requestingprehearingdiscovery,usingcivilianwitnesses,andconsultingwithoutsideexperts
inthesearbitrationscanbecrucial.Itisnosurprisethatinmostofthecaseswereviewed,the
OCAfailedtocallcivilianwitnessesoroutsideexperts,becausecounsellikelyonlyhadenough
timetofocusondoingthebareminimumnecessarytopresentthecasetothearbitrator.But
suchfailurescanbeandlikelyalreadyhavebeenfataltotheCitysargumentsatarbitration.
a. FailuretoRequestPreHearingDiscovery.
OCAattorneysandoutsidecounselhiredbytheOCAgenerallyfailtorequestpre
hearingdiscoveryinarbitrationcases.TheOCAhasexplainedthattheCitydoesnothavea
righttoprehearingdiscoveryinpolicearbitrations,andthustheOCAdoesnotrequestit.
TheCitysfailuretoseekdiscoveryhasresultedinaonesidedprehearingdiscovery
process.TheCitymustprovidethegrievantwithalloftheevidencetheCityreliedoninfinding
aviolationandimposingdiscipline.TheUnionusuallyprovidesnothinginreturn.TheCity
oftendoesnotlearnabouttheUnionswitnessesorexpertsuntilshortlybeforethehearing.As
oneattorneyrepresentingtheCityexplainedtous,learningabouttheOCAscaseatarbitration
istheexcitingpartofhandlingthesecases.Whilesuchasurprisemaybeexciting,the
recordsofthearbitrationhearingsshowitisalsooftenhugelydisadvantageoustotheCity.The
Citysattorneyshavenorebuttalexpertsorrebuttalwitnessesprepared,becauseuntilthe
hearingbeginstheyhavenosenseofwhattheywillneedtorebut.
Evenwithoutanenforceablerighttoprehearingdiscovery,theCityshouldstillrequest
it.Inourdiscussionswithrepresentativesofotherlawenforcementagencies,welearnedthat
counselforthoseagenciesseekprehearingdiscoveryasaroutinepractice.Insomecasesthe
arbitratorwillrequirelimiteddiscovery,inothercasesmoreextensivediscovery,andinothers
nodiscoveryatall.ButitisclearthatifcounselfortheCitydoesnotatleastaskforpre
hearingdiscovery,theyareunlikelytoeverreceiveit.
b. FailuretoCallCivilianWitnesses.
Civilianwitnessesmayofferhelpfulperspectivesthataredifferentfromthoseofpolice
officers.Onoccasion,civilianwitnessesmayalsobeabletocontributevaluableeyewitness
testimonyorinformationthatofficersdonothave.TheCityhasdoneapoorjobofusing
civilianwitnessesinarbitrations.
30
OCA 000037
Forexample,inArbitrationU,theDepartmenthadallegedthatanofficerfailedto
recordcomplaintsfromarresteesthatvariousofficershadusedexcessiveforceagainstthem
duringaprotest.Oneofthearresteeshadevenmadeadocumentedcomplaintwiththe
Departmentabouttheexcessiveforce.PerhapsbecausetheDeputyCityAttorneydidnot
beginpreparingforthearbitrationuntilthedaybeforethehearing,however,shefailedtocall
anyofthesecriticalcivilianwitnessesatthearbitration.Thearbitratorcommentedonthe
noticeableabsenceofthesewitnesses,statinginherwrittendecisionthatnoneofthe
arrestees,onwhosebehalf[theIAinvestigator]allegedclaimsofexcessiveforcewascalled
totestifybeforethearbitrator.Thearbitratorultimatelydescribedthecaseas
extraordinary,inpartbecauseoftheCitysremarkablefailuretopresentanyrelevant
witnesses,includingthecivilianeyewitnesses,insupportofitscase.
c. FailuretoUseOutsideExpertWitnesses.
Aswithcivilianwitnesses,outsideexpertwitnessescanofferdifferentperspectivesfrom
thoseofexpertswithintheDepartment.Onoccasion,outsideexpertsmayalsohaveagreater
levelofexpertiseinthesubjectmatter.Butinthecaseswereviewed,theOCAhadno
establishedprotocolfordeterminingwhentouseanoutsideexpertorhowtoselectan
appropriateexpertwitness.And,aswithcivilianwitnesses,theOCAanditsoutsidecounsel
oftenbeganpreparingfartoolateintheprocesstouseanoutsideexperteffectively.For
example,asdiscussedfurtherbelow,intheJimenezarbitrationtheCityreliedprimarilyon
forensicevidencetoestablishthatthesubjectofficerhadcommittedaseriousviolation.At
arbitration,however,theUnionofferedtestimonyfromanoutsideexpertwhocastdoubton
theCitysinterpretationoftheevidence.TheOCAofferednorebuttalexperttosupportits
case.Asaresult,thearbitratorgaveconsiderableweighttotheopinionoftheUnionsexpert,
describinghistestimonyasextremelycredibleandrulingthattheCitystheoryofthecase
wasincorrect.
ItisimpossibletoknowinretrospectinwhichcasestheCitycouldhaveobtainedamore
favorableoutcomeifithadworkedwithoutsideexpertsinpreparingitscase.Butwecansay
withconfidencethattheCitysfailuretocallanoutsideexpertwitnessinseveralofthe
arbitrationswerevieweddemonstratesalackofplanningandzealousadvocacyinrepresenting
theCity.
d. FailuretoTrackDataEssentialtoSuccessinArbitration.
ItisclearfromourinterviewsthattheUnionsattorneysareassiduousinkeepingtrack
ofdatafrompreviouscases.Weunderstandtheykeeprecordsofarbitratorsperformancein
previouscasessotheyknowwhomtostrikeandwhomtotrytokeepwhengivenalistof
potentialarbitrators.TheyalsohaveaccesstoadatabaseofthedisciplineimposedbyOPDin
priorcases,adatabasetheyusetogreateffectinhearingswhenarguingthatthe
recommendeddisciplineinanygivencaseisoutoflinewiththeDepartmentspriordecisions.
31
OCA 000038
TheOCAappearstohaveneitheroftheseresources.Whilethereareindividual
attorneysintheOCAwhohavesomeinstitutionalmemoryofindividualarbitrators,therehas
notbeenanyconsistent,organizationalefforttokeeptrackofhowthearbitratorshave
performedinpreviouscases.Indeed,whenonearbitratorwhohadreversedOPDsdiscipline
reappearedonthelistofpossiblearbitratorsforalatercase,itappearsnoonewasawareof
theCitysprior,negativeexperiencewiththatarbitrator.
WealsodidnotseeevidenceofanydatabasemaintainedbytheOCAtokeeptrackof
priordiscipline.Forthisreason,theUnionsargumentsofdisparatetreatmentwereallthe
moreeffective,sincetheOCAhadnothingathandwithwhichtorebutthem.Notably,theOPD
doeshaveasystemfortrackingthisinformation,butitisonlyrecentlythatthetwoofficeshave
beguncoordinatingonthisissue.
9.
ThroughtheDisciplineProcessandtoMakeTheNecessaryImprovements.
Onemeasureofaneffectivedisciplineprogramisthatitisdesignedtoidentifyinternal
problemsandcorrectthem.Inourconversationswithrepresentativesfromotherlaw
enforcementagencies,welearnedthattheyhadsystems,bothformalandinformal,tolearn
frommistakesordeficienciesintheirdisciplineprogramsandtomakeimprovementsbasedon
whattheylearned.Insomeinstances,theattorneysworkingonadisciplinecasewillkeeptrack
ofproblemstheyidentifyandsharethosewiththeagencyattheendoftheprocess.Another
approachistoconveneameetingoftheattorneysanddepartmentrepresentativesatthe
conclusionofasignificantcasetoreviewlessonslearned.Whateverthesystem,thepurposeis
thesame:toidentifywhatiswrongorwhatcouldbedonebetterandtofixit.
Everydisciplinecase,andparticularlyeverysignificantcasethatgoestoarbitration,
offerstheOCAandOPDtheopportunitytomakethedisciplineprocessbetter.Itisclearfrom
ourreviewofthearbitrationfilesthatcasesinwhichtheCityhaslostatarbitrationarevaluable
sourcesofinformationaboutdeficienciesintheinvestigationprocess;theimprecisionof
writtenpolicies;thefailureofOPDtotrainonitspolicies;problemswithSkellyhearings;and,
aboveall,deficienciesinthewaytheOCAanditsoutsidecounselrepresenttheCityin
arbitrations.
Unfortunately,theOCAandOPDhavedonelittletotakeadvantageofthese
opportunities.Inseveralcases,OCAattorneysoroutsidecounselhavemerelyforwardedan
unfavorablearbitrationdecisiontoOPDsoitcouldmakethenecessaryadjustmentstothe
officerspersonnelfile.Inafewcases,conscientiousOCAattorneysoroutsidecounselhave
describedtheproceedingsindetailandidentifiedpotentialproblems.Eveninthesecases,
however,wesawnomeaningfulfollowup,andthesameproblemsaroseagainandagain
vaguepolicies,incompleteinvestigations,unpreparedattorneyswithnothingdonetoensure
thattheproblemswerecorrectedbeforetheyaroseagain.TheoccasionalemailfromaDeputy
CityAttorneyofferingapostmortemisworthyofcommendation,butitisfarfromthesortof
32
OCA 000039
institutionalizedprocessnecessarytocaptureandlearnfromthevaluableinformationoffered
bythesecases.
C.
TheRelationshipBetweenOPDandtheOCAHasBeenDysfunctional.
Overtime,themanyfailuresinthedisciplinaryprocesshavehadacorrosiveeffecton
therelationshipbetweenOPDandtheOCA.Separateandapartfromtheinternalproblems
plaguingeach,thetwoofficeshaveworkedtogethersopoorlythatanalreadybadsituation
wasmadeworse.Werepeatedlyheardfromwitnessesthatratherthansupportingeachother
inthedisciplineprocess,theOCAandOPDoftenviewedeachotherwithmutualsuspicion.The
resulthasbeenalessthanunifiedfrontontheCitysside,andwhenthecasegoespoorly,a
sensebyeachofficethattheotheristoblame.
RegardingOPDsconcerns,weheardandreviewedevidenceshowingtheOCAhasoften
beenextremelyslowtorespondtoOPDsrequestsforlegaladvice.SometimesOPDcould
receiveanansweronlybyaskingthesamequestionanumberoftimes.OPDwitnessesalso
reportedthatitwascommonfortheOCAtotakeavagueorambiguouspositioninresponseto
alegalquestion,ortoeditadocumentprimarilywithstylisticratherthansubstantive
suggestions.Thistypeoflegaladviceisatbestunhelpfulandatworstdisrespectfulofthe
Departmentseffortstomakeinformeddecisionsondiscipline.
ButOPDsmostseriousconcernsaboutitsrelationshipwiththeOCAhavetodowith
arbitrations.ManywithinthehighestranksoftheDepartmentbelievethatdespiteitsbest
effortstoimposediscipline,theDepartmentoftenlosesatarbitrationbecausetheCity
AttorneysOfficefailstodoitsjob.TheOCAhasdonemanythingstoreinforcethisperception,
includingassigningcasesatthelastminutewithoutsufficientfocusontheattorneys
qualificationsandwithoutcontactingrelevantOPDwitnessesuntildaysbeforeanarbitration
hearing.ByhandlingOPDdisciplinarycasesinthisway,theOCAhassentthemessagethatit
doesnotappreciatehowimportantthesecasesaretotheDepartmentsdisciplinaryprocessor
howmuchworkDepartmentpersonnelhaveputintothem.
TheOCAhasitsownfrustrationswithOPD.ManyattheCityAttorneysOfficebelieve
thatOPDserrorsduringtheinvestigationorimpositionofdisciplinemakecasesunnecessarily
difficulttodefendatarbitration.And,justastheOCAhasfailedtoassigncasesinatimely
manner,OPDhasalsofrequentlywaiteduntilthelastminutetoseekfeedbackandlegaladvice
fromtheOCAregardinginvestigationsandotherdisciplinarydecisions.Inthesecases,theOCA
hasnothadsufficienttimetoprovideathoroughanswertoOPDsrequests.
ArbitrationUprovidesagoodexampleofthebreakdownintherelationshipbetween
thetwooffices.Atthearbitration,theDeputyCityAttorneywasunpreparedtohandlethe
caseandfailedtocallasinglefavorablewitnessorpresentanynonhearsayevidencein
supportoftheDepartmentsdisciplinarydecision.Inthearbitratorswrittendecision,the
arbitratorreferredtothecaseasextraordinaryandtookthehighlyunusualstepof
sanctioningtheCity$10,000foritsbadfaith.ItappearstheOCAdidnottellOPDspecifically
33
OCA 000040
whathappenedinthearbitration,though,includingabouttheOCAsfailuretoprepare
sufficientlyaheadoftimeorevenpresentanyevidenceinsupportoftheDepartmentsefforts.
Atthesametime,itappearsOPDmerelyacceptedthatithadlostyetanotherarbitration,
withoutattemptingtofindoutwhathadhappenedorwheretheprocesshadbrokendown.
Fundamentally,thishasnotbeenafunctioningattorneyclientrelationship.The
attorneysdonotalwaysrespondpromptlywhentheclientseeksinformation,andsomeof
themhaveperformedinamannerthatdoesnotinspiretrust.Andtheclient,inturn,hasoften
failedtoinvolvetheattorneysinessentialstepsoftheprocess.Asaresult,theUnionfacesa
poorlycoordinatedopponent,dramaticallyimprovingitschancestoprevailatarbitration.
D.
TherehasBeenNoMeaningfulAccountabilityfortheCitysFailedDisciplinarySystem.
Inourmeetingswithlawenforcement,currentandformercityofficials,andothers,
therewasoneconcernweheardexpressedmorethananyother:thereisacriticallackof
accountabilityforpolicediscipline.Witnessesdescribedfailuresateverystageofthe
disciplinaryprocess,allexacerbatedbyalackofaccountability.WhenIAdidnotperforman
adequateinvestigationandthecasefellapart,noonewasheldtoaccount.Whencaseafter
casewaslostinarbitrationbecauseOPDspolicieswereunclear,noonewasheldtoaccount.
WhentheOCAfailedtohavedisciplineupheldinthevastmajorityofcasesevenincases
wheretheCityhadpaidlargesumsascivilsettlementsforthesameconductnoonewasheld
toaccount.
Thefailuresdescribedinthisreportwerenothidden;theyareevidenttoanyonewho
participatesintheOPDdisciplinaryprocess.ButhadtheCourtnotorderedaninvestigation,it
isnotclearthatanyonewouldhavebeenheldaccountableforthisbrokensystem,andmanyof
thesefailuresmayneverhavebeenaddressed.Wehaveseennoevidencethat,priortothe
Courtsorder,therewassufficientalarmwithineitherOPDortheOCAabouttheCitysinability
toupholddiscipline.Asfaraswecantell,evenaftertheCourtexpressedconcernaboutthe
processin2011,bothofficescontinuedbusinessasusualandwiththeusualunsatisfactory
results.Indeed,leadinguptotheCourts2014order,theUnionhadsucceededinvacatingor
reducingthedisciplineinnineconsecutivearbitrations.
NordidtheOaklandCityadministrationtakeanystepstoholdanyonetoaccount.Time
andagain,theCitywrotecheckstosettlecivillawsuitsarisingoutofpolicemisconduct,onlyto
seetheCityAttorneysOfficefailtoupholddisciplineforthatverysamemisconduct.Wehave
seennoevidencethattheMayor,ortheCityAdministrator,ortheCityCounciltookstepsto
holdanyoneaccountableforthesefailuresorimprovetheCitysoutcomesatarbitration.
E.
ACloserExaminationofOneArbitrationHelpsDemonstrateWhatHappensWhenthe
DisciplineSystemisDysfunctional.
Togetasenseofwhatitmeanstohaveadysfunctionaldisciplinaryprocess,itisuseful
tolookataspecificcase.Noonecasecontainsallofthedeficiencieswehavediscussedabove,
34
OCA 000041
butonecaseinparticularillustrateswhatcanhappenwhenthedisciplineprocessdoesnot
workasitshould.ThatcaseistheshootingandkillingofJodyMackWoodfoxbyOfficer
HectorJimenez.Asnotedabove,morethanthreeyearsago,theCourtturneditsfocusthe
CityspolicedisciplinaryarbitrationsinresponsetothereinstatementofJimenez,whomthe
Departmenthadattemptedtoterminateforshootingacivilianinthebackafteratrafficstop.
SeeDkt.No.6301.Thearbitratorsdecisionwasreportedwidelyinthepress,includingarticles
thatquoteddirectlyfromthearbitratorswrittenruling.14Followingthedecision,Jimenezs
attorneyalsocommentedextensivelyonthecase,includingbydescribingJimenezstestimony
atthearbitration,referringtothetestimonyofotherarbitrationwitnesses,andprovidinga
detaileddiscussionofthearbitratorsdecision,includingthespecificreasonsthearbitrator
citedforreinstatingJimenez.15Whilewehavetreatedotherarbitrationproceedings(exceptfor
publicaspectsofRochescase)asconfidentialandhavenotdiscussedpersonallyidentifiable
information,theextensivemediacoverageofthiscase,includingarticlesquotingdirectlyfrom
thearbitrationdecisionandpublicstatementsbyJimenezsownattorneydescribingthe
arbitration,aswellasthecivilcaseagainsttheCity,makethisamatterofpublicrecordand
concern.
Lessthansevenmonthslater,inJuly2008,Jimenezandhispartner,whowasdriving
theirpolicevehicle,werepatrollingintheearlymorninghoursinEastOaklandwhenthey
observedaspeedingcartravelingnorthboundonFruitvaleAvenue.Jimenezandhispartner
beganpursuingthevehicle.Atonepoint,thedriverofthevehicle,JodyMackWoodfoxIII,
madeaUturnandproceededtospeedsouthboundonFruitvaletowardInternational
Boulevard.WoodfoxcontinuedtoattempttoevadeJimenezandhispartneruntilhecametoa
suddenstopneartheintersectionofFruitvaleandEast17th.Althoughaccountsofwhat
happenednextdiffer,noonedisputestheendresult:AfterWoodfoxexitedhisvehicle,
Jimenezkilledhimbyshootinghimmultipletimesintheback.Accordingtothecoroners
report,Woodfoxsufferedatleastthreegunshotwounds:onetohisbackleftshoulder;oneto
hisbackleftunderarm;andonetohisbacklowertorso,justabovehisleftbuttock.Woodfox
wasunarmed,andallofthegunshotsenteredhisbodyfrombehind.
JimenezandhispartnerclaimedthatWoodfoxstoppedhisvehiclesoabruptlythey
wereunabletostoptheirpolicecruiserbehindhis,insteadhavingtostopalmostdirectly
adjacenttoWoodfoxsvehicle.TheyclaimedWoodfoxlefthiscaringear,though,soit
continuedtorollslowlyforwarduntilitwasalmostinfrontoftheirpatrolcar.Jimenezclaimed
14
See,e.g.,HenryK.Lee,Oaklandmustrehirecopwhoshotsuspectinback(SanFranciscoChronicle,March5,
2011)(availableathttp://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oaklandmustrehirecopwhoshotsuspectinback
2528215.php)(includingquotationstakendirectlyfromArbitratorDavidGabaswrittendecision).
15
SeeJustinBuffington,OaklandPoliceOfficerInvolvedinShootingReinstatedwithFullBackPayandBenefits
(availableathttp://www.rlslawyers.com/oaklandpoliceofficerinvolvedinshootingreinstatedwithfullbackpay
andbenefits/).
35
OCA 000042
thathegotoutofthepatrolcar;drewhisgun;movedaroundhisopenpassengersidedoorto
thepassengersidefrontwheelwell;andshoutedtoWoodfoxtoputhishandsupseveral
times.AccordingtoJimenez,Woodfoxgotoutofthecarandbeganrunningsuddenlyina45
degreeangletowardthedriversidedoorofthepatrolcar,whereJimenezspartnerwas
located.JimenezsaidhethoughthesawWoodfoxreachforsomethinginhiswaistband.
BelievingWoodfoxwasreachingforagun,JimenezfiredseveralshotsatWoodfox.Afteravery
briefpause,whenWoodfoxcontinuedtorun,Jimenezfiredasecondvolleyofshots,after
whichWoodfoxcollapsedtotheground.
TheDepartmentconductedaninvestigationandmadeseveralrelevantfindings,
includingthediscoveryofabulletstrikemarkinthebackofWoodfoxstrunk.16Accordingto
theDepartment,theangleofthebulletstrikeshowedthatJimenezhadlikelyfiredatWoodfox
whileWoodfoxwasstillintheVthathisdriversidedoormadewithhisvehicleinother
words,almostimmediatelyafterWoodfoxexitedthecar,andlongbeforehewouldhavehad
anyopportunitytochargeatJimenezspartner.TheDepartmentalsonotedthatJimenezs
partnerwasstandingoutsidethepatrolcarwithhisgundrawnbutdidnotfireatWoodfox.
TheDepartmentalsointerviewedseveralcivilianwitnessesthatitidentifiedinabroad
canvassofthesurroundingneighborhood.Becausetheincidenttookplaceintheearlymorning
hours,mostwitnesseswerewokenbythesoundsofthecarchaseorthegunshotsbutdidnot
actuallyseewhathappened.However,thereweresomecivilianswhoclaimedtohave
witnessedtheshooting,andtheyunanimouslyagreedononepoint:Woodfoxwasrunning
awayfromthepolicewhenhewaskilled.Onewitness(Witness1)saidsheobservedthe
incidentfromherbedroomwindow,whichhadaviewoftheintersection.Aftersheheard
screechingtiresoutside,shestooduponherbedandlookedoutherwindow.Shesaw
Woodfoxstophiscar,getout,andstartrunningacrossFruitvaletryingtoescape.Shesaidthe
policepulledupbehindWoodfoxsvehicle.Shethoughtthedriverofthepolicecruiserstarted
firingonWoodfoxashewastryingtorunaway.Shesaid:Theguyfromthecar[Woodfox]
neverlookedback.Heneverlookedback.Hewasrunning.Hishandsweremoving,hewas
runningfast,hewastryingtogetaway.
Twoothercivilianwitnesses(Witnesses2and3)alsosaidtheywitnessedthecarchase
andtheshooting.Thesewitnesseswereapparentlydrinkingtogetheratthetimeofthe
16
GiventheintensepublicscrutinyontheJimenezcase,itisnotablethattheleadIAinvestigatorassignedtothe
casehadbeeninIAforonlysixdayswhenhereceivedtheassignment,hadnotyettakentheDepartmentscourse
onhowtoconductIAinvestigations,andhadneverpreviouslyworkedasahomicideinvestigator.Itisclearthe
investigatortriedtoconductathoroughinvestigation,butitispossiblehelackedtherelevantexperience
necessarytohandleacaseofthismagnitude.Forexample,whentheinvestigatorwasaskedoncrossexamination
atarbitrationwhethertherewasawaytodetermineifthestrikemarkonWoodfoxstrunkhadbeenmadeby
Jimenezsgun,theinvestigatorstatedhedidnotknowiftherewasanywaytodeterminethat.TheUnionsexpert
witnessdidmanagetomakethatverydetermination,however,simplybyobtainingcomparabletrunklidsand
firingdifferenttypesofammunitionatthem.
36
OCA 000043
incident,andtheywereasignificantdistancefromthescene,sotheirtestimonycouldhave
beenchallengedonbothgrounds.ButbothwitnessesstatedWoodfoxwasrunningawayfrom
thepolicewhenhewasshot.Witness2testifiedinhercivildepositionthat[h]e[Woodfox]
jumpedoutthecarandstartedrunning.Hejumpedoutfirstandthenthepolicesaidhalt.I
heardthewordhaltandthenIheardpow,pow,pow,pow,pow.AllIseenwashimholding
uphispantstryingtorun.Hewasnttryingtohearnopolice.Hewastryingtorun..Hewas
scared.
ThesewitnessstatementswereallavailabletotheCitylongbeforethearbitration
hearing.Witnesses1and2gaverecordedstatementstotheIAinvestigator,andthose
statementswereincludedintheSkellymaterialsandprovidedtotheOCAwellinadvanceof
thearbitration.Further,Witnesses2and3bothgavedepositionsinthecivilwrongfuldeath
casefiledbyWoodfoxsheirsagainsttheCity.17ArepresentativeoftheOCAwaspresentfor
bothofthosedepositions.AndalthoughplaintiffscounselwasabletolocateWitness3and
takehiscivildepositioninthewrongfuldeathcase,itdoesnotappearthattheDepartment
everinterviewedhim,despitehisprofessedwillingnesstocooperatewiththeinvestigation.
Boththebulletstrikeevidenceandthewitnessestestimonywouldhavecontradicted
Jimenezsversionoftheevents,butthetwowerepotentiallyinconsistentwitheachother.The
civilianswhoclaimedtohaveseentheshootingallstatedthatWoodfoxhadalreadybeen
runningawayfromtheofficerswhenJimenezshothimintheback.Incontrast,thebulletstrike
evidencesuggestedJimenezhadbegunfiringatWoodfoxwhenWoodfoxwasstillnearthe
opendriversidedoorofhisvehicle.18IndecidingtoterminateJimenez,theDepartment
apparentlyconcludedthatthebulletstrikeevidencewasmorecompellingthanthecivilian
testimony.
Thus,atarbitration,theCityofferednocivilianwitnesstestimony,insteadrelying
primarilyonthebulletstrikeevidenceandpriorstatementsfrombothJimenezandhispartner,
includingstatementsthatWoodfoxhadnotlookedatthemasheran.TheUnioncalledboth
Jimenezandhispartneraswitnesses,though,andtheybothtoldroughlythesamestorythat
WoodfoxhadexitedhisvehicleandhadbegunrunninginthedirectionofJimenezspartner.
TheCityarguedthatWoodfoxwasshotasheranaway,butitofferedlittleevidencein
support.Thearbitratordidnothearfromthemultipleeyewitnesseswhoreportedlysaw
WoodfoxrunningawayfromJimenezandhispartnerwhenhewasshot.Infact,thearbitrator
referredbrieflytotheDepartmentseffortstointerviewcivilianwitnessesinhiswritten
decision,buthemadenomentionofthepotentialeyewitnessestestimony,statingonlythat
17
TheCityultimatelysettledthewrongfuldeathcasewithMr.Woodfoxsfamilyfor$650,000.
18
AstheIAinvestigatornotedinthereport:[Witness1]doesnotappeardeceptive,howevertheevidence
(Jimenezand[hispartners]statement,coupledwiththebulletstrikemarkonthetrunkofWoodfoxscar)doesnt
supportherclaimthatthesuspecthadalreadyrunfromthecarpriortothepolicearriving.
37
OCA 000044
theDepartmenthadinterviewed36residentsoftheneighborhoodwhogavestatements
sayingtheyheardonlygunshots[and17]otherresidents[who]gavestatementssayingthat
theydidntseeorheartheincident.Thearbitratorappearedconfusedaboutthecivilian
witnessesstatements,andtheCitysfailuretocallcivilianwitnessesatthearbitrationdid
nothingtohelpthematter.Thus,theonlyeyewitnesstestimonythearbitratorheardwasfrom
Jimenezandhispartner,bothofwhomstatedwithoutcontradictionthatWoodfoxranin
thedirectionofJimenezspartner.
Asnoted,theCityreliedonbulletstrikeevidenceinsteadofthecivilianeyewitnesses.In
response,theUnionpresentedtestimonyfromanexpertwitnesswhodisputedtheCitys
theoryaboutthebulletstrikeforensicevidence.TheUnionsexpertwitnessreportedly
purchasedtwotrunklidssimilartotheonefromWoodfoxscarandfireddifferenttypesof
ammunitionatthem.Theexpertconcludedbasedonhisexperimentsthatthebulletstrikeon
WoodfoxstrunkcouldnothavebeenmadebyJimenezsgun.
DespitethefactthatthebulletstrikeevidencewasacentralpartoftheCityscase,the
CityhadnomeaningfulresponsetotheUnionsexperttestimony.TheCitycallednorebuttal
expert.Indeed,itappearstheCitynevercontactedanyoutsideexperttoshoreupitscaseor
supportitsconclusion.Asaresult,thearbitratorhadnobasisfordiscreditingtheUnions
experttestimony.Inhisdecision,thearbitratorreferredtotheexpertsanalysisasextremely
credibleandconsistentwithJimenezsaccountofevents.Accordingtothearbitrator,the
UnionsexpertmadeitveryclearthatOfficerJimenezcouldnothavecreatedthestrikemark
atissuewithhisweapon.Thearbitratorfurtherstated,oncethefactsurroundingthe
strikemarkonthetrunkhasbeenremovedfromtheequation,both[Jimenezspartners]and
OfficerJimenezsstoriesmakesense.Thus,thearbitratorvacatedthedisciplineandordered
Jimenezreinstatedwithfullbackpayandbenefitsforthetimehehadbeenaway.
Wecannotsaywhatactuallyhappenedthattragicevening,justaswecannotsaywhat
resultthearbitratorshouldhavereached.Whatwecansay,though,istheCitydidnotput
forwarditsbestcase,andthedisciplinaryprocessdidnotfunctionasitshouldhave.The
arbitratordidnothearpotentiallyrelevantevidence,includingtestimonyfromcivilian
eyewitnessestotheshooting.Inaddition,theCitymayhavereliedonafaultytheoryofthe
case,or,inthealternative,mayhavefailedtoobtainandpresentpersuasiveexperttestimony
tosupportitstheory.Eitherway,theCitydidapoorjobofpresentingitscase.Partofthefault
forthisfailurelieswithOPD,asitreliedonforensicevidencewithoutconductingasufficient
analysistosupportitsinterpretationofthatevidence.AndpartofthefaultlieswiththeOCA,
asitfailedtopresentpotentiallycriticaleyewitnesstestimonyoridentifyitslackofanexpert
witnessasapossibleweakness.
ItisimportantthatOaklandspolicedisciplineprocessfunctioninallcases,whether
highprofileornot.Butinthosecaseswhereanofficerhasshotandkilledacivilian,itis
essentialthatthedisciplineprocessworks.Thereisnothingmoredestructiveofthepublics
trustinitspolicedepartmentthanknowingthatanofficerwhomtheDepartmentthinksshould
38
OCA 000045
beterminatedforhavingkilledanunarmedmanisbackontheforce.Asonelocalmedia
sourcestatedatthetime:Jimenezsterminationsenttherightmessage,thatpolicehavethe
righttousedeadlyforcetodefendthemselvesonlywhentheirlivesareatriskandthatpolice
officerswillbeheldaccountablefortheiractions.Jimenezsreinstatementsendstheexact
oppositemessage.19Ifanofficerwhoshootsanunarmedcivilianisputbackontheforce
becausetheCityhasnotdoneanadequatejobindefendingitsdecisiontoterminate,the
publicwillcertainlylosefaithintheCitysabilitytodisciplineitsownpoliceforce.
IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Beforediscussingourrecommendations,wefirstnotethatbothOPDandtheOCAhave
madesignificantandcommendableimprovementssincetheCourtsAugust2014order.For
example,sincethattime,theOCAhasbegunpreparingforarbitrationsmuchearlierinthe
process.AccordingtoOCAstaff,theofficehasbegunassigningcasestooutsidecounselwith
sufficienttimetoprepareforarbitrations,includingassigningcasesbeforeselectingarbitration
dates,ensuringthatqualifiedoutsidecounselwillbeavailable.ItappearstheOCAhasbegun
focusingonthequalificationsoftheindividualattorneyhandlingthearbitrationratherthanthe
characteristicsoftheattorneyslawfirm.WeunderstandtheOCAhasbeenholdingregular
meetingswithOPDrepresentativestoattempttoimprovethequalityoftheDepartments
investigationsanddecisionsandtobuildtrustandcooperationbetweenthetwooffices.
Thesereformsareencouraging,andtheyhavealreadyresultedinbetteroutcomesin
arbitration.Indeed,sincetheCourtsAugust2014order,theCityhassucceededinfully
upholdingthedisciplineintwoarbitrations,whiletheUnionhassucceededinreducingthe
disciplineinonecase.Theseresultsspeakforthemselves.However,thecatalystforthe
improvementsappearstohavebeentheCourtsAugust2014order.Verylittlewasbeingdone
toimprovetheprocessbeforetheCourtissuedthatorder,andthatisnottotheCityscredit.
OneotherdevelopmentworthnotingistheCitysownreviewofthepolicediscipline
process.TheCitysreviewresultedinthereportthatisattachedasExhibitA.Weappreciate
theCityseffortstoidentifysomeoftheproblemswiththeprocessandtosuggestpossible
improvements.Throughoutthisprocess,bothOPDandtheOCAmadeseveralthoughtfuland
helpfulrecommendationsforimprovingthecurrentsystem,includingcertain
recommendationssetforthintheCitysJointReport.TotheextentweagreewiththeCitys
suggestions,theyareincludedinourrecommendationsbelow.
Turningtoourrecommendations,wenotethatnothingwearerecommendingshould
comeasasurprisetotheCity.Therecommendationsallcomefromindividualswhoworkfor
19
SeeEditorial,Policeofficersreinstatementsendswrongmessage(OaklandTribune,March10,2011)(available
athttp://www.contracostatimes.com/ci 17584439).
39
OCA 000046
OPD,theOCA,andtheCityadministration.TheCityunderstandswhatitneedstodotomake
policedisciplinework,butithasnotpreviouslydemonstratedthewilltodoit.
TheresponsibilityforthesefailuresdoesnotjustliewithOPDandtheOCA.TheCitys
policedisciplinaryprocessisoverseenbytheCityAdministratorandtheMayor.Withthe
extensiveoversighttheseindividualsandofficesmayprovide,itshouldnothavebeen
necessaryforaU.S.DistrictCourttoorderaninvestigationandrecommendations.Moretothe
point,withtheCityunderCourtsupervision,andwiththeCourthavingalreadyalertedtheCity
toproblemswithpolicearbitrations,itisanindictmentoftheCityslackoffocusonthisissue
thattheCourthadtoappointaninvestigatortobringtheseproblemstothefore.
TheprincipalfindingofourinvestigationisthattheCityhasnotshownasenseof
urgencyorconcernaboutitshandlingofpolicedisciplinecases.TheCityhandledthesecases
haphazardly,imposingdisciplineinconsistently,sometimesassigningcasestocounselatthe
lastminute,and,predictably,losingatarbitrationfartoofrequently.AnddespitetheCitys
abysmalrecord,nooneintheCitynotinOPD,norintheOCA,norintheCityadministration
raisedsufficientalarm.IftheCitydoesnotmakethepolicedisciplinaryprocessapriority,there
islittlehopetheCityscurrentimprovementswilllastoncetheprocessisnolongerunderthe
spotlightofaCourtorderedinvestigation.
Withthosecommentsinmind,weofferourrecommendationsinthefollowinggeneral
areas:Investigation,Discipline,Preparation,Arbitration,AccountabilityandSustainability.
Investigation:
TheDepartmentshouldinvolvetheOCAmoredeeplyintheinvestigationprocessand
withsufficienttimeforOCAtoprovideahelpfulresponse.WerecommendthattheCity
stationaDeputyCityAttorneyintheDepartment,specificallyinIAD,atleastonapart
timebasis.TheDeputyCityAttorneycanassistwithtrainingofIAinvestigators;
planningandexecutionofIAinvestigations;identifyingandcorrectinginconsistentrules
orpolicies;makingdisciplinarydecisions;draftingLettersofIntenttoDiscipline;advising
Skellyhearingofficers;andpreparinginatimelyandthoroughmannertorepresentthe
Cityatarbitrations.Thisattorneyshouldbesomeonewhoisfamiliarwiththe
DepartmentandwithwhomtheDepartmenthasagoodworkingrelationship.This
changewillhaveseveralsalutaryeffects,nottheleastofwhichwouldbeimproving
trustandcooperationbetweenthetwooffices.
theoutsetoftheinvestigationofacomplaintthroughtheresolutionofthecase,
40
OCA 000047
TheDepartmentshouldrevisetheinvestigationprocesstoconsidersupervisory
accountabilitymorethoroughlyandtoensurethatpotentialmitigatingorexculpatory
evidenceorwitnessesareconsidered.
TheDepartmentshouldconsiderinallcaseswhetheritneedsinterviewcivilian
witnessesaspartofitsinvestigation,anditmustbediligentinitseffortstolocateand
contactthesewitnesses.ItshouldalsoworkwithOCAtodevelopapolicytodetermine
whenoutsideexpertsshouldbehiredandwhowillpayforthem.
TheDepartmentshouldreduceturnoverinIAbyincludingatleastonecivilianatahigh
levelofauthoritywithinthedivision.ThecivilianmemberofIA,whowouldbe
answerabletotheChief,wouldremaininIAwithoutneedingtotransfertoadifferent
assignmentandwouldthusbeabletodevelopexpertiseinthedivisionovertime.The
civilianshouldbesomeonewhounderstandsbothcommunityexpectationsandpolice
procedure,whohasinvestigativeexperience,andwhohasacommitmenttocollaborate
withtheOCAonthemostseriouscases.
Discipline:
TheDepartmenthasinformedusitisaddressingitsoutdatedrulesandpoliciesby
transitioningtoasystemdevelopedinconjunctionwithLexipol,anationalleaderin
policymanagementresourcesforlawenforcementorganizations.WecommendOPD
forthisdecision.However,itmaytakeyearsfortheDepartmenttocompletethe
transition,andinthemeantime,itmuststillworktoensurethatitscurrentrulesand
policiesdonotunderminethedisciplinaryprocess.TheDepartmentshouldcoordinate
withtheOCAtoaddresstheseissuesproactively,makingwhateverpolicychangesare
necessarywhileawaitingthetransitiontoLexipol.TheCityshouldalsocommit
adequateresourcestothetransitiontoensureitdoesnottakelongerthannecessary.
ThePreDisciplineReportshouldbechangedtoavoidcreatingunnecessaryobstaclesin
thearbitrationprocess.Werecommendthatinthemoreserious(orClassI)cases,the
Chiefmeetinpersonwiththesupervisorsofthesubjectofficertoconsultaboutthe
appropriatelevelofdiscipline,butthattheDepartmentcontinuetousetheexisting
writtenPreDisciplineReportinlessseriouscases.
TheDepartmentshouldrevampitsSkellyhearingprocess.Skellyofficersshouldreceive
trainingonconductingthoroughIAinvestigationstoensurethattheirdecisionscannot
beeffectivelychallengedatthearbitrationstageforhavingbeenbasedoninsufficient
investigation.Theyshouldalsobetrainedandgivenguidelinesonwritingdetailed
Skellyreports.TheOCAshouldbemadepartoftheprocess,particularlyinthedrafting
ofLettersofIntenttoDiscipline.Andtoimproveconsistencyandpredictabilityinthe
41
OCA 000048
handlingofseriousdisciplinarycases,theDepartmentshouldassignallseriouscases
(thoseinvolvingatleastoneClassIallegation)toaDeputyChief,totheAssistantChief,
ortotheChiefhimorherself.
TheDepartmentandtheComplianceDirectorshouldmeettodiscussadoptingaformal
procedureforhandlingthereintegrationofofficerswhohavebeenoffdutyforan
extendedperiodoftimeduetopendingdisciplinarymatters.Regardlessofwhether
disciplineissustained,theabsenceofanofficerfromactivedutyforaperiodoftime
canhavenegativeeffectsonthatofficersperformance.
Preparation:
TheOCAshouldputinplaceaformalprocessforselectingoutsidecounselsufficientlyin
advanceofarbitrationtoallowforfullandthoroughpreparation.Theselectionprocess
shouldfocusprimarilyonthequalificationsoftheindividualattorneywhowillhandle
thearbitration,ratherthanonthequalitiesoftheattorneysfirm.Thetoppriority
shouldbeensuringthattheattorneystheCityispayingtorepresentitinpolice
arbitrationsareexperiencedandaccomplishedinpolicedisciplinearbitrations.Andas
OCAhasbeguntodoinrecentcases,itshouldselectoutsidecounselbeforesettingan
arbitrationdate.
TheOCAshouldseekOPDsinputontheselectionanduseofoutsidecounsel.Following
arbitrationproceedings,theOCAshouldseekOPDsfeedbackoncounsels
performance,levelofpreparation,andknowledgeofpolicedisciplinarymatters.This
willbothimprovethequalityoftheOCAsdecisionsandmakebetteruseofOPDs
involvementinthearbitrationprocess.
OPDandtheOCAshouldworktogethertocreateashareddatabasefortrackingthe
statusofdisciplinarycases,perhapsbymodifyingthedatabaseIAcurrentlyhasinplace
forthispurpose.Thiswillhelptoensurethatbothofficesarekeepingtrackofthecases
frombeginningtoend.Theofficesshouldalsoworktogethertohaveaneffective
systemforcomparinglevelsofdisciplineacrosssimilarcases.
Arbitration:
TheOCAshouldmaintainadatabasetotracktheperformanceofarbitratorsandto
informtheCitysdecisionintheselectionofarbitrators.Ideally,theOCAcould
coordinatewithotherofficesinthestatetoshareinformationaboutarbitrators
assignedtopolicedisciplinecases.
TheOCAoritsoutsidecounselshouldrequestprehearingdiscoveryinallsignificant
arbitrations.Inthemeantime,theCityshouldseektoamendtheMOUtorequirepre
42
OCA 000049
hearingdisclosureofevidenceandexpertwitnesses.Suchanamendmentwillhelpto
ensurethatarbitrationsaredecidedonafullandfairconsiderationofallrelevantfacts,
ratherthanonesidessurpriseorlackofpreparation.
IncaseswheretheOCAusesoutsidecounsel,itshouldhaveaDeputyCityAttorney
attendthearbitrationtosupervisetheproceedingsandmonitorcounselsperformance.
TheOCAoritsoutsidecounselshouldlitigatecasesaggressively,includingbyusing
civilianandexpertwitnesseswhereappropriate,preparingwitnessesthoroughly,
concentratingadditionalresourcesonposthearingbriefing,andrequestingtofilereply
briefsinseriouscases.
TheOCAshouldrequiretheattorneywhohandledthecase,whetheraDeputyCity
Attorneyoroutsidecounsel,todraftaposthearingmemodescribingtheproceedings
andidentifyingpotentialareasofimprovementforboththeCityAttorneyandtheChief.
Likewise,OPDshouldrequiretheIAorDepartmentrepresentativeatthearbitrationto
dothesame.Finally,thetwoofficesshouldestablishaproceduretoreviewarbitration
proceedingsandresultstogetherandjointlyidentifycorrectiveactionstoimprove
performance.
Accountability:
ForanyreformsmadeinresponsetotheCourtsordertobelastingormeaningful,the
Citymusttakeownershipofthisissue.TheCityAdministrator,theCityCouncil,andthe
Mayorhaveallallowedabrokendisciplinarysystemtocontinueunaddressed.These
individualsandothersmusttakeamoreactiveroleintheprocess,requiringregular
reportsfromOPDandtheOCAintoanypotentialshortcomingsorobstaclesinimposing
meaningfuldiscipline.
Sustainability:
WhilewecommendOPDandtheOCAforthechangestheyhavemadeinrecent
months,wenotethatnoneofthesechangeshasbeenimplementedinasustainable
way.TherehavebeennochangesinDepartmentGeneralOrdersorotherwritten
policies.Practiceshavechanged,buttheycouldjustaseasilyrevertbackwhenthe
Courtisnolongersupervisingthesematters.FortheCourtandthepublictohave
confidencethatOPDsdisciplineprocesshasbeenchangedinasustainableandlasting
fashion,OPD,theOCA,andtheCityadministrationshouldimplementreformsthatare
incorporatedintothepoliciesthatgoverntheiractions.
IftheCityimplementstheseorsimilarreformsanddoessoinasustainableway,weare
confidentitwillimprovenotonlyitsperformanceinpolicedisciplinaryarbitrations,butalsoits
relationshipoftrustandconfidencewiththecommunityitserves.
43
OCA 000050
From: Daniel Borenstein <dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com>

Sent: 2/3/2015 9:34:44 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Minimum wage
:
Alex,
I'm working on a column on the Oakland minimum wage law, how some of the
restaurants are responding to it. Who is the legal expert in the city on this?
Thanks,
Dan
------------------------------------------------Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000051

Sent: 4/22/2015 8:11:15 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Page 30
:
Why can't you request pre-hearing discovery?
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000052

Sent: 3/6/2015 2:34:33 AM +00:00
To:
robert.gammon@eastbayexpress.com
"Parker, Barbara" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S
CC:
OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/PARKE9B>
Subject
Statement from Barbara re injunctions March 5
:
Bob,
From:
Here is a statement from Barbara.

Thanks,
Alex
Today at the Alameda County Superior Courts case management conference on
Oaklands gang injunction cases the City Attorneys Office advised the Court that the
City will dismiss all defendants in Oaklands two gang injunction cases.
Police Chief Sean Whent said today that gangs remain a priority for the Oakland
Police Department. However, he said the Department is focusing on other gang
intervention strategies, such as the Ceasefire program, and therefore is not in favor
of continuing the injunction cases.
In June 2010, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman ordered a
preliminary injunction enjoining 15 individual members of the North Side Oakland
gang. In February 2012, Judge Freedman ordered a second preliminary injunction
against 40 members of the Norteos gang.
The injunctions were intended to be temporary measures to disrupt criminal
behavior of specific members of gangs within specific neighborhoods. They were not
intended to last for the lifetime of the defendants.
In 2011, the City Council directed the City Attorneys Office to continue prosecution
of the existing injunctions. The Council also directed that no additional defendants
could be enjoined, and that no additional injunction actions could be filed, without
Council approval following an independent study of the injunctions efficacy. The City
Attorneys Office has proceeded according to the Councils direction.
Based on arrest reports from OPD, only eight of the 40 defendants named in the
Norteos injunction have been arrested in the injunction zone since the Court issued
its order granting the injunction in February 2012. Those eight were arrested inside
the injunction zone for crimes including robbery, burglary, illegally carrying a
firearm, attempted murder and DUI (not for violating the injunction). One of those
individuals was the victim of a homicide in the injunction zone in March 2013.
The fact that 80% of the defendants in this case were not arrested again within the
injunction zone is a positive result. However, it is difficult to know what other factors
influenced this outcome. Additionally, 16 of the 40 defendants have been arrested
for crimes including robbery, grand theft and domestic violence in other parts of
OCA 000053
Oakland outside of the injunction zone or in other cities.

Both injunctions included opt-out provisions allowing defendants to be removed
from the injunctions if they were no longer engaged in criminal activity. No
defendants applied to opt-out of the injunctions.
The Court continued case management conferences in the injunction cases pending
appeals by defense attorneys. The California State Court of Appeal upheld both
injunction cases; the state Supreme Court denied review of both cases. Attorneys for
one defendant in the NSO case appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. After the City
filed a brief, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Preliminary injunctions are by definition temporary. Now that appeals are concluded,
at this point in the proceedings the City either can dismiss the cases or pursue
permanent injunctions.
Given Chief Whents priorities for the Police Department, limited resources in City
Attorneys Office, and the fact that the injunctions were intended to be temporary
measures, the City will file dismissals of both injunction cases without prejudice.
OCA 000054
From:

4/20/2015 10:55:31 PM +00:00
Mike Blasky (mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com)
FW: Oakland (OPD) -- Judge Henderson's 4/20/15 Order
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments
Dkt 1055 Order re Investigators report on arbitrations.pdf
:
Mike,
Just FYI in case you didnt already see this.
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000055
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
DELPHINE ALLEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
9
v.
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Case No. 00-cv-04599-TEH

ORDER RE: INVESTIGATORS
REPORT ON ARBITRATIONS
Defendants.
10
United States District Court

Northern District of California
11
On August 14, 2014, this Court ordered the Compliance Director to investigate
12
issues relating to the manner in which the Oakland Police Department (OPD) and the
13
City of Oakland prepare discipline cases for arbitration. The Court subsequently appointed
14
a Court Investigator to assist the Compliance Director with this investigation, and the
15
Investigator filed his report on April 16, 2015.
16
The Courts order emanated from high-profile reversals at arbitration of the Citys
17
decisions to terminate two OPD officers. First, the City terminated the employment of
18
Hector Jimenez after he shot and killed an unarmed civilian in July 2008. An arbitrator
19
overturned that termination in 2011. Second, the City terminated the employment of
20
Robert Roche after he threw a tear-gas grenade into a crowd of civilians attending to an
21
injured Occupy Oakland protester in October 2011. An arbitrator overturned that
22
termination last year. Although these are not the only two cases the City has lost at
23
arbitration in fact, the Investigator notes that the Citys recommended discipline was
24
modified or reversed in nine straight arbitrations prior to the Courts August 14, 2014
25
order, Report at 11 they are the most high-profile ones in recent memory.
26
These incidents also go to the very heart of this case, filed fifteen years ago. As the
27
January 2003 Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) makes clear, the goal in this
28
litigation has always been to protect the public against police misconduct including the
OCA 000056
racial bias, excessive force, planting of evidence, and falsifying of reports alleged by
Plaintiffs and to ensure accountability whenever misconduct occurs:
The parties join in entering into this Settlement Agreement . . .

to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives
persons of the rights, privileges and immunities secured or
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. The
overall objective of this document is to provide for the
expeditious implementation . . . of the best available practices
and procedures for police management in the areas of
supervision, training and accountability mechanisms, and to
enhance the ability of the Oakland Police Department . . . to
protect the lives, rights, dignity and property of the community
it serves.
NSA at 1. Notably, the City is a named party in this case and a signatory to the NSA; thus,
4
5
6

10
while the OPD is the primary focus of the NSAs reforms, the City as a whole bears
11
ultimate responsibility.
12
As the Court explained when it ordered an investigation, there is no doubt that
13
there may be room for differences of opinion [in some discipline cases], and that not
14
every disciplinary decision will be upheld at arbitration. Aug. 14, 2014 Order re: Internal
15
Affairs Investigations & Subsequent Proceedings at 2. Nonetheless, given the Citys track
16
record, the Court question[ed] whether Defendants are adequately preparing cases for
17
arbitration such that consistency of discipline can be assured to the greatest extent
18
possible. Id. As the Court also explained, imposition of discipline is meaningless if it is
19
not final. . . . Just like any failure to impose appropriate discipline by the Chief or City
20
Administrator, any reversal of appropriate discipline at arbitration undermines the very
21
objectives of the NSA. Id. at 1.
22
The Court Investigators findings are both disappointing and shocking. After
23
reviewing the report, it is difficult to reach any conclusion other than that the City has been
24
indifferent, at best, to whether its disciplinary decisions are upheld at arbitration. Many of
25
the Investigators recommendations are obvious, or at least would be to anyone concerned
26
with trying to improve the Citys arbitration success rate. One might think that paying
27
millions of dollars to settle civil lawsuits, and hundreds of thousands more in back pay and
28
attorneys fees to reinstated officers whose actions gave rise to those lawsuits, would give
2
OCA 000057
pause to the Citys leaders, or that the failure to preserve the Citys disciplinary decisions
would spur the Chief of Police, City Administrator, Mayor, City Attorney, and/or City
Council to action. Yet this issue appears to have gotten little attention until this Courts
August 14, 2014 order.

Some of the most problematic incidents in the Investigators report occurred after
the Court expressed concerns about the Jimenez case in 2011, at which time the City
promised to give more attention to the issue and work to correct deficiencies. Those
promises, if not empty, have certainly fallen short. Indeed, it does not appear that the City
made any significant changes to the way it handled arbitration cases until after this Court
10
ordered an investigation or, if it did, the changes were utterly ineffective. Moreover,
11
although the Investigator notes significant and commendable improvements since the
12
Courts August 2014 order, he also presents many recommendations, some seemingly the
13
most basic and all of which were made by City and Department employees, that the City
14
has failed to implement. Report at 39. As the Investigator concludes, The City
15
understands what it needs to do to make police discipline work, but it has not previously
16
demonstrated the will to do it. Id. at 40. It is problematic that the City required a court
17
order to make any meaningful changes at all, and equally so that it failed to implement all
18
of the necessary ones even after doing its own internal investigation.
19
Perhaps the Citys attitude is one of we did the best we can. But if the best the
20
City can do is to select outside counsel for reasons other than subject-matter expertise and
21
provide them with inadequate time to prepare a case for arbitration, to have a broken
22
relationship between the Department and the City Attorneys Office, and to have no
23
feedback loop for improvement after arbitration wins and losses, that is clearly insufficient.
24
A poor arbitration success rate has repercussions for the Departments leadership, who
25
might wonder why its decisions, which are approved by the City Administrator in most
26
cases, are not upheld, as well as for the rank and file, who might perceive the discipline
27
system to be a farce because officers have a high likelihood of overturning or significantly
28
reducing discipline at arbitration. The Citys shortcomings also have a significant impact
3
OCA 000058

on the public, which can have no confidence that the discipline system works if discipline
is regularly overturned at arbitration. More fundamentally, reinstating officers whom the
City has determined should be terminated for unjustified uses of force including, as in
the Jimenez case, a fatal shooting creates very serious public safety risks.
While the City has made much progress in the years following their agreement to
the NSA reforms, the Court Investigators report demonstrates that much more progress
remains to be achieved perhaps, most notably, the need for leaders at every level of the
Department and the City, including the City Attorneys Office, to care about, and not just
give lip service to, the importance of good policing and accountability. Failure to address
10
these issues undermines the core objectives of the NSA and will prevent Defendants from
11
coming into substantial compliance.
12
The Citys responses to the Court Investigators report make clear that this Courts
13
August 14, 2014 order and the Investigators report have gotten the attention of the Chief
14
of Police, City Attorney, and Mayor. What is less clear is how long that attention will last,
15
or whether the City has plans to institutionalize the reforms that they have already
16
implemented and those that they promise to implement. The Court hopes that the City
17
now recognizes the need for meaningful and sustainable change, but it cannot rely on
18
promises alone. Indeed, the Court has heard many such promises before including on
19
this very issue more than three years ago and it is troubling that the joint report from the
20
City Attorney, Chief of Police, and City Administrator, attached as an exhibit to the
21
Investigators report, identified multiple reforms that were within the signatories powers
22
to implement but that remained mere recommendations rather than actions taken.
23
Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
24
Defendants shall work to eliminate the problems identified by the Court Investigator.
25
They shall consult with the Compliance Director, who may, if necessary, invoke his power
26
to take corrective action, including development of a corrective action plan that includes
27
internal compliance testing. See Dec. 12, 2012 Order re: Compliance Director at 6. On or
28
before September 1, 2015, Defendants shall file a progress report discussing specific
4
OCA 000059
actions they have taken in response to this order and a timeline for any planned actions that
have not been fully implemented.
The Court reiterates that its expectation is not that the City will prevail at every
arbitration. However, as the Investigators report makes abundantly clear, the Citys
approach to discipline is not based on the best available practices and procedures for
police management the City agreed to implement more than twelve years ago. NSA at 1.
To the contrary, there are many steps the Department and the City can take to improve the
manner in which discipline cases are prepared both internally and for arbitration. It is
difficult to imagine how, absent these steps, the goals of accountability and fair and
10
consistent discipline two of the foundations of the NSA will ever be achieved.

11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
15
Dated: 04/20/15
_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OCA 000060

Sent: 2/5/2015 8:45:41 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
RE: Min wage FAQ
:
From:
Yes, Ill call you later with our attorney who knows all this stuff.
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:54 AM
To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Re: Min wage FAQ
thanks.
So here's the question: In a restaurant, who qualifies as a hospitality worker? The

waiter? The dishwasher? the host? the bartender? the chef? And how must the
money be divided among them? Who gets to decide?
Thanks,
OCA 000061
Dan
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>

wrote:
Dan,
We posted this today on our web site.
OCA 000062
http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/home.html
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-client

privileged information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.
Please consider the environment before printing this email

[v1.03]
OCA 000063

Sent: 2/20/2015 5:37:17 PM +00:00
To:
martz@bayareanewsgroup.com
Subject FW: Erase & Buff, the latest tool in combatting illegal graffiti, premieres
:
Friday, February 15, 2015 at 9:00 p.m. on KRON 4 TV
From:
Matt,
Have you seen Ken Houstons amazing new app?
It looks like he built it in 15 minutes with some kind of Microsoft template.
Hes trying to sell a subscription to the city for $200,000.
The idea is, people take pictures of graffiti with the app, then Ken goes to the property owner
and offers to paint over the graffiti for a very low price.
He also has this creepy form that he wants property owners to sign that empowers him to act as
their agent with the city. Im sure he only charges a very low price for that as well.
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
From: Illgen, Richard

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: Katz, Alex
Subject: FW: Erase & Buff, the latest tool in combatting illegal graffiti, premieres Friday,
OCA 000064
February 15, 2015 at 9:00 p.m. on KRON 4 TV
FYI.
Richard
From: Heather Ehmke [mailto:hehmke@att.net]

Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 7:14 AM
To: Heather Ehmke
Subject: Erase & Buff, the latest tool in combatting illegal graffiti, premieres Friday, February
15, 2015 at 9:00 p.m. on KRON 4 TV
Greetings from Erase & Buff!

We are pleased to announce the unveiling of our new mobile app designed and
proven to eradicate illegal graffiti after three successful pilots programs in Oakland
last year. The app will be featured tonight, Friday, February 20, 2015 at 9:00
p.m. on Stanley Roberts hour-long special of People Behaving Badly on KRON 4
TV (Channel 4).
The segment will show how and why Erase & Buff was designed and its strategic
method to end illegal graffiti. This is an exciting step forward in combatting urban
blight, and we invite you to tune in.
After Erase & Buff is premiered, we will begin interviewing cities and agencies
interested in engaging with Erase & Buff Field and Data Tracking Systems. We will
be carefully selecting three public entities in the next three months to launch this
state-of-the-art system.
Thank you for your interest.
OCA 000065
Heather Ehmke
Erase & Buff Field and Data Tracking Systems
hehmke@att.net
(510) 499-7379
http://www.eastobc.org/
http://www.eraseandbuff.com/
OCA 000066

Sent: 4/15/2015 11:52:51 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
RE: Medical marijuana
:
From:
Dan,
Barbara would be the best person to talk to, but shes in a meeting for the next few hours.
Is tomorrow possible?
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:10 PM
To: Katz, Alex; Parker, Barbara
Subject: Medical marijuana
Barbara, Alex:
Who on your staff is best versed in the state of the law (both federal crackdown and
state laws) on medical marijuana? Working on an editorial this afternoon.
OCA 000067
Thanks,
Dan
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000068

Sent: 2/5/2015 12:23:26 AM +00:00
To:
Subject
RE: Checking in
:
From:
Dan,
I could not find anybody here who knows any experts on state law re: tips in restaurants.
Is there anything else I can do here?
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

To: Katz, Alex
Alex,
thanks,
OCA 000069
Dan
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000070

Sent: 4/22/2015 11:58:47 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
RE: Page 30
:
From:
Dan,
Shes in meetings until later today can she call you in the morning?
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Page 30
-------------------------------------------------
OCA 000071
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000072

Sent: 3/6/2015 2:34:33 AM +00:00
To:
robert.gammon@eastbayexpress.com
CC:
"Parker, Barbara" <BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Subject
:
Bob,
From:
Here is a statement from Barbara.

Thanks,
Alex
OCA 000073

Attorneys Office, and the fact that the injunctions were intended to be temporary
measures, the City will file dismissals of both injunction cases without prejudice.
OCA 000074
From: Sam Levin <Sam.Levin@eastbayexpress.com>

Sent: 4/1/2015 5:59:05 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
East Bay Express - oakland lofts / seth jacobson
:
Thanks in advance for the help on this. Im guessing your team has more info than I
do on the relevant complaints and such against these folks, but in case it helps, from
my quick research, I found that Market Holdings LLC c/o Seth Jacobson owns: 1919
Market Street (the main property I plan to write about), 1911 Market Street, 734
31st Street, 852 46th Street, and then there was one weirdly just listed in property
records as Myrtle Street with no address (5-410-13-1, 5-410-44, 5-410-25 were the
listed #s). It appears that this is the same individual:
http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2003/12/22/smallb1.html?page=all.
Basically trying to connect the dots here and gather relevant complaints and info on
this owner, so any info your team has and is able to share would be great.
My cell just in case: 917-488-3567.
Thanks!
Sam Levin
East Bay Express, Staff Writer
510-879-3773
@SamTLevin
OCA 000075

Sent: 3/26/2015 6:42:56 PM +00:00
To:
Mike Blasky <mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Subject
RE: Thanks for meeting me!
:
From:
Mike,
Good to meet you too.
Heres the press release. I havent sent it out yet, but its posted on our web site if you want to
do anything with it.
http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/News/Press%20releases/Starlite.html
Cheers,
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
From: Mike Blasky [mailto:mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com]

Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Katz, Alex
OCA 000076
Subject: Thanks for meeting me!
Alex -- thanks again for the sitdown. Great talking with you.
When you get a chance to send me any press release you might have on the lawsuit,
would love to pitch it for a story.
Mike
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557
Follow @blasky on Twitter
OCA 000077
From: Darwin BondGraham <Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com>

Sent: 4/24/2015 8:47:18 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Media query: OCRA ban on contractor campaign contributions
:
Hi Alex,
I have a question about Oaklands Campaign Reform Act. The act states:
No person who contracts or proposes to contract with or who amends or proposes

to amend such a contract with the city for the rendition of services, for the
furnishing of any material, supplies, commodities or equipment to the city or for
selling any land or building to the city or for purchasing any land or building from the
city whenever the value of such transaction would require approval by the City
Council shall make any contribution to the Mayor, a candidate for Mayor, a City
Councilmember, a candidate for City Council, the City Attorney, a candidate for City
Attorney, the City Auditor, a candidate for City Auditor, or committee controlled by
such officeholder or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations
and either one hundred eighty (180) days after the completion of, or the termination
of, negotiations for such contract.
My question is: if a contractor enters into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA)

with the city, is this considered the commencement of negotiations? An ENA is
itself a contract, but it is also a negotiating period toward a second contract or
agreement. So assuming an ENA runs for 18 months, does this mean a contractor
would be barred over the entire 18 month period from making a contribution, rather
than just the 180 days after the signing of the ENA with the city?
Im at 510-879-3733.
-Darwin
OCA 000078
--Darwin BondGraham
Oakland, CA 94607
510.879.3733
OCA 000079

Sent: 2/5/2015 9:07:15 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Re: Min wage FAQ
:
Do you know when? I'm going to hit deadline soon.
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
wrote:
Yes, Ill call you later with our attorney who knows all this stuff.
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 11:54 AM
OCA 000080
To: Katz, Alex

Subject: Re: Min wage FAQ
thanks.

Thanks,
Dan
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000081

wrote:
Dan,
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000082

[v1.03]
OCA 000083

Sent: 4/17/2015 12:53:33 AM +00:00
To:
Mike Blasky <mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Subject
RE: statement
:
From:
Thanks were you able to include in your story?
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 5:48 PM
To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Re: statement
Thanks Alex, sorry for the many messages. Have a good night
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557
OCA 000084
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>

wrote:
Comment from City Attorney Parker:
We are wholeheartedly committed to continuing to work with the Court to achieve our mutual
goal of Constitutional policing, and that includes a disciplinary process that is fair, effective and
holds officers accountable for violations.
We recognize police discipline has been a difficult issue for the City over the years. We agree
with many of the investigators recommendations, a number of which we implemented or
addressed prior to the Courts investigation, and appreciate the investigators acknowledgment of
some of the work that we have done to address issues in the police discipline process.
Before the Court ordered its investigation, I conducted my own internal review of my Offices
handling of police arbitration cases when issues came to my attention including the timing of
assignments of attorneys to police arbitrations.
As City Attorney I am responsible for the performance of the OCA, good or bad, and as we
reported to the Court, I have taken steps to address the concerns that we identified regarding the
handling of certain police arbitrations. These include reinstituting the Labor & Employment Unit,
which has direct oversight of police arbitration cases; establishing a policy requiring retention of
outside counsel well in advance of hearing dates; assigning additional in-house personnel
budgeted by the Council this year to handle arbitration cases; formalizing an assessment process
for each arbitration case after decisions are issued; and using additional personnel to closely
track and coordinate police arbitration cases with the urgency they deserve.
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000085


[v1.03]
OCA 000086

Sent: 4/17/2015 12:34:21 AM +00:00
To:
Mike Blasky (mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com)
Subject
statement
:
From:
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
OCA 000087
(510) 599-6874 cell

OCA 000088
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Harry Harris <hharris@bayareanewsgroup.com>

5/7/2015 3:51:39 PM +00:00
Re: State Bar Honors Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker as 2015
Public Lawyer of the Year
How are you doing.

No question about this release but can you make a check to see if the
city has ever been sued by anyone being transported in a police
transportation van who may have been injured during the ride and if so
was there ever a settlement or payoff.
I can't recall any but then again I am getting older and the brain gets mushy.
Thanks
Harry
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Katz, Alex

<AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org> wrote:
> Please see the attached press release from the State Bar of California
> Public Law Section.
>
>
>
> http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Press%20Releases/Parker%20PLOY%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains
> confidential attorney-client privileged information and is for the sole use
> of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
> distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
> contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
> message and any attachments.
>
>
>
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email
>
>
>
> [v1.03]
>
>
OCA 000089

Sent: 2/5/2015 6:47:02 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Min wage FAQ
:
Dan,
From:

Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000090

Sent: 3/6/2015 2:19:15 AM +00:00
To:
'martz@bayareanewsgroup.com'
CC:
Subject
:
From:
OCA 000091
Attorneys Office, and the fact that the injunctions were intended to be temporary,
the City will file dismissals of both injunction cases without prejudice.
OCA 000092

Sent: 4/17/2015 12:27:37 AM +00:00
To:
Subject
RE: Comment on Swanson report?
:
From:
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
OCA 000093
(510) 599-6874 cell

From: Darwin BondGraham [mailto:Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com]

To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Comment on Swanson report?
Hi Alex,

Im at 510-879-3733
OCA 000094
-Darwin
--Darwin BondGraham
Oakland, CA 94607
510.879.3733
OCA 000095
From: Chris Treadway <ctreadway@bayareanewsgroup.com>

Sent: 5/7/2015 3:45:32 PM +00:00
To:
Subject Out of the office Re: State Bar Honors Oakland City Attorney Barbara J.
:
Parker as 2015 Public Lawyer of the Year
I will be out of the office from May 3 through 17. If this is urgent, contact Craig
Lazzeretti at clazzeretti@bayareanewsgroup.com.
Thanks
-Chris Treadway
Bay Area News Group
510-262-2784
OCA 000096

Sent: 2/4/2015 8:35:15 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Checking in
:
Alex,
thanks,
Dan
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000097

Sent: 4/22/2015 12:13:19 AM +00:00
Daniel Borenstein <dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com>; "Parker,
To:
Barbara" <BParker@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Subject
RE: Report on arbitrations
:
Dan,
From:
If you dont already have it, heres the statement Barbara made last week re: the investigation
report.
Thanks,
Alex
OCA 000098
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 4:48 PM
To: Parker, Barbara
Cc: Katz, Alex
Subject: Report on arbitrations
Barbara,
I'm going to be reading the report and writing an editorial tomorrow (Wednesday)
on it. Do you want to weigh in before I write?
Thanks,
Dan
-------------------------------------------------
OCA 000099
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000100

Sent: 1/30/2015 7:27:07 PM +00:00
To:
martz@bayareanewsgroup.com
Subject
Egbert's
:
http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/News/Press%20releases/Piedmont%20Ave%20Bar.htm
l
From:
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000101
From:
Sent:
To:

4/16/2015 9:54:51 PM +00:00
Comment on Swanson report?
Subject:
Attachments
1054-main.pdf
:
Hi Alex,

Im at 510-879-3733
-Darwin
OCA 000102
--Darwin BondGraham
Oakland, CA 94607
510.879.3733
OCA 000103
ReportoftheCourtAppointedInvestigatorin
DelphineAllenv.CityofOakland
EdwardSwanson
Swanson&McNamara,LLP
April16,2015
OCA 000104
TABLEOFCONTENTS
I.
OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................................1
II.
FACTUALBACKGROUND..................................................................................................................3
III.
A.
TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentsDisciplinaryProcess.....................................................3
B.
TheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement.............................................................................6
C.
TheCourtsSeptember2011OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations...................6
D.
TheCourtsAugust2014OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations..........................7
E.
TheScopeoftheInvestigation...........................................................................................8
FACTUALFINDINGS..........................................................................................................................9
A.
OverviewoftheCitysArbitrationResults........................................................................10
B.
ShortcomingsintheDisciplinaryProcess.........................................................................11
1.
OPDFailstoProvideClearRulesandPolicies......................................................12
2.
InvestigationsFailtoConsiderAllRelevantFactsorWitnesses..........................13
3.
Supervisors...........................................................................................................15
4.
OPDsProcessforDeterminingDisciplineRendersThoseDecisionsVulnerableto
Attack...................................................................................................................17
a.
InconsistentRecommendationsinthePreDisciplineReport................17
b.
LackofEvidencetoSupporttheChiefsDisciplinaryDecision...............17
c.
ProblemsWithSkellyOfficerSelectionandPerformance.....................18
5.
TheOCAsLackofMeaningfulParticipationinOPDInvestigationsorDisciplinary
DecisionsUnderminesDisciplineCases...............................................................20
6.
TheOCAsDelayinPreparingorAssigningCasestoOutsideCounselUndermines
DisciplineCases....................................................................................................21
7.
8.
a.
FailuretoPrepare...................................................................................21
b.
DelayinAssigningCasestoOutsideCounsel..........................................23
TheOCAsProcessforSelectingOutsideCounselHasBeenIneffective.............26
a.
TheRFQProcessFailstoResultinSelectionoftheMostAppropriate
AttorneyfortheJob................................................................................27
b.
OCAsIneffectiveSelectionProcessHasGivenRisetoConcernsAbout
theIntegrityoftheProcess....................................................................28
TheOCAHasFailedtoLitigateasAggressivelyandEffectivelyasitShould.......30
a.
FailuretoRequestPreHearingDiscovery..............................................30
OCA 000105
9.
IV.
b.
FailuretoCallCivilianWitnesses............................................................30
c.
FailuretoUseOutsideExpertWitnesses................................................31
d.
FailuretoTrackDataEssentialtoSuccessinArbitration.......................31
ThroughtheDisciplineProcessandtoMakeTheNecessaryImprovements......32
C.
TheRelationshipBetweenOPDandtheOCAHasBeenDysfunctional............................33
D.
TherehasBeenNoMeaningfulAccountabilityfortheCitysFailedDisciplinarySystem.34
E.
ACloserExaminationofOneArbitrationHelpstoDemonstrateWhatHappensWhen
TheDisciplineSystemisDysfunctional.............................................................................34
RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................................39
ii
OCA 000106
I.
OVERVIEW
Asthenationhasfocusedonastringofrecenthighprofilecasesinvolvingpolice
conductfromFergusontoStatenIslandtoNorthCharlestontheissueofpolicediscipline
hastakencenterstage.Theseincidentsraisethevitalquestionofwhetherpolicedepartments
canbetrustedtopolicethemselves.Ifapolicedepartmentsinternaldisciplinesystemdoes
notwork,theentiredepartmentsuffers.Abrokendisciplineprocessmeansbadofficers
remainontheforceaclearthreattopublicsafety.Italsomeansgoodofficerslosefaithin
theprocess.Anditerodesthepublicstrustinlocallawenforcement.
Foryears,Oaklandspolicedisciplineprocesshasfailedtodeliverfair,consistent,and
effectivediscipline.Timeandagain,whentheOaklandPoliceDepartment(theDepartment,
orOPD)hasattemptedtoimposesignificantdiscipline,itsdecisionshavebeenreversedor
guttedatthearbitrationstage,causingthepublictoquestionwhethertheCityhandles
disciplinarycasesappropriately.Theresultisthatmany,bothinsideandoutsideofthe
Department,havelittlefaithintheintegrityoftheprocess.
Therearemanyreasonsthedisciplinesystemisbroken,buttheyfallintofourbroad
categories.
First,theDepartmenthasnotdonewhatitneedstodotoensurefairand
consistentdiscipline.Itsinternalinvestigationshaveoftenbeeninadequate,
resultinginrepeatedreversalsofdisciplinedecisionsinarbitration.Becauseinternal
investigationsserveasthefoundationfortheDepartmentsdisciplinarydecisions,
mistakesoroversightsintheinvestigationstageunderminetheDepartments
effortstoimposelastingdiscipline.Further,OPDspolicesarevagueorinconsistent
inwaysthathaverepeatedlycomeunderfirefromarbitrators.Andperhapsmost
alarming,whileOPDsdisciplinedecisionswererepeatedlyreversed,Department
leadershipdidnotpubliclyexpressindignationwithanyofthearbitratorsdecisions,
anditdidnotmakeitaprioritytofixthedisciplinesystem.
Second,theOaklandCityAttorneysOffice(OCA)demonstratedneglectand
indifferenceinitshandlingofOPDdisciplinarycasesandarbitrations.TheCityof
OaklandhaslostarbitrationstimeandagainbecausetheOCAhasgenerallydonea
poorjobofrepresentingtheCitysinterests.Foryears,theOCAhandleddisciplinary
arbitrationshaphazardly,oftenwaitinguntilthelastminutetoprepareforhearings
ortoassigncasestooutsidecounsel,andshowinglittleregardfortheimportanceof
policearbitrationstotheintegrityoftheentirepolicedisciplineprocess.While
therehavebeennotableimprovementsintheOCAshandlingofarbitrationsin
recentmonths,thereislittleevidencetheOCAwastakingactiontoaddressitspoor
recordinarbitrationsbeforetheCourtorderedthisinvestigation.
OCA 000107
Third,therelationshipbetweentheDepartmentandtheOCAhasbeen
dysfunctional.Thetwoofficeshaveviewedeachotherwarily,andtheyhavenot
consistentlysupportedeachothersneedsinthedisciplineprocess.Thetensionin
thisrelationshiphasonlyexacerbatedproblemswiththedisciplinesystem.
Fourth,therehasnotbeenacultureofaccountabilityregardingpolicedisciplinein
Oakland.TheproblemswithpolicedisciplinearenotjustanOPDproblem;theyare
aCityofOaklandproblem.Apolicedisciplineprocessthatisnotfairandconsistent
corrodesboththerelationshipbetweenofficersandtheirsuperiorsandthe
relationshipbetweencitizensandtheirpolicedepartment.ButtheOaklandCity
administrationtheMayor,theCityAdministrator,andtheCityCouncilhasnot
heldanyonetoaccountforthesefailures.TheCityadministrationhasdonenothing
todemandorenforceaneffectivedisciplinesystem.Simplyput,itshouldnothave
takenacourtordertofocustheCitysattentionontheseproblems.
Ofcourse,evenwhenthesystemisworkingwell,noteverydisciplinarydecisionmade
bytheDepartmentiscorrect;suchdecisionsaresubjecttohumanerrorandfundamental
differencesinopinion.ButtheproblemstheCityofOaklandfacesarenotjusttheresultofthe
challengesofarbitrationorthepossibilityoferror.Theyaretheresultofabrokenand
inadequatesystemthathasevadedthepublicsscrutinyfortoolong.
TheCitycanandmustdobetter.Thereisnoeasyfixtothisproblem,butthereare
manystraightforwardandfairlysimplestepsthatOPDandtheCityAttorneysOfficecantake
toimprovethecurrentsystem.AndthesearestepstheCityhasunderstooditshouldtakefor
sometime,asweheardthemrepeatedlyfromseveralwitnessesweinterviewed.Thisreport
recommendsimprovementsinanumberofareas,includingthefollowing:
OPDshouldreviseitsinvestigationproceduresandtrainingsothattheresulting
investigationsaremorerobustandthusmoreresilientatthearbitrationstage.
OPDshouldrevampitsSkellyhearingprocessbyretrainingitshearingofficersandby
allowingonlyDeputyChiefsorhighertohearseriouscases.
OPDshouldhireaciviliansupervisorandprofessionalinvestigatorsinIADtoensure
morecontinuityinthedivision.
TheOCAshouldstationaDeputyCityAttorneyinOPDsInternalAffairsDivision.This
attorneywouldtrainIAinvestigators,helpthemworkupcases,adviseOPDinthe
disciplineprocess,andpreparecasesforarbitration.
theoutsetoftheinvestigationofthecomplaintthroughtheresolutionofthecase,
Inhiringoutsidecounsel,theOCAshouldprioritizeexpertiseinpolicedisciplinecases
andensurethatoutsidecounselreceivethecaseswithmorethanjustafewdaysor
weekstoprepare.
2
OCA 000108
OPDandtheOCAshouldusecivilianandexpertwitnessesmoreeffectivelyto
investigateandsupportdisciplinaryfindings.
OPDandtheOCAshouldimplementproceduresthatenablethemtolearnfrom
mistakesorshortcomingsrevealedindisciplinecasesandmakenecessarychanges.
TheMayor,theCityAdministrator,andtheCityCouncilshouldholdOPDandtheOCA
accountableforfailingsinthepolicedisciplinaryprocessbyrequiringbothofficesto
provideregularupdatesonseriousdisciplinecasesandeffortstoreformthediscipline
process.
ThereisnoquestionthatifOPDandtheOCAimplementthesechanges,thediscipline
systemwillbegreatlyimproved.Investigationswillbestronger.Internaldiscipline
recommendationswillbemoreconsistent.AndwhiletheCitywillnotwineverypolice
arbitration,itwillprevailinmoreofthecaseswhereOPDsdisciplinarydecisionswere
meritorious.
Thebenefitsofanimproveddisciplinesystemwillbemany.Officerswhohavedone
nothingwrongwillbeclearedearlierintheprocess.Officerswhohaveengagedinmisconduct
willbeappropriatelydisciplined;arbitrationwillnolongerofferagetoutofdisciplinefree
card.Perhapsmostimportant,aneffectivedisciplineprocesswillbuildpublictrustinthe
Departmentandpromotepublicsafety.IfOPDhasadisciplinesystemthatworks,thecitizens
ofOaklandwillknowthatofficerswhoengageinmisconductwillnotjustbeputbackonthe
jobovertheChiefsandDepartmentsobjections.Then,andonlythen,willtheDepartment
andtheCitybeabletosaythepolicedisciplinesystemisfairandconsistentasignificantstep
towardendingtheneedforjudicialoversight.
II.
A.
FACTUALBACKGROUND
TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentsDisciplinaryProcess.
WhentheDepartmentreceivesacomplaint,whetherfromthepublicorfroman
internalsource,theInternalAffairsDivision(InternalAffairs,IA,orIAD)determines
whetherthecomplaintshouldbereferredforinvestigation.Generally,InternalAffairs
investigatesmoreseriousallegations(ClassIallegations),whilefieldsupervisorsresolveless
seriouscharges(ClassIIallegations).1UndertheDepartmentscurrentprotocol,ifInternal
Affairsconductsaninvestigation,itmustcompletetheinvestigationwithin180daysof
receivingthecomplaint.Thisrequirestheinvestigatortodeterminewhethereachallegation
OPDclassifiesmisconductaseitherClassIorClassII.PerDepartmentGeneralOrderM03,ClassIoffenses
arethemostseriousallegationsofmisconductand,ifsustained,shallresultindisciplinaryactionuptoand
includingdismissalandmayserveasthebasisforcriminalprosecution.ClassIIoffensesincludeallminor
misconductoffenses.
OCA 000109
shouldbeconsideredsustained,notsustained,unfounded,orexonerated,applyingthe
preponderanceoftheevidencestandard.2Toconductaninvestigation,theIAinvestigator
reviewsallrelevantdocumentationandreports,includinganyavailableaudioorvideo
recordings.Theinvestigatoralsointerviewsrelevantwitnesses,includingthesubjectofficer,to
determinewhatoccurredandwhetheritconstitutesaviolationofDepartmentpolicy.Subject
officerstypicallyhavetheirattorneypresentfortheirinterview.
IfthecomplaintinvolvesaLevel1orLevel2useofforce,InternalAffairsandthe
CriminalInvestigationsDivision(CID)conductinvestigationsconcurrently.3Bothdivisions
reporttheirfindingsandconclusionstoanExecutiveForceReviewBoardorEFRB(forLevel1
usesofforce)oraForceReviewBoardorFRB(forLevel2usesofforce).Thereviewboard
considersboththeIADandCIDinvestigationsanddetermineswhethertheuseofforcefalls
withinDepartmentalpolicy.
Followingallinvestigations,theChiefreviewstheinvestigatorsconclusions(aswellas
anyconclusionsbytheEFRBorFRB)anddetermineswhethertosustainthefindings,reject
them,orconductfurtherinvestigation.IftheChiefagreesthataviolationoccurred,theChief
alsoreceivesandreviewsaPreDisciplineReport,whichcontainswrittendiscipline
recommendationsfromthesubjectofficerschainofcommand.
TheChiefmayimposevariouslevelsofdiscipline,includingcounselingandtraining,
writtenreprimand,suspension,fine,demotion,ortermination.TheDepartmentsDiscipline
Matrixsetsoutguidelinesfordisciplinebasedontheseverityoftheoffenseandhowmany
prioroffensesthesubjectofficerhas.Perpolicy,theChiefhasdiscretiontoimposealevelof
disciplineoutsidetherangecalledforbythematrix.OncetheChiefhasdecidedwhatdiscipline
toimpose,theDepartmentissuesaLetterofIntenttoDisciplineinformingthesubjectofficer
thattheDepartmenthassustainedafindingofmisconduct,identifyingthespecificrulesthe
Afindingofsustainedmeans[t]heinvestigationdisclosedsufficientevidencetodeterminethatthealleged
conductdidoccurandwasinviolationoflawand/orOaklandPoliceDepartmentrules,regulations,orpolicies.
SeeNSAat10.Afindingofnotsustainedmeans[t]heinvestigationdidnotdisclosesufficientevidenceto
determinewhetherornottheallegedconductoccurred.Id.Afindingofunfoundedmeans[t]heinvestigation
disclosedsufficientevidencetodeterminethattheallegedconductdidnotoccur.Id.Italsoappliestocasesin
whichindividualsnamedinthecomplaintwerenotinvolvedintheallegedact.Id.Andafindingof
exoneratedmeans[t]heinvestigationdisclosedsufficientevidencetodeterminethattheallegedconductdid
occur,butwasinaccordwithlawandwithallOaklandPoliceDepartmentrules,regulations,orpolicies.Id.
PerDepartmentGeneralOrderK4,aLevel1useofforceisdefinedasanyuseofforceresultingindeath;any
intentionalfirearmdischargeataperson,regardlessofinjury;anyforcewhichcreatesasubstantialriskofcausing
death;anyuseofforceresultinginlossofconsciousness;oranyintentionalimpactweaponstriketothehead.A
Level2useofforceisdefinedasanyuseofforceinvolvinganunintentionalstriketothehead;useofimpact
weapons,includingspecialtymunitions,wherecontactismadewiththesubject;anyunintentionalfirearm
dischargethatdoesnotresultininjury;apolicecaninebitetoclothingorskinofasubject;oranyuseofforce
resultinginthesubjectrequiringemergencymedicaltreatmentorhospitaladmittance.
OCA 000110
Departmentbelievestheofficerviolated,andsettingouttheChiefsrecommendedlevelof
discipline.
Ifthedisciplineinvolvesafine,demotion,suspension,ortermination,theDepartment
alsonotifiesthesubjectofficerofthedateandtimeoftheofficersSkellyhearing.4Atthe
Skellyhearing,thesubjectofficerandhisorherlegalrepresentativemaypresentdefensesto
thechargesorevidenceinmitigationofthediscipline.AtOPD,DeputyChiefsandcaptainsare
eligibletoserveasSkellyhearingofficers,andthehearingofficerischargedwithmakingan
independentassessmentafterreviewingtheDepartmentsfindingsinlightofevidenceor
argumentpresentedbythesubjectofficerortheofficersattorney.Followingthisreview,the
SkellyhearingofficerissuesamemorandumrecommendingthattheChiefuphold,reverse,or
modifytheproposeddiscipline.TheChiefthenmakesanotationontheSkellyreportindicating
whetherhefullyaccepts,partiallyaccepts,orrejectstheSkellyhearingofficers
recommendation.
Atthatstage,ifthecaseinvolvesademotion,termination,orsuspensionoffivedaysor
more,theDepartmentmustpresentittotheCityAdministratortoapproveimpositionoffinal
discipline.IftheCityAdministratoracceptstheDepartmentsproposeddiscipline,theCity
AdministratorwillsendthesubjectofficeraNoticeofDiscipline,triggeringtheofficersappeal
andgrievancerightsundertheCitysMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)withthe
OaklandPoliceOfficersAssociation(theUnion).5Atthatpoint,thesubjectofficermayoptto
movethroughseveralsteps:heorshemaysubmitagrievancetotheCityOfficeofEmployee
Relations;proceedtoinformalconflictresolution;and,ultimately,proceedtoarbitration.
UnderthecurrentMOU,theofficermaytaketoarbitrationanydisciplinerangingfroma
writtenreprimandtoatermination.6TheMOUprovidesthatthearbitratorsdecisionwillbe
finalandbinding.OncetheCityAttorneysOfficereceivesnotificationofanofficersgrievance,
itproceedstorepresenttheCitysintereststhroughoutthearbitrationandposthearing
briefing.
TheSkellyhearingprocesstakesitsnamefromthecaseofSkellyv.StatePersonnelBoard(1975)15Cal.3d194,
539P.2d774.Inthatcase,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheldthatpublicemployeeshavecertaindueprocess
rightsthatthegovernmentmustfulfillbeforeimposingdisciplineagainstthem.Id.at215.Theserightsinclude
noticeoftheproposedaction,thereasonstherefor,acopyofthechargesandmaterialsuponwhichtheactionis
based,andtherighttorespond,eitherorallyorinwriting,totheauthorityinitiallyimposingthediscipline.Id.
5
TheOaklandPoliceOfficersAssociationisfrequentlyreferredtoastheOPOAortheUnion,includingbyits
ownmembers.Foreaseofreferencethroughout,thisreportwillrefertoitastheUnion.
Inlieuofarbitration,theofficermaychoosetosubmitagrievanceconcerningasuspension,fine,demotion,or
terminationtotheCivilServiceBoard.Officersalmostunanimouslyoptforarbitration.
OCA 000111
B.
TheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement.
InJanuary2003,theCityofOaklandenteredintotheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement
(theNSA)withplaintiffscounselinDelphineAllen,etal.v.CityofOakland,etal.,
consolidatedcasenumberC004599TEH,otherwiseknownastheRiderscase.Theplaintiffs
intheRiderscaseallegedthatOPDhadbeendeliberatelyindifferenttoorencouragedan
ongoingpracticeofmisconducttoviolatetheplaintiffscivilrights,includingbyfailingto
exerciseappropriatehiring,training,supervision,anddisciplineofitsofficers.IntheNSA,the
CityandOPDagreedtoenactanextensivelistoftasksandpolicyreformstoimproveoperation
oftheDepartment.TheCourtappointedaMonitortoensureongoingcompliancewiththe
NSAsprovisions.
TheNSAincludesseveralreformsdirectedatimprovingthepolicedisciplineprocess.
Forexample,Task5focusesontheIADcomplaintprocessandincludesseveralsubtasks,such
asTasks5.15and5.16,whichrequiretheCitytoensureOPDconductsreliableinternal
investigationsbygatheringallrelevantevidence;conductingfollowupinterviewsasnecessary;
adequatelyconsideringtheevidencegathered;makingcredibilityassessmentswherefeasible;
andresolvinginconsistentstatements.Task16requirestheCitytoensurethatOPDholds
supervisorsandmanagersaccountableindisciplinarymatterswhereappropriate,includingfor
failuretosupervisesubordinateswhocommitseriousoffenses.Task45requirestheCityto
ensurethatOPDimposesdisciplineinafairandconsistentmanner.
TostrengthentheNSAandensuremeaningfulcompliancewithitsterms,theCourt
appointedaComplianceDirectorinMarch2013withbroadauthoritytoenforcetheparties
agreement.SeeDkt.Nos.885,911.AssetforthintheCourtsorder,theComplianceDirector
overseestheCityscompliancewithallobligationsundertheNSA,includingdisciplinary
matters.TheComplianceDirectormay,athisorhersolediscretion,developacorrective
actionplanforanytaskforwhichtheMonitorfindsDefendantstobeoutofcompliance.Dkt.
No.885at6.TheComplianceDirectoralsohasthepowertoreview,investigate,andtake
correctiveactionregardingOPDpolicies,procedures,andpracticesthatarerelatedtotheNSA
andMOU,evenifsuchpolicies,procedures,orpracticesdonotfallsquarelywithinanyspecific
NSAtask.Id.TheCourtalsoprovidedtheComplianceDirectorwiththeauthoritytodirect
specificactionsbytheCityorOPDtoattainorimprovecompliancelevels,orremedy
complianceerrors,regardingallportionsoftheNSA.Id.PursuanttotheCourtsorderdated
February2,2014,therolesoftheComplianceDirectorandtheMonitorwereconcentratedinto
asingleposition.SeeDkt.No.973.
C.
TheCourtsSeptember2011OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations.
InSeptember2011,theCourtorderedthepartiestoappearatastatusconferenceto
addressanarbitrationdecisionreinstatingOfficerHectorJimenez,whomOPDterminatedafter
heshotandkilledanunarmedcivilian.SeeDkt.No.630.TheCourtexpressedconcernabout
theeffectthefailedarbitrationcouldhaveontheDepartmentsdisciplinaryprocess:
6
OCA 000112
While Defendants may be unableto overturn the arbitrators decision that the
shooting was justified and that the Department did not have just cause to
terminate Jimenezs employment, Defendants shall address whether they have
plans to return Officer Jimenez to patrol duty or some other assignment. If
Defendantsquestiontheexpertiseofthearbitratorwhodecidedthiscase,they
shallalsoexplainwhythisparticulararbitratorwasselectedandwhatstepsthey
aretakingtoensurethatfuturearbitrationsaresubmittedtoindividualswhom
theybelievetobequalifiedtodecideforcerelatedissues.
SeeDkt.No.6301(redactedorderrequestingCitytoaddressthearbitrationdecision).
InresponsetotheCourtsorder,theCityinformedtheCourtitwouldimplement
reformsdirectedatimprovingitsrepresentationandperformanceinarbitrationproceedings.
SeeDkt.No.633(Citysredactedresponse);Dkt.No.637(minutesofstatusconference);Dkt.
No.1015(orderreferringtotheCityspromisestocorrectdeficienciesfollowingthe
reinstatementofOfficerJimenez).
D.
TheCourtsAugust2014OrderRegardingPoliceDisciplineArbitrations.
InJuly2014,anarbitratororderedthereinstatementofOfficerRobertRoche,whomthe
Departmenthadattemptedtofireasaresultofhisallegedwrongfuluseofforceduringthe
OccupyOaklandeventsofOctober2011.AccordingtotheDepartment,Rochehadviolated
DepartmentpoliciesbythrowingaCSblastdispersiongrenadedirectlyintoasmallcrowdof
peoplewhowereattemptingtoassistaninjuredprotester.Theprotester,ScottOlsen,was
lyingontheground,semiconsciousandbleedingafterbeingshotintheheadatcloserange
withabeanbaground,whenRochesCSblastgrenadedetonatedclosetohishead,potentially
compoundingOlsensalreadyseriousinjuries.
Followinganinvestigation,theDepartmentterminatedRoche,andtheCityenteredinto
a$4.5millionsettlementwithOlsen.However,theCityfailedtoupholdtheterminationat
arbitration.Instead,thearbitratorsustainedRochesgrievanceandorderedthathebe
reinstatedtohispreviouspositionwithintheDepartment,withbackpayforthetimehespent
awayfromwork.
Ashasbeenwidelyreported,Rocheandotherofficersmadepublicsocialmediaposts
abouthiscasebothbeforeandafterthearbitrationhearing.Forexample,fourdaysbeforethe
arbitration,RochepostedonFacebookapictureofhimselfwithfourotherofficersatabar
apparentlyabouttotakeshotsofliquor.Thecaptionofthepictureread:Fourmoredaysuntil
arbitration.Itsaboutf**kingtime.Shootersready,standby.Severalotherusers
commentedonthepicture,expressingexcitementtoseeRochebackatworksoon.For
example,oneindividualwrote:Iftheirarbitrationrecordisanyindicatortheyshouldstart
pressingyouruniformnow.
OCA 000113
TheRochearbitrationdecisionbroughtOPDsdisciplinaryprocessandtheOCAsrolein
thatprocessbacktotheCourtsattentionwithaddedurgency.Shortlyafterthedecision,the
Courtissuedanordernotingthatthedecisionwasnotthefirsttimeanarbitratorhas
overturnedanofficersterminationby[theCity].SeeDkt.No.1015at1.AstheCourt
explained,thepartieshadpreviouslybeenorderedtodiscussthereinstatementofOfficer
JimenezbyarbitrationattheSeptember22,2011statusconference.Id.TheCourtobserved
that[t]heCityspromisestocorrectdeficienciesatthattimehavefallenshort,andfurther
interventionby[the]Courtisnowrequired.Id.
TheCourtidentifiedadirectconnectionbetweentheCitysrepeatedfailurestoenforce
disciplineatarbitrationandtheCitysobligationstocomplywiththeNSA,remarkingthat
failuretoaddresstheissues[inpolicedisciplinaryarbitrations]willpreventcompliance,let
alonesustainablecompliance,withtheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement.Id.Forexample,
theCourtheldthattheCitycannotbeincompliancewithTask5iftheinternalinvestigations
leadingtotheDepartmentsdisciplinarydecisionsareinadequate.Althoughnotingitwas
reasonabletoexpectdifferencesofopinionandsomeunfavorablearbitrationdecisions,the
CourtalsostatedthattheCitycannotdemonstratecompliancewithTask45,requiring
impositionoffairandconsistentdiscipline,ifthedisciplineisregularlyoverturned.Asthe
Courtexplained,impositionofdisciplineismeaninglessifitisnotfinal.Id.TheCourt
questionedwhethertheCitywasadequatelypreparingcasesforarbitrationsuchthat
consistencyofdisciplinecanbeassuredtothegreatestextentpossible.Id.at2.
TheCourtfoundthattheCitysregularfailuretoenforceandupholddisciplineatthe
arbitrationstageunderminestheveryobjectivesoftheNSA:topromotepoliceintegrityand
toenhancetheabilityoftheOaklandPoliceDepartment[to]protectthelives,rights,dignity
andpropertyofthecommunityitserves.Id.Accordingly,theCourtdirectedtheCompliance
Directortoinvestigatetheentirepolicedisciplinaryprocess,includingspecificareasidentified
bytheCourtaspotentiallyproblematic.Id.TheCourtsaidthatfollowingtheinvestigation,the
ComplianceDirectorshould,whereappropriate,directtheCitytotakecorrectiveactionto
ensuresustainablereforms,including,ifnecessary,immediatecorrectiveactionpending
furtherinvestigation.Id.InafollowuporderdatedAugust20,2014,theCourtappointedme
toserveasinvestigatorandfacilitatetheCourtorderedinvestigationintothedisciplinary
process.SeeDkt.No.1017.
E.
TheScopeoftheInvestigation.
ToconducttheCourtorderedinvestigation,myteamandIrevieweddocuments,
interviewedwitnesses,andanalyzedinvestigationandarbitrationfiles.Thefollowingsummary
describesthescopeofourinvestigativeefforts.
Toobtainrelevantdocumentsandcorrespondence,weissueddocumentrequeststo
bothOPDandtheCityAttorneysOffice.Inresponsetoourrequests,wereceivedand
reviewedmorethan7,500pagesofemailcorrespondence.PursuanttotheCourtsorder
8
OCA 000114
regardingdiscoveryinthiscase,andovertheOCAsobjection,wewereabletoreview
correspondencebetweentheOCAandOPDtowhichtheCityassertedprivilege.
ToassesstheeffectivenessoftheCitysrepresentationinpolicearbitrationproceedings,
wereviewedarbitrationfilesforthe26arbitrationsofswornofficersthattookplaceoverthe
lastfiveyears.Foreach,weexaminedtheDepartmentscompletedisciplinaryfileleadingupto
thearbitration;allrelevantcorrespondencewithOCA,OPD,oroutsidecounsel;thearbitration
transcript;thepartiesposthearingbriefing;andthearbitratorsdecision.Intotal,wereceived
andreviewedwellover10,000pagesofarbitrationtranscripts,briefings,anddecisions.
ToassesstheeffectivenessofOPDsinternaldisciplinaryprocesses,wealsoreviewed
OPDcasefilesformorethan150disciplinarycasesthatresultedinSkellyhearingsoverthelast
fiveyears.Aspartofourreviewofeachcasefile,weexaminedtheInternalAffairs
investigationandreport,anyExecutiveForceReviewBoardorForceReviewBoardfindings,the
Skellyhearingofficersreport,anyrelevantemailcorrespondence,andtheChiefsfinal
disciplinarydecision.Intotal,wereceivedandreviewedseveralthousandpagesofOPD
disciplinaryfiles.
WealsoreviewedtheCityofOaklandsJointReportonthePoliceDisciplineProcess,
whichwaspreparedduringthecourseofourinvestigationandsignedbyCityAttorneyBarbara
Parker,PoliceChiefSeanWhent,andformerInterimCityAdministratorHenryGardner.The
CitysJointReportcontainstheCitysanalysisofthepolicedisciplinaryprocessandproposed
recommendationsforimprovingtheoutcomesofdisciplinecases.TheCitysJointReportis
attachedasExhibitA.
WealsoconductedwitnessinterviewswithrepresentativesofOPD,theOCA,Oakland
Citygovernment,otherlawenforcementpersonnel,andlegalandsubjectmatterexpertsinthe
fieldofpolicediscipline.Intotal,weconductedmorethan40interviews.Wealsoattendeda
trainingsessionwiththeCityOfficeofEmployeeRelationsinwhichOPDsergeantsweretrained
ontheapplicationofdisciplineanditsrelationtothearbitrationprocess.
Finally,wenotethatwereceivedandappreciatethefullcooperationofboththe
DepartmentandtheCityAttorneysOfficeinseekingaccesstodocumentsandwitnesses.Both
theDepartmentandtheCityAttorneysOfficeprovideduswithrelevantmaterialsandmade
availabletousallwitnesseswithwhomwewishedtospeak.Wealsoappreciatethetimeand
thoughtfulnessofmanyindividualsoutsideofOPDandtheOCAwhogenerouslyagreedto
speakwithusandcontributetheirthoughtsandexperiencestoouranalysis.
III.
FACTUALFINDINGS
Wemakethefollowingfactualfindingsbasedonourinterviewswithwitnesses,our
reviewofcorrespondenceandotherrelevantdocuments,andourconsiderationofthe
arbitrationbriefs,transcripts,anddecisions.Wewillpresentourfactualfindingsinthe
followingformat:First,wewillreviewtheCitysrecordatarbitration;second,wewillhighlight
9
OCA 000115
specificdeficiencieswithinthedisciplinaryprocessthathavecontributedtotheCitysfailureto
imposeconsistentdiscipline;third,wewilladdresstherelationshipbetweenOPDandtheOCA;
fourth,wewilladdressthelackofaccountabilitythathasallowedthesefailuresinthe
disciplinaryprocesstogouncorrected;andfifth,wewillreviewmorecloselyasinglecasethat
demonstratestheeffectsofadysfunctionaldisciplinesystem.
A.
OverviewoftheCitysArbitrationResults.
Aspartofourinvestigation,wereviewedthelast26OPDarbitrationsthattookplace
overthepastfiveyears.7Foreacharbitration,weconsideredtheDepartmentsInternalAffairs
investigation;thefindingsoftheEFRB/FRB,whereapplicable;theSkellyhearingofficers
report;theChiefsimpositionofdiscipline;allrelevantcorrespondenceproducedbytheOCAin
responsetoourdocumentrequests;thetranscriptsfromthearbitrationhearing;theparties
posthearingbriefs;andthearbitratorsdecision.
Thearbitratorupheldthedisciplineimposedinonlysevenof26arbitrations.Ofthe
sevencasesinwhichdisciplinewasupheld,fourcases,whichdatefrom2010,wererelated
mattersinvolvingofficerswhohadliedonsearchwarrantaffidavits.Ofthe19caseswherethe
disciplinewasnotupheld,arbitratorsvacatedthedisciplineentirelyin11cases.Infourofthe
remainingeightcases,thearbitratorsreducedthedisciplinetoacounselingmemorandumor
writtenreprimand.Thus,15ofthe26casesthatwenttoarbitrationinthepastfiveyearssaw
thedisciplineofsuspension,demotion,orterminationreducedtowrittenreprimandsorno
disciplineatall.
TheCityssuccessrateatarbitrationisevenlowerifwelookonlyatdecisionsduringthe
tenureofthecurrentCityAttorney,whotookofficeinJuly2011.Thirteenarbitrationstook
placeduringthatperiod.Inonlythreeofthosecasesdidthearbitratorupholdthediscipline;in
fourcases,thearbitratorreducedthedisciplineconsiderably(tworesultedonlyinwritten
reprimands);andintheremainingsixcases(almosthalf),thearbitratorsustainedthe
grievance,vacatingthedisciplineentirely.
Theseresultsarecauseforgraveconcern.Whattheysuggestisthat,inrecentyears,
theoddshavebeenveryhighthattheCitywillloseatarbitration.Tobeclear,wearenot
sayingthattheCityshouldalwayswin.Butthecasesthatmakeittothearbitrationstephave
undergoneanexhaustivereviewprocess.OPDhassupposedlythoroughlyreviewedand
investigatedtheallegations;theSkellyhearingofficerhasconsideredtheofficersargumentsin
mitigation;thecommandstructureatOPDhasconsideredallofitsavailableoptionsinlightof
thefindings;andtheChiefhasreachedadisciplinedecision.ThefactthattheCitycanmake
Forpurposesofthisanalysis,wetreatasseparatearbitrationsthosecasesinwhichtwoofficersgrievanceswere
groupedtogetherintoasinglearbitrationproceeding.
10
OCA 000116
thatdecisionstickinonlyasmallnumberofthesecases,evenaftersuchextensiveinvestigation
andreview,indicatesthattherearefundamentalproblemsinthedisciplineprocess.
TheOCAclaimsthatoneexplanationfortheCityspoorarbitrationresultsisthat
arbitratorstendtowanttosplitthebaby,imposingalevelofdisciplinesomewherebetween
upholdingtheDepartmentslevelofdisciplineandvacatingitentirely.SeeCitysJointReportat
5.Butthatisnotaccurate.Infact,arbitratorsappearedmorelikelytovacatethediscipline
entirelythantoawardsomethinginthemiddleofthepartiesrespectivepositions.
TheCitytakesamorefavorableviewofitswinlossrecordthanwedo.8SeeJoint
Reportat5.Forexample,theCitysreportportraysseveralarbitrationdecisionsreducing
suspensionstomerewrittenreprimandsascasesinwhichtheCityprevailedinitseffortto
imposediscipline.Id.at6.Inourview,anarbitrationwhereasuspensionisreducedtoa
writtenreprimandisnotevidencetheCityprevailedatarbitration.
ArecentarticleintheWallStreetJournalexaminingtheissueofpolicedisciplinestated
that[p]oliceunionswinreversalsormodificationsinmorethan60%ofdisciplinarycasesthat
gotoarbitrationnationwide.9InOakland,thenumberofUnionwinsisfarhigher.Duringthe
currentCityAttorneystenure,theUnionhaswonreversalsormodificationsinmorethan75%
ofdisciplinarycasesthatwenttoarbitration.AndpriortotheCourtsAugust2014order,the
Unionhadwonreversalsormodificationsofdisciplineinnineconsecutivearbitrations.These
statisticsalonesuggestthatthedisciplinaryprocessrequiresscrutiny.
B.
ShortcomingsintheDisciplinaryProcess.
OPDsdisciplinaryproceedingshavebeenplaguedwithbothproceduralandsubstantive
problems.Thissectionofthereportwilldescribetheshortcomingsourinvestigationrevealed,
fromOPDsrulesandpolicies,throughtheinvestigationanddisciplineprocess,topost
arbitrationfollowup.
WenotesomedifferencesbetweentheCityscalculationsandourown.First,theCityconsidersastwoseparate
arbitrationsacaseinvolvingtwoofficersandresultinginoneofficersdisciplinebeingupheldandtheother
officersdisciplinebeingreduced.SeeReportat6.Atthesametime,itconsidersasasingledecisionacasein
whichtwoofficersbothhadtheirdemotionsvacated.Id.Forpurposesofouranalysis,weconsistentlytreatcases
involvingtwoofficersastwoindividualcases.TheCityalsoconsideredonecasereducingaterminationtoa
writtenreprimandasreversed,althoughitconsideredothercasesresultinginreductionstowrittenreprimands
asUpheld/Modified.Id.Forpurposesofouranalysis,eventhoughthediscrepancybetweenthediscipline
imposedbytheDepartment(termination)andthefinaldiscipline(writtenreprimand)wasgreat,weconsidered
thiscaseasoneinwhichthearbitratorreducedthedisciplinebutdidnotreverseitentirely.
SeeZushaElinson,PunishmentofPoliceUnderScrutiny(WallStreetJournal,Nov.21,2014)(availableat
http://www.wsj.com/articles/punishmentofpoliceunderscrutiny1416598682).
11
OCA 000117
1.
OPDFailstoProvideClearRulesandPolicies.
ThepurposeofanIAinvestigationistodeterminewhethertherehasbeenaviolationof
Departmentrulesandpolicies.Clearinternalrulesandpoliciesareessentialtopredictableand
effectivediscipline.Aconsistentthemeinthearbitrationswereviewed,however,hasbeenthe
Departmentsfailuretoprovideclearrulesandpoliciesthatnotifyofficersof(1)whatconduct
isprohibited,and(2)whattheconsequencesareforaviolation.Arbitratorsregularlydeclineto
upholddisciplineiftheruleorpolicyatissueisvagueorunclear,especiallywherethe
Departmentfailedtoprovidetheofficerwithsuitabletrainingandguidancetounderstandthe
Departmentsexpectations.
ThefollowingareexamplesofcasesinwhicharbitratorsfoundtheDepartments
policiestobeinsufficientlycleartosupportdiscipline:10
ArbitrationL:
ThereisasignificantgapinOPDspublishedpoliciesForpurposesof
thisDecision,whatiskeyisthatthelanguageatissuewasdraftedby
OPD,andthereforeanyambiguityinthetextproperlyisheldagainstthe
Department.
ArbitrationQ:
Foranemployeetobedisciplinedforviolatingarule,theemployee
mustreceivenoticeoftheexistenceoftheruleaswellasnoticeofthe
consequencesfornotfollowingitAlthough[theDepartments
representative]firmlybelievedtherules.wereblackandwhitewith
noroomfordiscretionorflexibility,theCityhasnotestablishedthat
members,employeesorsupervisorsreceivedtrainingorwerealertedto
thisrigidview.
ArbitrationR:
TheessentialproblemfortheCityisthatthepolicytheyciteisnot
specificenoughtobecomethebasisofdisciplineinthiscase.Inour
case,theCityfailedinitsburdentoshowthataclearpolicy,oreven
training,existedtoguidetheGrievantinherdecision.
ArbitrationT:
[T]heCityhadtheobligationtomake[thescopeoftherule]clear.It
didnotdoso.Moreover,asbothCitywitnessesindicated,itdidnotdo
sointraining.Inshort,whateverthemeritsofitsviewtheCitydid
notclearlyandunambiguouslyestablishthescopeofprohibited
conduct.
10
Topreservetheconfidentialityandprivacyrightsofsubjectofficers,andforconsistencyandeaseofreference,
thisReportwillrefertothearbitrationsindividuallyasArbitrationA,ArbitrationB,andsoon.However,where
thearbitrationbecameamatterofpublicrecordduetoextensivemediacoverage,commentsbycounsel,orprior
courtproceedings,wedoreferencethesubjectofficersbyname.
12
OCA 000118
ArbitrationU:
TheGrievanthadnoadvancenoticeandtraininginthespecific
proceduresandtechniquesthattheIAinvestigatorandCityofficials
wouldlaterexpecthimtohavefollowed.Hewasalsounawarehewould
besubjecttodisciplinaryactionifhefailedtofollowthoseunknown
procedures.
ArbitrationV:
[T]heproblemwith[theCitys]argumentisthatneitherthepolicynor
thetrainingidentifieswhatconstitutesa[violation].
Foradisciplinarysystemtowork,therulesmustbeclear.Iftherulesareunclear,the
Departmentmightenforcethemunevenly,oratleastthatwillbetheperception.Thisseverely
limitstheCitysabilitytocomplywithTask45oftheNSA,whichrequiresthatdisciplinebe
imposedinafairandconsistentmanner.Andinthecontextofarbitrations,iftheDepartment
failstoimplementclearrulesandpoliciesthatcommunicateitsexpectations,theCitywill
continuetoseeitsdisciplinedecisionsundonebyarbitratorswhoaretroubledbyvaguerules
orinadequatetraining.
2.
InvestigationsFailtoConsiderAllRelevantFactsorWitnesses.
SincethesigningoftheNSA,theInternalAffairsDivisionhasimprovedthequalityofits
investigations,workproduct,andinvestigatortraining.Nevertheless,theinsufficiencyof
investigationsremainsaconsistentthemeinarbitrationsandisfrequentlycitedbyarbitrators
asajustificationforreversingOPDsdiscipline.
OnefactorcontributingtoinconsistentInternalAffairsinvestigationsishighturnover.
InvestigatorsinIADareregularlytransferredtootherassignments,andinrecentyearsthere
havebeenseveraldifferentcommandersofthedivision.Therearecertainlybenefitstohaving
officersmovethroughIADaspartoftheircareerpath,sinceitmeansmoreofficerswillbe
familiarwiththeDepartmentsinternaldisciplinefunctionandprocesses.Anditisapositive
developmentthatinrecentyearstheheadsofIADhavebeenpromotedtotopmanagement
positionsincluding,ofcourse,thecurrentChief,AssistantChief,andthreeDeputyChiefsas
itdemonstratesthatservingasIAcommanderisnotanobstacletoadvancementwithinthe
Department.
However,thehighturnoverrateinIADalsohasacost.Newinvestigatorsmustbe
trained.Newcommanderslaunchinitiativestheyareunabletocompletebeforetransferringto
anotherpositioninOPD.InthewordsofmorethanoneDepartmentofficial,theconstant
cyclingofofficersandcommandershasresultedinmattersfallingthroughthecracks.
Whetherbecauseofthehighturnoverrateorbecauseofmorepersistentcultural
problemsinthetrainingandsupervisionofinvestigators,itiscleartherecontinuetobe
deficienciesinIADthatcontributetopoorarbitrationresults.WefoundseveralcaseswhereIA
investigatorsfailedtointervieworidentifypotentiallycriticalfactwitnessesorfailedto
consideralltheevidence.Insomecases,thesefailuresgavearbitratorstheimpression,
13
OCA 000119
whetheraccurateornot,thattheinvestigationwasdirectedatupholdingacomplaintrather
thanreachinganobjectiveconclusion.Thesemistakesresultinlossesatarbitration.
ArbitrationB:
Thearbitratorexpresseddiscomfortwiththeunrelentingmannerin
whichevidencewasgatheredtosupportthechargeswithoutsufficient
considerationofalltherelevantfactsandevidence.Forexample,the
arbitratornotedtheinvestigationhadapparentlydisregardedthe
testimonyofanindependentwitnesswhocorroboratedthesubject
officersaccountofevents.Thearbitratorvacatedtheofficers
terminationandorderedthathebereinstatedtohisformerposition.
ArbitrationD:
Thiscaseinvolvedanofficersallegedlyfalsestatementsonsearch
warrants.TestimonyatarbitrationrevealedthattheIAinvestigatorhad
failedtointerviewthesubjectofficerspartnerwhohadpotentially
relevant,exculpatoryinformationaboutthecharges.Thearbitrator
foundtheinvestigatorsoversighttobeapersuasivepointinfavorofthe
grievant,explainingthat[i]itisafundamentalelementoftheMOUsjust
causeprovisionthattheinvestigationmustbethorough,fair,and
comprehensive.Citingthatfailureandothers,thearbitratorconcluded
thattheDepartmenthadarrivedatitsconclusionwithoutinterviewing
individualswhomayhavehadrelevantorexculpatoryinformation.The
arbitratorvacatedtheofficersterminationandorderedthathebe
reinstatedtohisformerpositionwithonlyawrittenreprimand.
ArbitrationU:
Theinvestigatorfailedtointerviewseveralwitnessesthesubjectofficer
hadidentifiedashavingpotentiallyexculpatoryinformation.Inpart
becauseofthisfailure,thearbitratorfoundtheinformationintheIA
reporttobeincomplete,biasedanddirectedatfindingthe[officer]
responsibleforintentionallyviolatinghisduties.Thearbitratorthus
ruledthatIAsfindingswerenotfairlyreachedorsupportedbyreliable,
relevant,andtruthfulevidence.Thearbitratorvacatedthesubject
officerssuspensionandorderedthattheCitypayupto$10,000ofthe
officersattorneysfeesfortheCitysbadfaith.
Becausetheabovecasesinvolvedchallengestodisciplineatthearbitrationstage,itis
notsurprisingtheyfocusedontheinvestigatorsfailuretoconsiderpotentiallyexculpatory
evidence.Ourconclusion,however,isnotthattheDepartmentsinvestigationsaretypically
biasedinfavoroffindingaviolation.Wehavealsoseeninstancesinwhichinvestigationsfailed
toincludeinterviewswithpotentiallyinculpatorywitnessesorwheretheinvestigatorsconduct
raisedquestionsaboutwhethertheinvestigatormighthavebeenbiasedinfavorofthesubject
officer.
14
OCA 000120
Forexample,inconnectionwiththeJimenezarbitration,theplaintiffsattorneyinthe
decedentswrongfuldeathactionagainsttheCitywasabletolocateacivilianwhoclaimedto
havewitnessedtheshooting.Theattorneyhadthecivilianeyewitnessdeposedinthecivil
proceedings,duringwhichthecivilianprovidedhisaccountoftheevents,includingthatthe
decedent,JodyMackWoodfoxIII,hadbeenrunningawayfromofficerswhenJimenezshot
himinthebackandkilledhim.ItappearsfromtheavailabledocumentationthatnoIA
investigatoreverinterviewedthisindividual,eventhoughamemberoftheCityAttorneys
Officeattendedthedepositionatwhichthistestimonywasprovided.
IssuesofpossibleinvestigatorbiasinfavorofthesubjectofficeralsoaroseinRoches
case.Asnotedabove,theDepartmentsinvestigationintowhetherRochesconductduringthe
OccupyOaklandprotestsconstitutedcriminalbehaviorconcludedthatRochehadnot
committedanycrime.AfterthearbitratororderedRochereinstated,however,oneofthe
sergeantswhohadinvestigatedthecasechangedherFacebookprofilepicturetoanimageofa
saintwithRochesface.TheinvestigatorsprofilepictureincludedthewordsWellDeserved
VictoryandSaintRob.
Foradisciplinedecisiontobefair,itmustbeunbiasedandbasedonfullconsideration
ofallrelevantfactsandthoroughinterviewswithallrelevantwitnesses.Thedangersofdoing
anythinglessareclear:officerswhoaredisciplinedmayfeeltheresultisnotfair,becausethe
disciplinewasbasedonanincompleteexamination,andofficerswholegitimatelyshouldbe
disciplinedmayprevailatarbitrationbecausethearbitratorfindsthattheinvestigationwas
incomplete.Bothresultsaretoxictoafunctioningdisciplinesystemanddiminishthepublics
faithintheprocess.
3.
Supervisors.
Underthejustcausestandard,employersmustshowtheyhaveimposeddisciplineina
fairandevenhandedmanner.Inpolicearbitrations,thismeanstheDepartmentmusthave
consideredtheculpabilitynotjustoftheofficerwhoisthesubjectofthecomplaintbutalsoof
supervisorsandcommandlevelrepresentativeswhoseownfailingsinsupervision,trainingor
directionmighthavecontributedtoorfacilitatedtheofficersmisconduct.Inseveralcases,
arbitratorshaveconcludedthattheDepartmentfocuseditsdisciplineonlowerlevelofficersto
theexclusionoftheirpeersorsuperiors.Inthesecases,thearbitratorsfoundtheDepartment
appearedmoreintentondemonstratingthatittooksomeactioninresponsetomisconduct
thanonseekingtoidentifyhowwidespreadthemisconductactuallywasorhowhighupinthe
Departmentitreached.
ThefollowingaresomeexamplesofcasesinwhicharbitratorscriticizedtheDepartment
forfailingtoconsideradequatelytheresponsibilityofsupervisors:
ArbitrationB:
AttheheartoftheCitysargumentisthecontentionthattheGrievant
actedoutsidethescopeofwhathiscommandershadapproved.This
15
OCA 000121
contentionisunsupportedbytheevidence.[Thegrievantslieutenant]
unequivocallyexplainedthattheGrievantexecutedtheplanwhichhad
beenapprovedbyhissuperiorsatthecommandpost
WhenitsubsequentlydevelopedthattheGrievantwasbeingcharged
withaseriousviolation,[hislieutenant]wasbeingchargedwithaless
seriousviolation,and[theDeputyChief]wasnotbeingchargedwithany
violation,[theGrievantslieutenant]wasastonished.
Consistentwiththearbitratorsdetermination,theGrievantwas
awardedamedalofcommendationforthesameeventswhicharethe
subjectofdisciplinaryactionandnoneofhissupervisorshavebeen
disciplinedfortheirparticipationintheincident.
ArbitrationL:
IfindtheDepartmentactedimproperlyinsinglingout[theGrievant]for
discipline,whenotherswithinOPD(includingothersseniorinrankto
[Grievant])alsowerepresentandparticipatingindecisionmaking(or,per
OPDpolicies,shouldhavebeenparticipatingindecisionmaking),but
werenotsimilarlyheldaccountable
IfOPDisgoingtohold[Grievant]toastrictinterpretationoftheGeneral
Orderswhenjustifyingitsdecisiontoterminatehim,thenitisreasonable
toquestionwhyotherOPDpersonnelarenotheldtoasimilarlystrict
readingoftheGeneralOrders
InthisArbitratorsviewtheCitysdecisiontosingleout[Grievant]for
disciplinedoesnotadequatelyrecognizetheresponsibilityofothers
includingtheirorganizationalpeers,andalsosomeofthesenior
managementoftheDepartment.[T]hedecisiontodiscipline[Grievant]
hastheappearanceoftheDepartmentneedingtoholdsomeone
individuallyaccountablebutnotconsideringthepossibilitythatsenior
levelmanagementdecisionsalsocontributedtothechainofevents.
ArbitrationU:
TheDepartmentallegedthatanofficerhadintentionallyfailedtotake
reportsofexcessiveforcefromseveralarresteesfollowingaprotest.The
subjectofficerclaimedhehadsimplybeenfollowinginstructionsfrom
severalcommandingofficerswhowerepresentonthesceneashewas
compilingthereports.TheIAinvestigatorneverinterviewedtwoofthe
threesupervisorswhomthesubjectofficerhadidentifiedasproviding
thoseinstructions,andtheDepartmentmadenoefforttodetermine
whetheranyofthesupervisorsboreculpabilityforthesubjectofficers
allegedviolation.
16
OCA 000122
Nodisciplinarysystemcanbeeffectiveifitisperceivedasfocusingontheculpabilityof
lowerlevelofficerswithoutadequatelyconsideringtheresponsibilityofsupervisors,as
requiredbyTask16oftheNSA.Itcouldwellbethatthesupervisorsintheabovecasesand
othersdidnothingwrong,butOPDsfailuretoconductathoroughevaluationoftheir
culpabilityhasundermineddisciplinecasesandcontributedtoreversalsatarbitration.
4.
OPDsProcessforDeterminingDisciplineRendersThoseDecisionsVulnerable
toAttack.
AftertheIAinvestigationconcludes,theDepartmentmustdecidewhethertodiscipline
thesubjectofficerand,ifso,whatlevelofdisciplinetoimpose.Thereareseveralstagestothis
process,includingthePreDisciplineReport,theChiefsdisciplinarydecision,andtheSkelly
hearing.Thisprocesstooofteninvolvesinconsistent,disjointed,andevencontradictory
recommendationsanddecisions.
a. InconsistentRecommendationsinthePreDisciplineReport.
WhenIAdeterminesthatanallegationissustained,allindividualsinthesubjectofficers
chainofcommandincludingthesergeant,lieutenant,andcaptaincompleteawrittenPre
DisciplineReportstatingtheirrecommendedlevelofdisciplinefortheoffense.These
recommendationsareforwardedtotheChief,whomakesthefinaldecisiononimposing
discipline.WeunderstandthatthePreDisciplineReportpracticewasdesignedtoensurethat
allindividualsinanofficerschainofcommandtakeownershipofthedisciplinaryprocess
throughdocumentingtheiranalysisandrecommendationsforappropriatediscipline.For
example,whenasergeantsubmitsasigneddisciplinaryrecommendationforanofficerunder
thesergeantscommand,thatsergeantsparticipationhelpstoensurethatdisciplineremainsa
Departmentwideresponsibilityandisnotentrustedsolelytothehighestrankingindividuals.
However,numerouswitnessestoldusthatthePreDisciplineReportprocessmakesit
unnecessarilydifficultfortheDepartmenttoenforcedisciplineatarbitrationbecausethe
reportcancreateadisparateevidentiaryrecordtheUnioncouldlateruseagainstthe
Department.Forexample,ifoneoftheindividualsinthechainofcommandrecommendsa
levelofdisciplinesignificantlylowerthanthedisciplinetheChiefultimatelyimposes,theUnion
mightofferthePreDisciplineReportinarbitrationtosuggestthattheChiefsdecisionwas
overlyharsh.Whileweunderstandandappreciatethebenefitsofthispractice,wealso
recognizethehurdlesithasposedtoupholdingdisciplineinsomecases.
b. LackofEvidencetoSupporttheChiefsDisciplinaryDecision.
Insomecaseswereviewed,itwasuncleartoarbitratorswhatbasistheChiefhadfor
selectingaparticularlevelofdisciplinewheretherewassignificantcontradictoryevidencein
therecord.Thislackofclarityunderminedthedisciplinedecisioninsomecases.
InArbitrationU,forexample,theofficerscompletingthePreDisciplineReport
unanimouslyrecommendedafivedaysuspensionwithtwodaysheldinabeyance.However,
17
OCA 000123
thethenChief,withoutanyexplanation,anddespitemitigatingevidence,imposedfivedays
suspensionwithnodaysheldinabeyance.ItisunclearwhatbasistheChiefhadfordeparting
upwardfromtheunanimousrecommendationinthePreDisciplineReport.Thearbitrator
commentedonthisapparentconfusion,notingthatitisunclearwhethertheChiefwasaware
thatthereviewershadrecommendedthattwoofthesuspensiondaysbeheldinabeyanceor,
ifheweresoaware,whyhedisagreedwiththeirrecommendation.TheChiefsfailureto
explainhisdecisioncreatedtheimpressionthattheDepartmentdidnotpaysufficientattention
toitsownprocessesorrecommendations,anditcontributedtothearbitratorsdecisionto
reducethedisciplineimposed.
Similarly,inArbitrationB,theDepartmentattemptedtoterminateanofficerbasedin
partonhisallegedinappropriateresponsetoadangeroussituationfollowingtheshootingof
anotherofficer.Shortlyaftertheincident,thethenChiefhadawardedthesubjectofficerthe
DepartmentsMedalofMeritinrecognitionofhisperformance.Afteracivillawsuitwasfiled
againsttheCity,however,theChiefaskedthatthemedalbewithdrawn,andtheDepartment
attemptedtoterminatetheofficerbasedontheverysameincidentforwhichithadearlier
awardedhimoneofitshighesthonors.Invacatingthedisciplineandorderingthattheofficer
bereinstated,thearbitratoralsonotedaspersuasivethattheofficerwasawardedamedalof
commendationforthesameeventswhicharethesubjectofdisciplinaryaction.Again,the
Chiefsfailuretoexplainthediscrepancywascitedbythearbitratorasareasontoreducethe
discipline.
c. ProblemswithSkellyOfficerSelectionandPerformance.
OncetheChiefhasmadeaninitialdeterminationoftheappropriatelevelofdisciplineto
impose,thesubjectofficerhastherighttopresentmitigatingorexculpatoryevidenceata
Skellyhearing.UponreceivingnoticeofanofficersrequestforaSkellyhearing,OPD
administrativestaffschedulesthehearingdateandassignsanavailablehearingofficerwhois
notinthesubjectofficersdirectchainofcommand.TheDepartmentsDeputyChiefsand
captainsarealleligibletoserveashearingofficers,withDeputyChiefsbeingassignedtohear
themostseriouscases.Fromourinterviews,itappearstheDepartmentassignshearing
officerstocasesbasedprimarilyonwhicheligibleDeputyChieforcaptainisavailabletohear
thecaseratherthanonwhoisbestqualifiedtoconsiderthesubjectmatter.
SeveralwitnessesweinterviewedexpressedconcernsthatindividualSkellyhearing
officersapplyinconsistentstandards,andthatanofficerschancesofhavingdisciplinereduced
orvacatedattheSkellystagedependinpartonwhichhearingofficerisassignedtothecase.
Severalwitnessesexpressedconcernthathearingofficersmaybeconflictedininstanceswhere
they(asfellowofficersoftheDepartment)arerepresentedbythesamelawfirmand,insome
cases,eventheverysameattorneythatrepresentsthesubjectofficersappearingbefore
them.
18
OCA 000124
AbiasedorincorrectSkellyrecommendationcanhavedamagingeffectsonthe
disciplineprocess.AlthoughtheChiefisfreetodisregardaSkellyofficersrecommendation,in
arbitrationtheUnionoftenusesdisagreementbetweentheChiefandtheSkellyofficertocast
doubtonthefinallevelofdiscipline,evengoingsofarastocalltheSkellyofficerasawitnessat
arbitrationtotestifyaboutthedisagreement.Fromourreview,thathasbeenaneffective
tactic.Inaddition,theperceptionthatthelikelyoutcomeofaSkellyhearingdependsonwhich
officerisassignedtohearthecaseunderminesOPDseffortstobuildconfidenceinits
discipline.
ToassesstheperformanceofSkellyhearingofficers,wereviewedallInternalAffairs
casesthatresultedinSkellyhearingsoverthelastfiveyears,regardlesswhetherthosecases
proceededtoarbitration.ForeachSkellyhearing,wenotedwhoservedastheSkellyhearing
officer,thelevelofdisciplinerecommendedbeforethehearing,theSkellyofficersfindingand
recommendation,thelevelofdisciplinefollowingthehearing,andanyothernotablefeatures
ofthecase.Intotal,wecompiledandreviewedstatisticsfor27differentSkellyhearingofficers
throughapproximately200Skellyhearings.
Becauseeachcaseisdifferent,itisdifficulttoknowforcertainwhetherhearingofficers
applysimilarstandardsindecidingcases.However,fromareviewofallSkellydecisionsover
thepastfiveyears,itappearstheoutcomemaybeaffectedbywhichhearingofficergetsthe
case.Forexample,oneSkellyhearingofficerwereviewedheard28casesandrecommended
sustainingthedisciplinein18cases,reducingthedisciplinein6,andvacatingthedisciplinein4.
Ofthe18caseswherethehearingofficerhadrecommendedsustainingthediscipline,though,
7involvedofficerswhoeitherdidnotevenshowuptotheSkellyhearingorshoweduponlyto
admitresponsibilityandacceptthediscipline.
Byalmostanymeasure,thesenumbersputthisparticularSkellyofficerdramaticallyout
oflinewiththedecisionsofotherSkellyofficers.Forexample,intheperiodwereviewedfrom
2009to2014,theDepartmentheldalmost200Skellyhearings.Inthosecases,Skellyofficers
recommendedvacatingthedisciplineentirelyinjust7cases.ThisparticularSkellyofficerheard
onlyabout15%ofthetotalcases,buthewaspersonallyresponsibleformorethanhalfofthe
recommendationstovacatetheChiefsdisciplinarydecisions.Anecdotally,wealsoheardfrom
severalwitnessesthatthisparticularSkellyofficersdecisionsweremorelikelytobefavorable
tosubjectofficersthanwerethoseofotherSkellyofficers.
AnotherproblemwehavenotedisthatSkellyofficerssometimesdonotleavea
sufficientrecordoftheirinvestigationtoprotecttheirdecisionfromattackatarbitration.Skelly
hearingofficershavetheauthoritytorequestadditionalinvestigationintounresolvedissues,
includinggatheringadditionalevidenceorfurtherinterviewsofrelevantwitnesses.IfaSkelly
hearingofficer,beforeissuingadecision,ensuresthattheinvestigationiscompletebyordering
moreinvestigationifnecessary,andifheorshemakesarecordofhavingreviewedallofthe
evidence,theDepartmentshouldnothavetostrugglewithallegationsofanincompleteor
biasedinvestigationatthearbitrationstage.
19
OCA 000125
5.
TheOCAsLackofMeaningfulParticipationinOPDInvestigationsor
DisciplinaryDecisionsUnderminesDisciplineCases.
Inseveralcases,theOCAfailedtoprovideOPDwiththehelpitneededinits
investigationordisciplinarydecisions.ItistruethattheOCAhasbeenaffectedbystaffand
budgetcutsinrecentyears,buttheabsenceofOCAattorneysfromkeystagesofthe
investigationandimpositionofdisciplinehasharmedtheentiredisciplineprocess.TheCitys
caseatarbitrationisshapedlargelybytheDepartmentsdecisionsandactionsduringthe
investigationandimpositionofdiscipline.ThecasessufferwhentheDepartmenthastomake
thosedecisionswithoutmeaningfulparticipationfromcounsel.11
OneexampleofthisinvolvesthedraftingoftheDepartmentsLetterofIntentto
Discipline.TheletterisprovidedtothesubjectofficeraftertheChiefmakesafinal
determinationregardingdiscipline.Itisacriticallyimportantdocumentthatsetsthe
frameworkforanydisciplineimposed;ifaparticularbasisfordisciplineisnotincludedinthe
letter,itcannotbeincludedaspartoftheCityscaseatarbitration.Ineffect,theletterserves
asthechargingdocument,anditshouldbereviewedbycounsel.ItappearsOCAhas
traditionallyplayednoroleinreviewingordraftingthisletter.Infact,itappearsOPDhasbeen
usingaformlettercompletedbyadministrativestaff.
ArbitrationVprovidesavividdemonstrationoftheproblem.CounselfortheCityhad
arguedthattheofficersconductviolatedtheDepartmentscrowdcontrolpolicy.The
arbitratorrejectedtheargument,explainingthattheDepartmenthadnotpreviouslycharged
theofficerwithviolatingthatpolicy.TheOCAalsoarguedtheofficercouldbedisciplinedfor
misusingaweaponinattemptingtocontrolprotesters.Althoughthearbitratorconcededthat
itmaybethatsuchausewouldbeaviolation,henotedtheCityhadsimilarlyfailedto
identifythatpolicyasaviolationinitsnoticetotheemployee.Thus,theCitywasprecluded
fromraisingeitherofthetwopoliciesasabasisforthediscipline.Theseproblemsmighthave
beenavoidedifcounselhadbeeninvolvedindraftingthenotice.
TheOCAslackofinvolvementintheinvestigationanddisciplineprocesshasother
damagingconsequences.Forexample,severalwitnessessharedwithusthatsome
investigatorsareinexperiencedininterviewtechniquesorunclearhowaninterviewmaybe
usedatarbitration.OCAattorneyscouldtraintheseinvestigatorsorparticipateinimportant
interviews.Theycouldalsohelptoensurethattheinvestigatorsinterviewtherightwitnesses,
asktheappropriatequestions,andgatherthenecessaryevidence.Butforthemostpart,OCA
hasnotdonethesethings,oftenwaitinguntilshortlybeforethearbitrationhearingbefore
becomingactivelyinvolvedinthecase.
11
Ofcourse,fortheOCAtobeinvolvedinameaningfulway,theDepartmentmustgivetheOCAsufficienttimeto
researchtheissuesandprovidecompetentadvice.WeobservedseveralinstancesinwhichofficerssenttheOCA
requestsforlegaladviceonlyadayortwobeforetheyneededananswer.
20
OCA 000126
EvenwhentheOCAisinvolvedintheprocess,however,itsinvolvementhasfrequently
beenunproductive.Thedecisionofwhetherandhowtodisciplineanofficerisadifficultone,
andOPDshouldhavethebenefitofcounselsadvicewhenitneedsit.WhiletheOCAhasbeen
involvedinsomeofthesedecisions,numerouswitnessestoldusthatOCAattorneysareoften
unwillingtoprovideclearadvicetotheDepartmentandinsteadhedgetheiropinionsinan
efforttoavoidtakingapositionthatcouldlaterbeprovenwrong.Andinsomecases,theOCA
tooksolongtorespondthatOPDhadnochoicebuttoproceedwithoutlegaladvice.
6.
TheOCAsDelayinPreparingorAssigningCasestoOutsideCounsel
UnderminesDisciplineCases.
WhentheCityAttorneysOfficereceivesnoticethatanofficerhasrequested
arbitration,theofficeopensacasefileandrequeststheofficerspersonnelfile.Afterthat,
though,thecasehastendedtolanguishformonths,oftenuntiljustamonthorevenafew
weeksbeforethearbitrationhearing,whentheOCAfinallybeginstoprepareforthehearingor
assignsthecasetooutsidecounsel.
a. FailuretoPrepare.
ArbitrationUprovidesacompellingexampleoftheeffectsofOCAsfailingtoprepare
sufficientlyforadisciplinarycase.InFebruary2013,lawyersfortheUnionnotifiedtheCity
AttorneysOfficethatthesubjectofficerwasgrievinghisfivedaysuspensiontoarbitration.
Uponreceivingnoticeoftheofficersarbitrationrequest,aDeputyCityAttorneyrequestedthat
acasebeopenedforthematterandassignedtoher,andthattheofficerspersonneland
disciplinaryfilesbetransferredtoheroffice.
InSeptember2013,sevenmonthsaftertheOCAreceivedthecase,theUnionattorney
andtheDeputyCityAttorneyselectedanarbitratorandagreedonaDecemberdateforthe
arbitrationhearing.However,approximatelytwoweeksbeforethathearing,theDeputyCity
Attorneycontactedthearbitratortorequestacontinuance,citingabusyworkscheduleand
insufficienttimetoprepareforthehearing.Thearbitratordeniedtherequest,notingthatthe
sameDeputyCityAttorneyhadagreedtotheDecemberhearingdateseveralmonthsearlier.
OnDecember5,2013,thedayofthearbitration,theDeputyCityAttorneyarrivedan
hourlatetothearbitrationhearing.Whenthehearingbegan,theUnionattorneystatedonthe
recordthatshebelievedtheDeputyCityAttorneywassounpreparedthattheCitywasactingin
badfaithbyproceeding.Forexample,theUnionattorneynotedthattheDeputyCityAttorney
hadwaiteduntilthedaybeforethearbitrationhearingtoprovidetheUnionwithawitnesslist,
whichcontainedthenamesofindividualstheUnionknewtheDeputyCityAttorneyhadnot
contactedanddidnotintendtocallatthearbitration.
ThearbitratoraskedtheDeputyCityAttorneytorespondtotheallegations.Onthe
record,theDeputyCityAttorneyexplainedthatthecasehadbeenhandedtoheratthelast
minute,eventhoughshehadreceivednoticeofthearbitrationalmost10monthsearlier.The
21
OCA 000127
DeputyCityAttorneyalsostatedontherecordthatshehadnotbegunpreparingforthecase
untilthedaybeforethearbitrationhearing.AstheDeputyCityAttorneystated:Thewitness
listthatIproducedwasIstatedinmyemail,whichIccdthearbitratoron,thatthiswasa
tentativewitnesslistasIwasjustnowbeginningtoprepareforthecase,andthatwas
yesterday.
Duringopeningstatements,theDeputyCityAttorneyappearedconfusedaboutthe
factsofthecaseandtherelevantstagesofOPDsdisciplinaryprocess.Afteropening
statements,shecalledonlyasinglewitnesstheformerChief,whomtheUnionhadbroughtto
thehearingandhadidentifiedassupportingitscase.ItsoonbecameclearthattheDeputyCity
Attorneyhaddonenothingtocontactthewitnesspriortothehearing.Despitebeingcalledby
theCity,theformerChieftestifiedagainsttheCityscase,disagreeingwiththelevelof
disciplineandexplainingthathenowbelievedthatthesuspensionshouldhavebeenreduced
toawrittenreprimand.TheDeputyCityAttorneyappearedunawarethattheformerChiefs
testimonywoulddifferfromhisearlierdecisionondiscipline.
Followingthissinglewitnesssdamagingtestimony,theDeputyCityAttorneyrestedand
callednofurtherwitnessesnottheIAinvestigator;notanyoftheDepartmentofficialswho
hadreviewedandapprovedthefindings;andnottheseveralcivilianswhoallegedlyhad
informationthatwouldbehelpfultotheCity.Aswithallthearbitrations,theCity,asemployer,
hadtheburdenofestablishingjustcausetoimposethediscipline.Inthisinstance,however,
theonlytestimonytheOCApresentedinsupportofthedisciplinewasthatofasinglewitness
whobelievedtheCitywaswrongtoimposethediscipline.TheUnionthencalledtwo
thoroughlypreparedwitnesseswhobothtestifiedpersuasivelyagainstthediscipline.
Inthearbitratorswrittendecision,thearbitratorreferredtothecaseasextraordinary
andheldthattheCityhadcommittedanegregiousviolationofthepartiescollective
bargainingagreementbydiscipliningtheofficerwithoutanysupportingevidence.Withno
witnesstestimonytosupporttheCityspositionandwithconsiderabletestimonyand
evidenceinoppositionthearbitratorruledthattheCityhadfailedtoproveanyelementof
justcause,muchlessallofthem.ThearbitratoralsoruledthattheCityfailedtoprovethatit
treatedtheGrievantfairlyduringtheadministrativeIAinvestigationandsubsequentreview
process,orthatitseriouslyandfairlyprovidedtheGrievantthedueprocessthatisrequiredby
Skelly[]andtheMOUsgrievanceprocedure.
Thearbitratorsustainedthegrievance,vacatedthesuspension,andorderedthatthe
officerreceivebackpaywithinterestfortheperiodhehadbeenonsuspension.Thearbitrator
alsoruledthattheCityhadactedarbitrarily,capriciously,andinbadfaithbyimposingthe
disciplineandproceedingtoarbitration.Accordingly,inadditiontoawardingbackpaywith
interest,thearbitratoralsoorderedthattheCitypayupto$10,000oftheofficersattorneys
fees.
22
OCA 000128
Whilethisisadmittedlyanextremeexampleoflackofpreparedness,itwasfarfromthe
onlyonethatwelearnedofinourinvestigation.Timeandagain,witnessestoldusthatthe
OCAhadbeencontactedthematthelastminutefrequentlytheweekbeforethehearing
andpreparedthemfortestimonyinacursoryfashion.Thiswasinmarkedcontrastwiththe
early,repeated,andcomprehensivepreparationthatUnionwitnessestoldustheyunderwent.
b. DelayinAssigningCasestoOutsideCounsel.
Innearlyallofthepolicearbitrationssince2011,theCityAttorneysOfficehasengaged
outsidecounselfromprivatelawfirmstorepresenttheCity.AccordingtotheOCA,ithashired
outsidecounselinthesecasesbecauseseveralyearsofstaffreductionsandbudgetcutshave
leftitunabletohandlethearbitrationsinternally.Inseveralcases,however,theOCAwaitedso
longtoretainaprivateattorneyinonecase,untiljustoneweekbeforethearbitrationthat
itsdelayvirtuallyguaranteedfailure.
ThereisnogoodreasonfortheOCAsdelaysinpreparingcasesorassigningthemto
outsidecounsel;ineachcase,theOCAreceivedtimelynoticeofthearbitrationdemandand
hadplentyoftimetoprepareforthehearinginternallyortoidentifyandengageoutside
counsel.Thefollowingareexamplesofpolicearbitrationsthatwerenottimelyassignedto
outsidecounsel:
ArbitrationS:
TheOCAreceivednoticeofthearbitrationbyNovember16,2012and
scheduledthearbitrationforSeptember1617,2013.However,itdid
notbegincontactingoutsidecounseltohandlethecaseuntillateAugust
2013almost10monthsafteritreceivedthecase.TheCityAttorney
selectedanoutsidefirmonAugust29,2013.Outsidecounselreceived
thecasefileandconductedaninitialreviewonoraboutSeptember4,
2013,leavingcounselonly12daystoprepareforthearbitration.
Ultimately,thearbitratorsustainedthegrievanceinpart,reducingthe
threedaysuspensiontoawrittenreprimand.
ArbitrationT:
TheOCAreceivednotificationofthearbitrationrequestbyNovember15,
2012,whenaDeputyCityAttorneyrequestedthattheOCAopenacase
fileonthematterandassignittoher.TheOCAlaterselectedan
arbitratorandscheduledthearbitrationhearingforOctober18,2013.
TheOCAassignedthemattertooutsidecounselonOctober11,2013
oneweekbeforethearbitrationhearing.Thearbitratorsustainedthe
grievance,vacatingtheofficers10daysuspension.
ArbitrationO:
TheOCAreceivednotificationoftheofficersgrievancebyMay21,2012.
Thepartieslaterselectedanarbitratorandscheduledthehearingfor
September18,2012.TheOCAapparentlydidnothingtoprepareor
engageoutsidecounseluntilitwastoolate,however,becausetheOCA
unilaterallycancelledthearbitrationhearing.Inassigningthecaseto
23
OCA 000129
outsidecounselonSeptember26morethanaweekaftertheinitial
hearingdatetheDeputyCityAttorneynotedthatboththearbitrator
andtheUnionattorneywerenothappywiththeOCAforcancellingthe
initialhearingdate.TheCitywentontoloseatarbitration,withthe
arbitratorvacatingtheofficersfivedaysuspensionandawardingfull
backpay.
ArbitrationR:
ThepartiesscheduledthearbitrationhearingforSeptember9,2013.
However,theOCAdidnotselectanoutsidefirmuntilAugust13,2013
lessthanamonthbeforethehearingdate.TheOCAsrecordsonthis
pointarenotclear,butitappearsthefirmbeganworkonthecaseonor
aboutAugust20,2013,leavingcounselonlyabout20daystopreparefor
thearbitration.Followingthearbitrationproceedings,thearbitrator
reducedtheofficers10daysuspensiontoamerewrittenreprimand.
PerhapsevenmoretroublingthantheOCAshandlingofthesecasesisitsunwillingness
toconcedeitsmistakes.Forexample,inresponsetoanEastBayExpressarticlethatwashighly
criticaloftheOCAshandlingoftheRochearbitration,includingitsdecisiontosendthematter
tooutsidecounselshortlybeforethehearing,CityAttorneyBarbaraParkerherselfwroteto
defendherofficesperformanceanddemandthattheEastBayExpressissueacorrection.12In
hercomment,theCityAttorneymadeseveralclaimsaboutherofficeshandlingofthecase,
includingthattimingoftheassignmentwasnotafactorintheoutcomeofthecase,andthat
theattorneywhohandledthecaseactuallywasassignedinFebruary,aboutamonthanda
halfbeforethehearing.
TheCityAttorneysclaimdoesnottellthewholestory.InternalOCArecordsshowthat
theofficereceivedformalnotificationofRochesarbitrationdemandnolaterthanNovember
12,2013.DuringthethreeandahalfmonthstheOCAhadthecase,itappearstheOCAdidno
substantiveworktoprepareforthearbitration.Thecasewaseventuallyassignedtoanoutside
lawfirmonFebruary27,2014.However,theattorneywhomtheOCAintendedtohandlethe
casewasnotavailableforanApril7arbitration,sohercolleaguetookoverascounsel.Records
showthattheattorneywhohandledthearbitrationhearingdidnotevenconducta
preliminaryreviewofthefileuntilMarch14only24daysbeforethearbitration.
Moretothepoint,itisalarmingthattheCityAttorneybelievesthatthetimingofthis
assignmentwasnotafactorintheoutcomeofthecase.TheUnionhadbeenworkingupthe
caseformonths,anditisclearfromtherecordofthehearingthatitsattorneysspentlong
hourspreparingwitnessesanddevelopingastrategyforthehearing.Incontrast,theattorney
representingtheCitywashandedthecasewhichapparentlyhadnotbeenworkedupinany
12
SeeAliWinston,WhyCantOaklandFireBadCops?(EastBayExpress,Sept.17,2014)(availableat
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/whyoaklandcantfirebadcops/Content?oid=4074076).
24
OCA 000130
wayforarbitrationjustoverthreeweeksbeforethehearing.Havingreviewedthetranscript
ofthehearingandhavingspokentomanyindividualsinvolvedinthecase,wecansay
categoricallythatthismismatchinpreparationofthetwosideshadaneffectontheoutcome.
ItisnotjusttheCityAttorneywhoclaimsOCAsdelayinchoosingoutsidecounselhad
littleeffectontheoutcomeofarbitrations.ThisargumentisalsomadeintheCitysJoint
ReportsignedbytheChiefofPoliceandthethenInterimCityAdministrator.TheReportnotes
that,
due to insufficient staffing and personnel issues, timing of assignment of
arbitrations to counsel was not optimal in some cases. In all cases except
possiblyone,timingoftheassignmentdoesnotappeartohavebeenafactorin
the outcome of the arbitration. In that nontermination case, which did not
involveuseofforcebytheofficer,longerleadtimewouldhaveallowedcounsel
moretimetoprepare.However,thearbitratorsdecisionnotedthattheparties
were thoroughly and competently represented by their respective advocates
throughoutthehearing.
SeeJointReportat25.
Thisraisesseveralconcerns:
First,wearetroubledthattheChief,theCityAttorney,andtheCityAdministratorhave
allattemptedtodownplaythenegativeeffectsofassigningcasestooutsidecounselshortly
beforethearbitrationhearing.Wequestionwhatgavetheseindividualsconfidencethat
handlingcasesinthishaphazardmanner,including,forexample,byassigningoutsidecounsel
toanarbitrationoneweekbeforethehearing,doesnotappeartohavebeenafactorinthe
outcome.
Second,assigningcasestooutsidecounseljustdaysorweeksbeforearbitrationhashad
aneffectontheCitysrecordatarbitration.Unionattorneysoftenspendseveralmonths
diligentlypreparingtheircase,identifyingandworkingwiththeirwitnesses,closelyanalyzing
theevidence,andperfectingtheirtrialstrategy.TheCitysoutsidecounseloftenreceivesthe
casefilejustweeksbeforethehearing,withlittletimetoprepareastrategyforthehearing,
muchlesstoidentify,locate,andpreparewitnesses.WespokewithseveralOPDwitnesses
whosaidtheyhadreceivednoticeofhearingsfromoutsidecounseljustdaysbeforetheyhad
totestify,andwhodescribedpreparationfortestimonythatwasplainlyinadequate.An
attorneywhohasjustweekstoprepareforahearingisatanenormousdisadvantageagainst
anattorneywhohaspreparedformonths.Ourreviewofthetranscriptsofthesehearings
bearsthisout:Unionattorneysandwitnessesareconsistentlybetterprepared.
Third,theOCAsinadequatestaffingisnotanexcuseforfailingtoassigncasesto
outsidecounselinatimelymanner.Inadequatestaffingmaybeareasontohireoutside
counselinthefirstplace,butitdoesnotjustifywaitinguntilthelastminutetodoso.
25
OCA 000131
Andfourth,unliketheCity,wedonottakecomfortinthefactthatanarbitratorstated
inawrittendecisionthatthepartieswerethoroughlyandcompetentlyrepresented.Whatever
themotivationforanarbitratortomakesuchastatement,therecordsofthesearbitrations
showthatrepresentationfortheCityinmanyinstanceswasfarfromthorough.Indeed,in
ArbitrationU,inwhichtheOCAfailedtocallasinglefavorablewitnessorsubmitanynon
hearsayevidenceinsupportofthediscipline,thearbitratornotedthatbothpartieshad
receivedeffectiverepresentationandthendemandedtheCitypayupto$10,000ofthe
subjectofficersattorneyfeesforproceedinginbadfaith.
7.
TheOCAsProcessforSelectingOutsideCounselHasBeenIneffective.
TheCityAttorneysOfficeestablishedthecurrentprotocolforselectingoutsidecounsel
shortlyafterthecurrentCityAttorneytookofficeinJuly2011.TheOCApurportedlyenacted
thischangetoincreasetransparency,improvetheuseofobjectivecriteriainevaluatingoutside
counsel,andbroadenthepoolofqualifiedlawfirmsthatcouldbeconsideredforCity
contracts.13ThecurrentselectionprotocolincludesaRequestforQualifications(RFQ)by
whichprivatelawfirmsmayseektobeincludedinalistoffirmsapprovedforhandlinglegal
mattersfortheCity.AccordingtotheOCA,[s]electionofoutsidecounselforallmatters,
includingarbitrations,isbasedonexpertiseintherelevantpracticeareas,qualityofwork,
commitmenttocontrollingcosts,adherencetobudgets,thefirmsdiversity,andwhetherthe
firmislocal(Oaklandbased).IftheOCAdeterminesafirmmeetsthequalificationsfora
particulartypeoflegalassignment,thatfirmsnamewillbeaddedtoalistoffirmseligibleto
receiveworkinthatsubjectmatter.
Underthecurrentprotocol,whentheOCAdeterminesthatamattershouldbeassigned
tooutsidecounsel,theassignedDeputyCityAttorneyselectsatleastthreefirmsfromthelistof
qualifiedfirms.TheDeputyCityAttorneycontactseachfirmtodetermine:(1)whatratethe
firmwillcharge;(2)thefirmsproposednottoexceedamount;and(3)whichattorney(s)atthe
firmwillhandlethematter.TheDeputyCityAttorneythenforwardsthatinformationtothe
ChiefAssistantCityAttorney,notingwhetherthefirmsarediverseand/orbasedinOakland,
andmakingarecommendationofwhichfirmshouldberetained.TheChiefAssistantCity
AttorneysendsarecommendationtotheCityAttorney,whohasfinaldecisionmaking
authorityanddiscretiontochooseadifferentfirmifnecessary.Ifaparticularmatterisurgent,
orifthelistdoesnotincludesufficientlyqualifiedfirms,theCityAttorneyalsohasdiscretionto
contactotherfirmsnotonthelist.
AlthoughtheOCAscurrentselectionprotocolforoutsidecounselwasapparently
intendedtoincreasetransparencyandobjectivity,inpracticeitisnotsignificantlydifferent
fromtheunstructuredprocessitreplaced,anditraisesseveralconcerns.
13
UndertheearlierselectionprotocolofthepreviousCityAttorney,itappearstheCityAttorneysOfficecould
selectoutsidecounselwithoutconductinganyformalinternalreview.
26
OCA 000132
a. TheRFQProcessFailstoResultinSelectionoftheMostAppropriate
AttorneyfortheJob.
Ourmostseriousconcernwiththeselectionprocessisthatitfailsinitsmostimportant
task:findingtherightattorneyforthejob.TheOCAhasnotpreservedallrelevantdocuments
orcommunicationsrelatedtothisprocess,sotherecordswereceivedwerenotcompleteon
thispoint.Nevertheless,fromtherecordstheOCAdidpreserve,wesawdiscussionsabout
hiringmoresmallfirms,ormorelocalfirms,ormorefirmsthathavenotpreviouslybeenhired.
Whatwesawfartoolittleof,however,wereeffortstofindexpertsinpolicedisciplinary
arbitrations.Forexample,inonecase,anOCAmemorecommendedhiringaparticularfirmin
apolicedisciplinarymatterinpartbecausethefirmhadhandledseveralrealestatemattersfor
theCity;thememodidnotdiscusswhatspecificqualificationstheattorneyhandlingthematter
wouldbringtoapolicearbitrationcase.
Representingapartyinpolicedisciplinearbitrationscallsforaparticularskillset.Aswe
heardfrommanywitnesses,inordertoprevailinthesehearings,anattorneyneedstobe
familiarwiththecultureofpolicedepartments,andofthespecificdepartmentinquestion.The
attorneyneedstounderstandhowtheinternaldisciplineprocessworks,whatstandardsthe
departmentusesinselectingdiscipline,andhowtherecommendedsanctioncompareswith
sanctionshandeddowninothercases.Andtheattorneyneedstoappreciatethewaysinwhich
arbitratorstreatswornpoliceofficersdifferentlythanotherpublicemployees.Theseareall
skillsanattorneycanlearn,butittakestimeandexperiencetolearnthem.
SomeoftheattorneyshiredbytheOCAappearedtohavelittleornopriorexperiencein
policedisciplinecases.Forexample,inArbitrationP,theoutsideattorneyhiredbytheCity
seemedunfamiliarwithissuesthatregularlyariseinpolicedisciplinarycases.Forexample,the
Citysoutsidecounselsuggestedthearbitratorhadtodeterminewhethertheofficerhadjust
causetofirehisgun,ratherthanwhetherOPDhadjustcausetoimposethediscipline.The
questionbeforethearbitratorwas,ofcourse,thelatter,andthearbitratorandtheUnion
attorneyeasilyagreedonthatissue.Numerouswitnessestoldusthat,althoughthisattorney
andotherschosenbytheOCAwerecompetent,theyhadacripplinglackofknowledgeabout
policedisciplineingeneralandtheDepartmentsdisciplinaryprocessinparticular.And
becausetheOCAtendedtoengagecounsellateintheprocess,itoftenfelltoOPDwitnessesto
trytoeducateoutsidecounselonnotjustthefactsofthecasebutthedisciplinaryprocessin
general.
Onthispoint,wenotethat,oftheseveralfactorstheOCAgenerallyconsideredin
assigningcasestooutsidecounsel,twofactorsinparticularweremissingfromtheselections
wereviewed:(1)athoughtfulconsiderationoftherelevantexperienceofthespecificattorney
whowouldbehandlingthematter(theOCAoftenappearedtoconcentratemoreonthefirm
thatwouldhandleamatterratherthanthespecificattorneywhowouldrepresenttheCity);
and(2)inputfromtheChiefandfeedbackfromDepartmentwitnesseswhohadtoworkwith
outsidecounsel.ItisremarkablethatinselectingattorneystorepresentOPDsinterestsand
27
OCA 000133
workwithOPDwitnessesinsuchimportantcases,theOCAalmostneversoughtOPDs
feedbackontheOCAsselectionprocessoroutsidecounselsperformance.TheOCAspractice
ofselectingoutsidecounselwithoutseekinginputfromOPDdemonstratesalackof
appreciationfortheDepartmentseffortsandtheimportanceofaneffectiveattorneyclient
relationship.
Tobeclear,whiletheremaynotbeasurfeitofcounselexperiencedinpolice
arbitrations,therearecertainlyattorneysinCaliforniawhohavemadethattheirpracticeand
arehighlysuccessfulatit.Wenotonlyspokewithsuchattorneysinthecourseofour
investigation,wealsolearnedthatotherlawenforcementdepartmentshavemadeitapractice
toseekoutandhirepreciselythosetypesofattorneysforthejob.Itisnotimpossibletofind
attorneyswithexpertiseinthisareaifthatisapriority.
b. OCAsIneffectiveSelectionProcessHasGivenRisetoConcernsAboutthe
IntegrityoftheProcess.
SeveralwitnessesexpressedconcernsthattheOCAsprocessforselectingoutside
counselmaybebasedonapaytoplayscheme,wherefirmsthatcontributedtotheCity
Attorneyspoliticalcampaignswouldbemorelikelytoreceivework.
FromourreviewofthedocumentsproducedtousbytheCityAttorneysOffice,wedid
notfindthatithiredoutsidecounselforpolicedisciplinecasesbasedonpaytoplay.Inthe
caseswereviewed,wesawsomeinstancesinwhichtheOCAhiredfirmsthathaddonatedto
theCityAttorneyscampaign,butwesawotherswheretheofficehiredfirmsthat(asfaraswe
coulddetermine)hadneverdonatedanythingtoadvancetheCityAttorneyspoliticalinterests.
Andwhilewesawsomeinstanceswherecontributinglawfirmswereselectedovernon
contributinglawfirms,wedidnotseeevidencethattheselectionwasbasedonwhetherthe
firmshadcontributedtotheCityAttorneyscampaigns.Frankly,giventheCitysincomplete
records,itwasoftendifficulttounderstandwhyanygivenfirmhadbeenselected.
However,itisnotdifficulttounderstandwhyoutsideobservershavesuspectedapay
toplayscheme.TheCityAttorneyhasnotselectedfirmsthatappeartohavesubstantial
experienceinandareputationforhandlingpolicearbitrationcases,andthatbegsthequestion
ofwhatisbehindthechoiceofcounsel.WhatwehaveseenisthattheCityAttorneys
decisionshavebeenbasedonmattersunrelatedtopriorexpertiseinpolicearbitration,
includingconsiderationssuchasOCAsfamiliaritywithaparticularlawfirm,itsdesiretospread
workaround,itsdesiretoworkwithanewfirm,oronanynumberoffactorsotherthanwho
canbestrepresenttheCityinapolicearbitrationcase.Thefollowingcasesdemonstratethe
problem:
ArbitrationN:
Inthiscase,arepresentativeoftheOCAresponsibleforrecommending
outsidecounselbasedhisrecommendationforaspecificfirminparton
thefactthatithadworkedonsomerealestatemattersthattransferred
therewithanotherpartner.Therecommendationdidnotexplainwhy
28
OCA 000134
thefirmsexperienceinrealestatematterswasrelevanttoitsselection
inapolicedisciplinaryarbitration.Therecommendationalsodidnot
explainindetailwhythelawyerwhowouldhandlethematterwas
qualified,orevenwhattypeofissuesthematterinvolved.(The
arbitratorultimatelyreducedthesubjectofficers11daysuspensiontoa
threedaysuspension.)
ArbitrationS:
InamemodatedAugust20,2013,anOCArepresentativerecommended
hiringFirmAfromalistofthreefirms,butdidnotexplainthereasoning
behindtherecommendationorprovideanydetailsabouttheothertwo
firmsbesidestheirlocationandminorityownedstatus(andthefactthat
oneofthefirmsdidnothandlepolicedisciplinarymatters).TheCity
Attorneyrequestedadditionalinformation,includingadescriptionofthe
matterandthefirmshourlyrates.TheOCArepresentativerespondedby
changingtherecommendationtosuggestinsteadthattheOCAselect
FirmBfromthelist.
TheCityAttorneydisagreedwiththenewrecommendationand,without
explanation,approvedhiringFirmA.TheChiefAssistantAttorneythen
wrotetoexplainthathepreferredsendingthemattertoFirmB,asFirm
Awasalreadyhandlingandbillinglargeamountsonseveralmatters
fortheCity.TheChiefAssistantAttorneystatedthatretainingFirmB
wouldleadtoabetterdistributionoftheCityscases.TheCityAttorney
notedthedisagreementbutdeclinedtochangeherdecision,offeringno
writtenexplanation.
Noticeablyabsentthroughoutthisexchange,however,wasany
discussionofwhichspecificattorneywouldhandlethematterfrom
eitherfirm,muchlesswhatrelevantexperiencethatattorneywould
bringtothematter.(Followingthehearing,thearbitratorruledagainst
theCity,reducingtheofficers10daysuspensiontoamerewritten
reprimand.)
Fromourreviewoftherecords,itisoftenimpossibletotellwhytheCityAttorneys
OfficeselectedanattorneytorepresenttheCityinanyparticularpolicearbitration.Thereis
verylittleintherecordswereceivedfromtheOCAshowingthatitsgoalwastohirethebest
attorneysforthejob.TheapparentfailureoftheOCAtoprioritizeexpertiseinthefieldof
policedisciplinewhenselectingcounselinthesecaseshascreatedtwoproblems.First,ithas
leftmanywonderingwhatisbehindtheCityAttorneysprocessforselectingoutsidecounsel,
sinceitdoesnotappeartobesubjectmatterexpertise.Second,andfarmoreimportant,ithas
riskedplacingtheseextremelyimportantcases,andtosomeextenttheveryintegrityofthe
Departmentsdisciplineprocess,inthewronghands.
29
OCA 000135
8.
TheOCAHasFailedtoLitigateasAggressivelyandEffectivelyasitShould.
Inmanyofthesecases,therehasbeenanoticeablelackofzealous,aggressiveadvocacy
onbehalfoftheCity.ThisislikelybecausetheOCAoritsoutsidecounselhaveinmanycases
startedpreparingtoolateintheprocesstomakestrategiclitigationdecisionsforhowto
prepareandpresentthecase.Forexample,engaginginprehearinglitigation,includingby
makingdiscoveryrequests,takestime,justasittakestimetolocateandpreparecivilian
witnessesorconsultwithoutsideexpertsonforensicissues.
Inseveralinterviews,representativesofotherlawenforcementagenciesconfirmedthat
requestingprehearingdiscovery,usingcivilianwitnesses,andconsultingwithoutsideexperts
inthesearbitrationscanbecrucial.Itisnosurprisethatinmostofthecaseswereviewed,the
OCAfailedtocallcivilianwitnessesoroutsideexperts,becausecounsellikelyonlyhadenough
timetofocusondoingthebareminimumnecessarytopresentthecasetothearbitrator.But
suchfailurescanbeandlikelyalreadyhavebeenfataltotheCitysargumentsatarbitration.
a. FailuretoRequestPreHearingDiscovery.
OCAattorneysandoutsidecounselhiredbytheOCAgenerallyfailtorequestpre
hearingdiscoveryinarbitrationcases.TheOCAhasexplainedthattheCitydoesnothavea
righttoprehearingdiscoveryinpolicearbitrations,andthustheOCAdoesnotrequestit.
TheCitysfailuretoseekdiscoveryhasresultedinaonesidedprehearingdiscovery
process.TheCitymustprovidethegrievantwithalloftheevidencetheCityreliedoninfinding
aviolationandimposingdiscipline.TheUnionusuallyprovidesnothinginreturn.TheCity
oftendoesnotlearnabouttheUnionswitnessesorexpertsuntilshortlybeforethehearing.As
oneattorneyrepresentingtheCityexplainedtous,learningabouttheOCAscaseatarbitration
istheexcitingpartofhandlingthesecases.Whilesuchasurprisemaybeexciting,the
recordsofthearbitrationhearingsshowitisalsooftenhugelydisadvantageoustotheCity.The
Citysattorneyshavenorebuttalexpertsorrebuttalwitnessesprepared,becauseuntilthe
hearingbeginstheyhavenosenseofwhattheywillneedtorebut.
Evenwithoutanenforceablerighttoprehearingdiscovery,theCityshouldstillrequest
it.Inourdiscussionswithrepresentativesofotherlawenforcementagencies,welearnedthat
counselforthoseagenciesseekprehearingdiscoveryasaroutinepractice.Insomecasesthe
arbitratorwillrequirelimiteddiscovery,inothercasesmoreextensivediscovery,andinothers
nodiscoveryatall.ButitisclearthatifcounselfortheCitydoesnotatleastaskforpre
hearingdiscovery,theyareunlikelytoeverreceiveit.
b. FailuretoCallCivilianWitnesses.
Civilianwitnessesmayofferhelpfulperspectivesthataredifferentfromthoseofpolice
officers.Onoccasion,civilianwitnessesmayalsobeabletocontributevaluableeyewitness
testimonyorinformationthatofficersdonothave.TheCityhasdoneapoorjobofusing
civilianwitnessesinarbitrations.
30
OCA 000136
Forexample,inArbitrationU,theDepartmenthadallegedthatanofficerfailedto
recordcomplaintsfromarresteesthatvariousofficershadusedexcessiveforceagainstthem
duringaprotest.Oneofthearresteeshadevenmadeadocumentedcomplaintwiththe
Departmentabouttheexcessiveforce.PerhapsbecausetheDeputyCityAttorneydidnot
beginpreparingforthearbitrationuntilthedaybeforethehearing,however,shefailedtocall
anyofthesecriticalcivilianwitnessesatthearbitration.Thearbitratorcommentedonthe
noticeableabsenceofthesewitnesses,statinginherwrittendecisionthatnoneofthe
arrestees,onwhosebehalf[theIAinvestigator]allegedclaimsofexcessiveforcewascalled
totestifybeforethearbitrator.Thearbitratorultimatelydescribedthecaseas
extraordinary,inpartbecauseoftheCitysremarkablefailuretopresentanyrelevant
witnesses,includingthecivilianeyewitnesses,insupportofitscase.
c. FailuretoUseOutsideExpertWitnesses.
Aswithcivilianwitnesses,outsideexpertwitnessescanofferdifferentperspectivesfrom
thoseofexpertswithintheDepartment.Onoccasion,outsideexpertsmayalsohaveagreater
levelofexpertiseinthesubjectmatter.Butinthecaseswereviewed,theOCAhadno
establishedprotocolfordeterminingwhentouseanoutsideexpertorhowtoselectan
appropriateexpertwitness.And,aswithcivilianwitnesses,theOCAanditsoutsidecounsel
oftenbeganpreparingfartoolateintheprocesstouseanoutsideexperteffectively.For
example,asdiscussedfurtherbelow,intheJimenezarbitrationtheCityreliedprimarilyon
forensicevidencetoestablishthatthesubjectofficerhadcommittedaseriousviolation.At
arbitration,however,theUnionofferedtestimonyfromanoutsideexpertwhocastdoubton
theCitysinterpretationoftheevidence.TheOCAofferednorebuttalexperttosupportits
case.Asaresult,thearbitratorgaveconsiderableweighttotheopinionoftheUnionsexpert,
describinghistestimonyasextremelycredibleandrulingthattheCitystheoryofthecase
wasincorrect.
ItisimpossibletoknowinretrospectinwhichcasestheCitycouldhaveobtainedamore
favorableoutcomeifithadworkedwithoutsideexpertsinpreparingitscase.Butwecansay
withconfidencethattheCitysfailuretocallanoutsideexpertwitnessinseveralofthe
arbitrationswerevieweddemonstratesalackofplanningandzealousadvocacyinrepresenting
theCity.
d. FailuretoTrackDataEssentialtoSuccessinArbitration.
ItisclearfromourinterviewsthattheUnionsattorneysareassiduousinkeepingtrack
ofdatafrompreviouscases.Weunderstandtheykeeprecordsofarbitratorsperformancein
previouscasessotheyknowwhomtostrikeandwhomtotrytokeepwhengivenalistof
potentialarbitrators.TheyalsohaveaccesstoadatabaseofthedisciplineimposedbyOPDin
priorcases,adatabasetheyusetogreateffectinhearingswhenarguingthatthe
recommendeddisciplineinanygivencaseisoutoflinewiththeDepartmentspriordecisions.
31
OCA 000137
TheOCAappearstohaveneitheroftheseresources.Whilethereareindividual
attorneysintheOCAwhohavesomeinstitutionalmemoryofindividualarbitrators,therehas
notbeenanyconsistent,organizationalefforttokeeptrackofhowthearbitratorshave
performedinpreviouscases.Indeed,whenonearbitratorwhohadreversedOPDsdiscipline
reappearedonthelistofpossiblearbitratorsforalatercase,itappearsnoonewasawareof
theCitysprior,negativeexperiencewiththatarbitrator.
WealsodidnotseeevidenceofanydatabasemaintainedbytheOCAtokeeptrackof
priordiscipline.Forthisreason,theUnionsargumentsofdisparatetreatmentwereallthe
moreeffective,sincetheOCAhadnothingathandwithwhichtorebutthem.Notably,theOPD
doeshaveasystemfortrackingthisinformation,butitisonlyrecentlythatthetwoofficeshave
beguncoordinatingonthisissue.
9.
ThroughtheDisciplineProcessandtoMakeTheNecessaryImprovements.
Onemeasureofaneffectivedisciplineprogramisthatitisdesignedtoidentifyinternal
problemsandcorrectthem.Inourconversationswithrepresentativesfromotherlaw
enforcementagencies,welearnedthattheyhadsystems,bothformalandinformal,tolearn
frommistakesordeficienciesintheirdisciplineprogramsandtomakeimprovementsbasedon
whattheylearned.Insomeinstances,theattorneysworkingonadisciplinecasewillkeeptrack
ofproblemstheyidentifyandsharethosewiththeagencyattheendoftheprocess.Another
approachistoconveneameetingoftheattorneysanddepartmentrepresentativesatthe
conclusionofasignificantcasetoreviewlessonslearned.Whateverthesystem,thepurposeis
thesame:toidentifywhatiswrongorwhatcouldbedonebetterandtofixit.
Everydisciplinecase,andparticularlyeverysignificantcasethatgoestoarbitration,
offerstheOCAandOPDtheopportunitytomakethedisciplineprocessbetter.Itisclearfrom
ourreviewofthearbitrationfilesthatcasesinwhichtheCityhaslostatarbitrationarevaluable
sourcesofinformationaboutdeficienciesintheinvestigationprocess;theimprecisionof
writtenpolicies;thefailureofOPDtotrainonitspolicies;problemswithSkellyhearings;and,
aboveall,deficienciesinthewaytheOCAanditsoutsidecounselrepresenttheCityin
arbitrations.
Unfortunately,theOCAandOPDhavedonelittletotakeadvantageofthese
opportunities.Inseveralcases,OCAattorneysoroutsidecounselhavemerelyforwardedan
unfavorablearbitrationdecisiontoOPDsoitcouldmakethenecessaryadjustmentstothe
officerspersonnelfile.Inafewcases,conscientiousOCAattorneysoroutsidecounselhave
describedtheproceedingsindetailandidentifiedpotentialproblems.Eveninthesecases,
however,wesawnomeaningfulfollowup,andthesameproblemsaroseagainandagain
vaguepolicies,incompleteinvestigations,unpreparedattorneyswithnothingdonetoensure
thattheproblemswerecorrectedbeforetheyaroseagain.TheoccasionalemailfromaDeputy
CityAttorneyofferingapostmortemisworthyofcommendation,butitisfarfromthesortof
32
OCA 000138
institutionalizedprocessnecessarytocaptureandlearnfromthevaluableinformationoffered
bythesecases.
C.
TheRelationshipBetweenOPDandtheOCAHasBeenDysfunctional.
Overtime,themanyfailuresinthedisciplinaryprocesshavehadacorrosiveeffecton
therelationshipbetweenOPDandtheOCA.Separateandapartfromtheinternalproblems
plaguingeach,thetwoofficeshaveworkedtogethersopoorlythatanalreadybadsituation
wasmadeworse.Werepeatedlyheardfromwitnessesthatratherthansupportingeachother
inthedisciplineprocess,theOCAandOPDoftenviewedeachotherwithmutualsuspicion.The
resulthasbeenalessthanunifiedfrontontheCitysside,andwhenthecasegoespoorly,a
sensebyeachofficethattheotheristoblame.
RegardingOPDsconcerns,weheardandreviewedevidenceshowingtheOCAhasoften
beenextremelyslowtorespondtoOPDsrequestsforlegaladvice.SometimesOPDcould
receiveanansweronlybyaskingthesamequestionanumberoftimes.OPDwitnessesalso
reportedthatitwascommonfortheOCAtotakeavagueorambiguouspositioninresponseto
alegalquestion,ortoeditadocumentprimarilywithstylisticratherthansubstantive
suggestions.Thistypeoflegaladviceisatbestunhelpfulandatworstdisrespectfulofthe
Departmentseffortstomakeinformeddecisionsondiscipline.
ButOPDsmostseriousconcernsaboutitsrelationshipwiththeOCAhavetodowith
arbitrations.ManywithinthehighestranksoftheDepartmentbelievethatdespiteitsbest
effortstoimposediscipline,theDepartmentoftenlosesatarbitrationbecausetheCity
AttorneysOfficefailstodoitsjob.TheOCAhasdonemanythingstoreinforcethisperception,
includingassigningcasesatthelastminutewithoutsufficientfocusontheattorneys
qualificationsandwithoutcontactingrelevantOPDwitnessesuntildaysbeforeanarbitration
hearing.ByhandlingOPDdisciplinarycasesinthisway,theOCAhassentthemessagethatit
doesnotappreciatehowimportantthesecasesaretotheDepartmentsdisciplinaryprocessor
howmuchworkDepartmentpersonnelhaveputintothem.
TheOCAhasitsownfrustrationswithOPD.ManyattheCityAttorneysOfficebelieve
thatOPDserrorsduringtheinvestigationorimpositionofdisciplinemakecasesunnecessarily
difficulttodefendatarbitration.And,justastheOCAhasfailedtoassigncasesinatimely
manner,OPDhasalsofrequentlywaiteduntilthelastminutetoseekfeedbackandlegaladvice
fromtheOCAregardinginvestigationsandotherdisciplinarydecisions.Inthesecases,theOCA
hasnothadsufficienttimetoprovideathoroughanswertoOPDsrequests.
ArbitrationUprovidesagoodexampleofthebreakdownintherelationshipbetween
thetwooffices.Atthearbitration,theDeputyCityAttorneywasunpreparedtohandlethe
caseandfailedtocallasinglefavorablewitnessorpresentanynonhearsayevidencein
supportoftheDepartmentsdisciplinarydecision.Inthearbitratorswrittendecision,the
arbitratorreferredtothecaseasextraordinaryandtookthehighlyunusualstepof
sanctioningtheCity$10,000foritsbadfaith.ItappearstheOCAdidnottellOPDspecifically
33
OCA 000139
whathappenedinthearbitration,though,includingabouttheOCAsfailuretoprepare
sufficientlyaheadoftimeorevenpresentanyevidenceinsupportoftheDepartmentsefforts.
Atthesametime,itappearsOPDmerelyacceptedthatithadlostyetanotherarbitration,
withoutattemptingtofindoutwhathadhappenedorwheretheprocesshadbrokendown.
Fundamentally,thishasnotbeenafunctioningattorneyclientrelationship.The
attorneysdonotalwaysrespondpromptlywhentheclientseeksinformation,andsomeof
themhaveperformedinamannerthatdoesnotinspiretrust.Andtheclient,inturn,hasoften
failedtoinvolvetheattorneysinessentialstepsoftheprocess.Asaresult,theUnionfacesa
poorlycoordinatedopponent,dramaticallyimprovingitschancestoprevailatarbitration.
D.
TherehasBeenNoMeaningfulAccountabilityfortheCitysFailedDisciplinarySystem.
Inourmeetingswithlawenforcement,currentandformercityofficials,andothers,
therewasoneconcernweheardexpressedmorethananyother:thereisacriticallackof
accountabilityforpolicediscipline.Witnessesdescribedfailuresateverystageofthe
disciplinaryprocess,allexacerbatedbyalackofaccountability.WhenIAdidnotperforman
adequateinvestigationandthecasefellapart,noonewasheldtoaccount.Whencaseafter
casewaslostinarbitrationbecauseOPDspolicieswereunclear,noonewasheldtoaccount.
WhentheOCAfailedtohavedisciplineupheldinthevastmajorityofcasesevenincases
wheretheCityhadpaidlargesumsascivilsettlementsforthesameconductnoonewasheld
toaccount.
Thefailuresdescribedinthisreportwerenothidden;theyareevidenttoanyonewho
participatesintheOPDdisciplinaryprocess.ButhadtheCourtnotorderedaninvestigation,it
isnotclearthatanyonewouldhavebeenheldaccountableforthisbrokensystem,andmanyof
thesefailuresmayneverhavebeenaddressed.Wehaveseennoevidencethat,priortothe
Courtsorder,therewassufficientalarmwithineitherOPDortheOCAabouttheCitysinability
toupholddiscipline.Asfaraswecantell,evenaftertheCourtexpressedconcernaboutthe
processin2011,bothofficescontinuedbusinessasusualandwiththeusualunsatisfactory
results.Indeed,leadinguptotheCourts2014order,theUnionhadsucceededinvacatingor
reducingthedisciplineinnineconsecutivearbitrations.
NordidtheOaklandCityadministrationtakeanystepstoholdanyonetoaccount.Time
andagain,theCitywrotecheckstosettlecivillawsuitsarisingoutofpolicemisconduct,onlyto
seetheCityAttorneysOfficefailtoupholddisciplineforthatverysamemisconduct.Wehave
seennoevidencethattheMayor,ortheCityAdministrator,ortheCityCounciltookstepsto
holdanyoneaccountableforthesefailuresorimprovetheCitysoutcomesatarbitration.
E.
ACloserExaminationofOneArbitrationHelpsDemonstrateWhatHappensWhenthe
DisciplineSystemisDysfunctional.
Togetasenseofwhatitmeanstohaveadysfunctionaldisciplinaryprocess,itisuseful
tolookataspecificcase.Noonecasecontainsallofthedeficiencieswehavediscussedabove,
34
OCA 000140
butonecaseinparticularillustrateswhatcanhappenwhenthedisciplineprocessdoesnot
workasitshould.ThatcaseistheshootingandkillingofJodyMackWoodfoxbyOfficer
HectorJimenez.Asnotedabove,morethanthreeyearsago,theCourtturneditsfocusthe
CityspolicedisciplinaryarbitrationsinresponsetothereinstatementofJimenez,whomthe
Departmenthadattemptedtoterminateforshootingacivilianinthebackafteratrafficstop.
SeeDkt.No.6301.Thearbitratorsdecisionwasreportedwidelyinthepress,includingarticles
thatquoteddirectlyfromthearbitratorswrittenruling.14Followingthedecision,Jimenezs
attorneyalsocommentedextensivelyonthecase,includingbydescribingJimenezstestimony
atthearbitration,referringtothetestimonyofotherarbitrationwitnesses,andprovidinga
detaileddiscussionofthearbitratorsdecision,includingthespecificreasonsthearbitrator
citedforreinstatingJimenez.15Whilewehavetreatedotherarbitrationproceedings(exceptfor
publicaspectsofRochescase)asconfidentialandhavenotdiscussedpersonallyidentifiable
information,theextensivemediacoverageofthiscase,includingarticlesquotingdirectlyfrom
thearbitrationdecisionandpublicstatementsbyJimenezsownattorneydescribingthe
arbitration,aswellasthecivilcaseagainsttheCity,makethisamatterofpublicrecordand
concern.
Lessthansevenmonthslater,inJuly2008,Jimenezandhispartner,whowasdriving
theirpolicevehicle,werepatrollingintheearlymorninghoursinEastOaklandwhenthey
observedaspeedingcartravelingnorthboundonFruitvaleAvenue.Jimenezandhispartner
beganpursuingthevehicle.Atonepoint,thedriverofthevehicle,JodyMackWoodfoxIII,
madeaUturnandproceededtospeedsouthboundonFruitvaletowardInternational
Boulevard.WoodfoxcontinuedtoattempttoevadeJimenezandhispartneruntilhecametoa
suddenstopneartheintersectionofFruitvaleandEast17th.Althoughaccountsofwhat
happenednextdiffer,noonedisputestheendresult:AfterWoodfoxexitedhisvehicle,
Jimenezkilledhimbyshootinghimmultipletimesintheback.Accordingtothecoroners
report,Woodfoxsufferedatleastthreegunshotwounds:onetohisbackleftshoulder;oneto
hisbackleftunderarm;andonetohisbacklowertorso,justabovehisleftbuttock.Woodfox
wasunarmed,andallofthegunshotsenteredhisbodyfrombehind.
JimenezandhispartnerclaimedthatWoodfoxstoppedhisvehiclesoabruptlythey
wereunabletostoptheirpolicecruiserbehindhis,insteadhavingtostopalmostdirectly
adjacenttoWoodfoxsvehicle.TheyclaimedWoodfoxlefthiscaringear,though,soit
continuedtorollslowlyforwarduntilitwasalmostinfrontoftheirpatrolcar.Jimenezclaimed
14
See,e.g.,HenryK.Lee,Oaklandmustrehirecopwhoshotsuspectinback(SanFranciscoChronicle,March5,
2011)(availableathttp://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oaklandmustrehirecopwhoshotsuspectinback
2528215.php)(includingquotationstakendirectlyfromArbitratorDavidGabaswrittendecision).
15
SeeJustinBuffington,OaklandPoliceOfficerInvolvedinShootingReinstatedwithFullBackPayandBenefits
(availableathttp://www.rlslawyers.com/oaklandpoliceofficerinvolvedinshootingreinstatedwithfullbackpay
andbenefits/).
35
OCA 000141
thathegotoutofthepatrolcar;drewhisgun;movedaroundhisopenpassengersidedoorto
thepassengersidefrontwheelwell;andshoutedtoWoodfoxtoputhishandsupseveral
times.AccordingtoJimenez,Woodfoxgotoutofthecarandbeganrunningsuddenlyina45
degreeangletowardthedriversidedoorofthepatrolcar,whereJimenezspartnerwas
located.JimenezsaidhethoughthesawWoodfoxreachforsomethinginhiswaistband.
BelievingWoodfoxwasreachingforagun,JimenezfiredseveralshotsatWoodfox.Afteravery
briefpause,whenWoodfoxcontinuedtorun,Jimenezfiredasecondvolleyofshots,after
whichWoodfoxcollapsedtotheground.
TheDepartmentconductedaninvestigationandmadeseveralrelevantfindings,
includingthediscoveryofabulletstrikemarkinthebackofWoodfoxstrunk.16Accordingto
theDepartment,theangleofthebulletstrikeshowedthatJimenezhadlikelyfiredatWoodfox
whileWoodfoxwasstillintheVthathisdriversidedoormadewithhisvehicleinother
words,almostimmediatelyafterWoodfoxexitedthecar,andlongbeforehewouldhavehad
anyopportunitytochargeatJimenezspartner.TheDepartmentalsonotedthatJimenezs
partnerwasstandingoutsidethepatrolcarwithhisgundrawnbutdidnotfireatWoodfox.
TheDepartmentalsointerviewedseveralcivilianwitnessesthatitidentifiedinabroad
canvassofthesurroundingneighborhood.Becausetheincidenttookplaceintheearlymorning
hours,mostwitnesseswerewokenbythesoundsofthecarchaseorthegunshotsbutdidnot
actuallyseewhathappened.However,thereweresomecivilianswhoclaimedtohave
witnessedtheshooting,andtheyunanimouslyagreedononepoint:Woodfoxwasrunning
awayfromthepolicewhenhewaskilled.Onewitness(Witness1)saidsheobservedthe
incidentfromherbedroomwindow,whichhadaviewoftheintersection.Aftersheheard
screechingtiresoutside,shestooduponherbedandlookedoutherwindow.Shesaw
Woodfoxstophiscar,getout,andstartrunningacrossFruitvaletryingtoescape.Shesaidthe
policepulledupbehindWoodfoxsvehicle.Shethoughtthedriverofthepolicecruiserstarted
firingonWoodfoxashewastryingtorunaway.Shesaid:Theguyfromthecar[Woodfox]
neverlookedback.Heneverlookedback.Hewasrunning.Hishandsweremoving,hewas
runningfast,hewastryingtogetaway.
Twoothercivilianwitnesses(Witnesses2and3)alsosaidtheywitnessedthecarchase
andtheshooting.Thesewitnesseswereapparentlydrinkingtogetheratthetimeofthe
16
GiventheintensepublicscrutinyontheJimenezcase,itisnotablethattheleadIAinvestigatorassignedtothe
casehadbeeninIAforonlysixdayswhenhereceivedtheassignment,hadnotyettakentheDepartmentscourse
onhowtoconductIAinvestigations,andhadneverpreviouslyworkedasahomicideinvestigator.Itisclearthe
investigatortriedtoconductathoroughinvestigation,butitispossiblehelackedtherelevantexperience
necessarytohandleacaseofthismagnitude.Forexample,whentheinvestigatorwasaskedoncrossexamination
atarbitrationwhethertherewasawaytodetermineifthestrikemarkonWoodfoxstrunkhadbeenmadeby
Jimenezsgun,theinvestigatorstatedhedidnotknowiftherewasanywaytodeterminethat.TheUnionsexpert
witnessdidmanagetomakethatverydetermination,however,simplybyobtainingcomparabletrunklidsand
firingdifferenttypesofammunitionatthem.
36
OCA 000142
incident,andtheywereasignificantdistancefromthescene,sotheirtestimonycouldhave
beenchallengedonbothgrounds.ButbothwitnessesstatedWoodfoxwasrunningawayfrom
thepolicewhenhewasshot.Witness2testifiedinhercivildepositionthat[h]e[Woodfox]
jumpedoutthecarandstartedrunning.Hejumpedoutfirstandthenthepolicesaidhalt.I
heardthewordhaltandthenIheardpow,pow,pow,pow,pow.AllIseenwashimholding
uphispantstryingtorun.Hewasnttryingtohearnopolice.Hewastryingtorun..Hewas
scared.
ThesewitnessstatementswereallavailabletotheCitylongbeforethearbitration
hearing.Witnesses1and2gaverecordedstatementstotheIAinvestigator,andthose
statementswereincludedintheSkellymaterialsandprovidedtotheOCAwellinadvanceof
thearbitration.Further,Witnesses2and3bothgavedepositionsinthecivilwrongfuldeath
casefiledbyWoodfoxsheirsagainsttheCity.17ArepresentativeoftheOCAwaspresentfor
bothofthosedepositions.AndalthoughplaintiffscounselwasabletolocateWitness3and
takehiscivildepositioninthewrongfuldeathcase,itdoesnotappearthattheDepartment
everinterviewedhim,despitehisprofessedwillingnesstocooperatewiththeinvestigation.
Boththebulletstrikeevidenceandthewitnessestestimonywouldhavecontradicted
Jimenezsversionoftheevents,butthetwowerepotentiallyinconsistentwitheachother.The
civilianswhoclaimedtohaveseentheshootingallstatedthatWoodfoxhadalreadybeen
runningawayfromtheofficerswhenJimenezshothimintheback.Incontrast,thebulletstrike
evidencesuggestedJimenezhadbegunfiringatWoodfoxwhenWoodfoxwasstillnearthe
opendriversidedoorofhisvehicle.18IndecidingtoterminateJimenez,theDepartment
apparentlyconcludedthatthebulletstrikeevidencewasmorecompellingthanthecivilian
testimony.
Thus,atarbitration,theCityofferednocivilianwitnesstestimony,insteadrelying
primarilyonthebulletstrikeevidenceandpriorstatementsfrombothJimenezandhispartner,
includingstatementsthatWoodfoxhadnotlookedatthemasheran.TheUnioncalledboth
Jimenezandhispartneraswitnesses,though,andtheybothtoldroughlythesamestorythat
WoodfoxhadexitedhisvehicleandhadbegunrunninginthedirectionofJimenezspartner.
TheCityarguedthatWoodfoxwasshotasheranaway,butitofferedlittleevidencein
support.Thearbitratordidnothearfromthemultipleeyewitnesseswhoreportedlysaw
WoodfoxrunningawayfromJimenezandhispartnerwhenhewasshot.Infact,thearbitrator
referredbrieflytotheDepartmentseffortstointerviewcivilianwitnessesinhiswritten
decision,buthemadenomentionofthepotentialeyewitnessestestimony,statingonlythat
17
TheCityultimatelysettledthewrongfuldeathcasewithMr.Woodfoxsfamilyfor$650,000.
18
AstheIAinvestigatornotedinthereport:[Witness1]doesnotappeardeceptive,howevertheevidence
(Jimenezand[hispartners]statement,coupledwiththebulletstrikemarkonthetrunkofWoodfoxscar)doesnt
supportherclaimthatthesuspecthadalreadyrunfromthecarpriortothepolicearriving.
37
OCA 000143
theDepartmenthadinterviewed36residentsoftheneighborhoodwhogavestatements
sayingtheyheardonlygunshots[and17]otherresidents[who]gavestatementssayingthat
theydidntseeorheartheincident.Thearbitratorappearedconfusedaboutthecivilian
witnessesstatements,andtheCitysfailuretocallcivilianwitnessesatthearbitrationdid
nothingtohelpthematter.Thus,theonlyeyewitnesstestimonythearbitratorheardwasfrom
Jimenezandhispartner,bothofwhomstatedwithoutcontradictionthatWoodfoxranin
thedirectionofJimenezspartner.
Asnoted,theCityreliedonbulletstrikeevidenceinsteadofthecivilianeyewitnesses.In
response,theUnionpresentedtestimonyfromanexpertwitnesswhodisputedtheCitys
theoryaboutthebulletstrikeforensicevidence.TheUnionsexpertwitnessreportedly
purchasedtwotrunklidssimilartotheonefromWoodfoxscarandfireddifferenttypesof
ammunitionatthem.Theexpertconcludedbasedonhisexperimentsthatthebulletstrikeon
WoodfoxstrunkcouldnothavebeenmadebyJimenezsgun.
DespitethefactthatthebulletstrikeevidencewasacentralpartoftheCityscase,the
CityhadnomeaningfulresponsetotheUnionsexperttestimony.TheCitycallednorebuttal
expert.Indeed,itappearstheCitynevercontactedanyoutsideexperttoshoreupitscaseor
supportitsconclusion.Asaresult,thearbitratorhadnobasisfordiscreditingtheUnions
experttestimony.Inhisdecision,thearbitratorreferredtotheexpertsanalysisasextremely
credibleandconsistentwithJimenezsaccountofevents.Accordingtothearbitrator,the
UnionsexpertmadeitveryclearthatOfficerJimenezcouldnothavecreatedthestrikemark
atissuewithhisweapon.Thearbitratorfurtherstated,oncethefactsurroundingthe
strikemarkonthetrunkhasbeenremovedfromtheequation,both[Jimenezspartners]and
OfficerJimenezsstoriesmakesense.Thus,thearbitratorvacatedthedisciplineandordered
Jimenezreinstatedwithfullbackpayandbenefitsforthetimehehadbeenaway.
Wecannotsaywhatactuallyhappenedthattragicevening,justaswecannotsaywhat
resultthearbitratorshouldhavereached.Whatwecansay,though,istheCitydidnotput
forwarditsbestcase,andthedisciplinaryprocessdidnotfunctionasitshouldhave.The
arbitratordidnothearpotentiallyrelevantevidence,includingtestimonyfromcivilian
eyewitnessestotheshooting.Inaddition,theCitymayhavereliedonafaultytheoryofthe
case,or,inthealternative,mayhavefailedtoobtainandpresentpersuasiveexperttestimony
tosupportitstheory.Eitherway,theCitydidapoorjobofpresentingitscase.Partofthefault
forthisfailurelieswithOPD,asitreliedonforensicevidencewithoutconductingasufficient
analysistosupportitsinterpretationofthatevidence.AndpartofthefaultlieswiththeOCA,
asitfailedtopresentpotentiallycriticaleyewitnesstestimonyoridentifyitslackofanexpert
witnessasapossibleweakness.
ItisimportantthatOaklandspolicedisciplineprocessfunctioninallcases,whether
highprofileornot.Butinthosecaseswhereanofficerhasshotandkilledacivilian,itis
essentialthatthedisciplineprocessworks.Thereisnothingmoredestructiveofthepublics
trustinitspolicedepartmentthanknowingthatanofficerwhomtheDepartmentthinksshould
38
OCA 000144
beterminatedforhavingkilledanunarmedmanisbackontheforce.Asonelocalmedia
sourcestatedatthetime:Jimenezsterminationsenttherightmessage,thatpolicehavethe
righttousedeadlyforcetodefendthemselvesonlywhentheirlivesareatriskandthatpolice
officerswillbeheldaccountablefortheiractions.Jimenezsreinstatementsendstheexact
oppositemessage.19Ifanofficerwhoshootsanunarmedcivilianisputbackontheforce
becausetheCityhasnotdoneanadequatejobindefendingitsdecisiontoterminate,the
publicwillcertainlylosefaithintheCitysabilitytodisciplineitsownpoliceforce.
IV.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Beforediscussingourrecommendations,wefirstnotethatbothOPDandtheOCAhave
madesignificantandcommendableimprovementssincetheCourtsAugust2014order.For
example,sincethattime,theOCAhasbegunpreparingforarbitrationsmuchearlierinthe
process.AccordingtoOCAstaff,theofficehasbegunassigningcasestooutsidecounselwith
sufficienttimetoprepareforarbitrations,includingassigningcasesbeforeselectingarbitration
dates,ensuringthatqualifiedoutsidecounselwillbeavailable.ItappearstheOCAhasbegun
focusingonthequalificationsoftheindividualattorneyhandlingthearbitrationratherthanthe
characteristicsoftheattorneyslawfirm.WeunderstandtheOCAhasbeenholdingregular
meetingswithOPDrepresentativestoattempttoimprovethequalityoftheDepartments
investigationsanddecisionsandtobuildtrustandcooperationbetweenthetwooffices.
Thesereformsareencouraging,andtheyhavealreadyresultedinbetteroutcomesin
arbitration.Indeed,sincetheCourtsAugust2014order,theCityhassucceededinfully
upholdingthedisciplineintwoarbitrations,whiletheUnionhassucceededinreducingthe
disciplineinonecase.Theseresultsspeakforthemselves.However,thecatalystforthe
improvementsappearstohavebeentheCourtsAugust2014order.Verylittlewasbeingdone
toimprovetheprocessbeforetheCourtissuedthatorder,andthatisnottotheCityscredit.
OneotherdevelopmentworthnotingistheCitysownreviewofthepolicediscipline
process.TheCitysreviewresultedinthereportthatisattachedasExhibitA.Weappreciate
theCityseffortstoidentifysomeoftheproblemswiththeprocessandtosuggestpossible
improvements.Throughoutthisprocess,bothOPDandtheOCAmadeseveralthoughtfuland
helpfulrecommendationsforimprovingthecurrentsystem,includingcertain
recommendationssetforthintheCitysJointReport.TotheextentweagreewiththeCitys
suggestions,theyareincludedinourrecommendationsbelow.
Turningtoourrecommendations,wenotethatnothingwearerecommendingshould
comeasasurprisetotheCity.Therecommendationsallcomefromindividualswhoworkfor
19
SeeEditorial,Policeofficersreinstatementsendswrongmessage(OaklandTribune,March10,2011)(available
athttp://www.contracostatimes.com/ci 17584439).
39
OCA 000145
OPD,theOCA,andtheCityadministration.TheCityunderstandswhatitneedstodotomake
policedisciplinework,butithasnotpreviouslydemonstratedthewilltodoit.
TheresponsibilityforthesefailuresdoesnotjustliewithOPDandtheOCA.TheCitys
policedisciplinaryprocessisoverseenbytheCityAdministratorandtheMayor.Withthe
extensiveoversighttheseindividualsandofficesmayprovide,itshouldnothavebeen
necessaryforaU.S.DistrictCourttoorderaninvestigationandrecommendations.Moretothe
point,withtheCityunderCourtsupervision,andwiththeCourthavingalreadyalertedtheCity
toproblemswithpolicearbitrations,itisanindictmentoftheCityslackoffocusonthisissue
thattheCourthadtoappointaninvestigatortobringtheseproblemstothefore.
TheprincipalfindingofourinvestigationisthattheCityhasnotshownasenseof
urgencyorconcernaboutitshandlingofpolicedisciplinecases.TheCityhandledthesecases
haphazardly,imposingdisciplineinconsistently,sometimesassigningcasestocounselatthe
lastminute,and,predictably,losingatarbitrationfartoofrequently.AnddespitetheCitys
abysmalrecord,nooneintheCitynotinOPD,norintheOCA,norintheCityadministration
raisedsufficientalarm.IftheCitydoesnotmakethepolicedisciplinaryprocessapriority,there
islittlehopetheCityscurrentimprovementswilllastoncetheprocessisnolongerunderthe
spotlightofaCourtorderedinvestigation.
Withthosecommentsinmind,weofferourrecommendationsinthefollowinggeneral
areas:Investigation,Discipline,Preparation,Arbitration,AccountabilityandSustainability.
Investigation:
TheDepartmentshouldinvolvetheOCAmoredeeplyintheinvestigationprocessand
withsufficienttimeforOCAtoprovideahelpfulresponse.WerecommendthattheCity
stationaDeputyCityAttorneyintheDepartment,specificallyinIAD,atleastonapart
timebasis.TheDeputyCityAttorneycanassistwithtrainingofIAinvestigators;
planningandexecutionofIAinvestigations;identifyingandcorrectinginconsistentrules
orpolicies;makingdisciplinarydecisions;draftingLettersofIntenttoDiscipline;advising
Skellyhearingofficers;andpreparinginatimelyandthoroughmannertorepresentthe
Cityatarbitrations.Thisattorneyshouldbesomeonewhoisfamiliarwiththe
DepartmentandwithwhomtheDepartmenthasagoodworkingrelationship.This
changewillhaveseveralsalutaryeffects,nottheleastofwhichwouldbeimproving
trustandcooperationbetweenthetwooffices.
theoutsetoftheinvestigationofacomplaintthroughtheresolutionofthecase,
40
OCA 000146
TheDepartmentshouldrevisetheinvestigationprocesstoconsidersupervisory
accountabilitymorethoroughlyandtoensurethatpotentialmitigatingorexculpatory
evidenceorwitnessesareconsidered.
TheDepartmentshouldconsiderinallcaseswhetheritneedsinterviewcivilian
witnessesaspartofitsinvestigation,anditmustbediligentinitseffortstolocateand
contactthesewitnesses.ItshouldalsoworkwithOCAtodevelopapolicytodetermine
whenoutsideexpertsshouldbehiredandwhowillpayforthem.
TheDepartmentshouldreduceturnoverinIAbyincludingatleastonecivilianatahigh
levelofauthoritywithinthedivision.ThecivilianmemberofIA,whowouldbe
answerabletotheChief,wouldremaininIAwithoutneedingtotransfertoadifferent
assignmentandwouldthusbeabletodevelopexpertiseinthedivisionovertime.The
civilianshouldbesomeonewhounderstandsbothcommunityexpectationsandpolice
procedure,whohasinvestigativeexperience,andwhohasacommitmenttocollaborate
withtheOCAonthemostseriouscases.
Discipline:
TheDepartmenthasinformedusitisaddressingitsoutdatedrulesandpoliciesby
transitioningtoasystemdevelopedinconjunctionwithLexipol,anationalleaderin
policymanagementresourcesforlawenforcementorganizations.WecommendOPD
forthisdecision.However,itmaytakeyearsfortheDepartmenttocompletethe
transition,andinthemeantime,itmuststillworktoensurethatitscurrentrulesand
policiesdonotunderminethedisciplinaryprocess.TheDepartmentshouldcoordinate
withtheOCAtoaddresstheseissuesproactively,makingwhateverpolicychangesare
necessarywhileawaitingthetransitiontoLexipol.TheCityshouldalsocommit
adequateresourcestothetransitiontoensureitdoesnottakelongerthannecessary.
ThePreDisciplineReportshouldbechangedtoavoidcreatingunnecessaryobstaclesin
thearbitrationprocess.Werecommendthatinthemoreserious(orClassI)cases,the
Chiefmeetinpersonwiththesupervisorsofthesubjectofficertoconsultaboutthe
appropriatelevelofdiscipline,butthattheDepartmentcontinuetousetheexisting
writtenPreDisciplineReportinlessseriouscases.
TheDepartmentshouldrevampitsSkellyhearingprocess.Skellyofficersshouldreceive
trainingonconductingthoroughIAinvestigationstoensurethattheirdecisionscannot
beeffectivelychallengedatthearbitrationstageforhavingbeenbasedoninsufficient
investigation.Theyshouldalsobetrainedandgivenguidelinesonwritingdetailed
Skellyreports.TheOCAshouldbemadepartoftheprocess,particularlyinthedrafting
ofLettersofIntenttoDiscipline.Andtoimproveconsistencyandpredictabilityinthe
41
OCA 000147
handlingofseriousdisciplinarycases,theDepartmentshouldassignallseriouscases
(thoseinvolvingatleastoneClassIallegation)toaDeputyChief,totheAssistantChief,
ortotheChiefhimorherself.
TheDepartmentandtheComplianceDirectorshouldmeettodiscussadoptingaformal
procedureforhandlingthereintegrationofofficerswhohavebeenoffdutyforan
extendedperiodoftimeduetopendingdisciplinarymatters.Regardlessofwhether
disciplineissustained,theabsenceofanofficerfromactivedutyforaperiodoftime
canhavenegativeeffectsonthatofficersperformance.
Preparation:
TheOCAshouldputinplaceaformalprocessforselectingoutsidecounselsufficientlyin
advanceofarbitrationtoallowforfullandthoroughpreparation.Theselectionprocess
shouldfocusprimarilyonthequalificationsoftheindividualattorneywhowillhandle
thearbitration,ratherthanonthequalitiesoftheattorneysfirm.Thetoppriority
shouldbeensuringthattheattorneystheCityispayingtorepresentitinpolice
arbitrationsareexperiencedandaccomplishedinpolicedisciplinearbitrations.Andas
OCAhasbeguntodoinrecentcases,itshouldselectoutsidecounselbeforesettingan
arbitrationdate.
TheOCAshouldseekOPDsinputontheselectionanduseofoutsidecounsel.Following
arbitrationproceedings,theOCAshouldseekOPDsfeedbackoncounsels
performance,levelofpreparation,andknowledgeofpolicedisciplinarymatters.This
willbothimprovethequalityoftheOCAsdecisionsandmakebetteruseofOPDs
involvementinthearbitrationprocess.
OPDandtheOCAshouldworktogethertocreateashareddatabasefortrackingthe
statusofdisciplinarycases,perhapsbymodifyingthedatabaseIAcurrentlyhasinplace
forthispurpose.Thiswillhelptoensurethatbothofficesarekeepingtrackofthecases
frombeginningtoend.Theofficesshouldalsoworktogethertohaveaneffective
systemforcomparinglevelsofdisciplineacrosssimilarcases.
Arbitration:
TheOCAshouldmaintainadatabasetotracktheperformanceofarbitratorsandto
informtheCitysdecisionintheselectionofarbitrators.Ideally,theOCAcould
coordinatewithotherofficesinthestatetoshareinformationaboutarbitrators
assignedtopolicedisciplinecases.
TheOCAoritsoutsidecounselshouldrequestprehearingdiscoveryinallsignificant
arbitrations.Inthemeantime,theCityshouldseektoamendtheMOUtorequirepre
42
OCA 000148
hearingdisclosureofevidenceandexpertwitnesses.Suchanamendmentwillhelpto
ensurethatarbitrationsaredecidedonafullandfairconsiderationofallrelevantfacts,
ratherthanonesidessurpriseorlackofpreparation.
IncaseswheretheOCAusesoutsidecounsel,itshouldhaveaDeputyCityAttorney
attendthearbitrationtosupervisetheproceedingsandmonitorcounselsperformance.
TheOCAoritsoutsidecounselshouldlitigatecasesaggressively,includingbyusing
civilianandexpertwitnesseswhereappropriate,preparingwitnessesthoroughly,
concentratingadditionalresourcesonposthearingbriefing,andrequestingtofilereply
briefsinseriouscases.
TheOCAshouldrequiretheattorneywhohandledthecase,whetheraDeputyCity
Attorneyoroutsidecounsel,todraftaposthearingmemodescribingtheproceedings
andidentifyingpotentialareasofimprovementforboththeCityAttorneyandtheChief.
Likewise,OPDshouldrequiretheIAorDepartmentrepresentativeatthearbitrationto
dothesame.Finally,thetwoofficesshouldestablishaproceduretoreviewarbitration
proceedingsandresultstogetherandjointlyidentifycorrectiveactionstoimprove
performance.
Accountability:
ForanyreformsmadeinresponsetotheCourtsordertobelastingormeaningful,the
Citymusttakeownershipofthisissue.TheCityAdministrator,theCityCouncil,andthe
Mayorhaveallallowedabrokendisciplinarysystemtocontinueunaddressed.These
individualsandothersmusttakeamoreactiveroleintheprocess,requiringregular
reportsfromOPDandtheOCAintoanypotentialshortcomingsorobstaclesinimposing
meaningfuldiscipline.
Sustainability:
WhilewecommendOPDandtheOCAforthechangestheyhavemadeinrecent
months,wenotethatnoneofthesechangeshasbeenimplementedinasustainable
way.TherehavebeennochangesinDepartmentGeneralOrdersorotherwritten
policies.Practiceshavechanged,buttheycouldjustaseasilyrevertbackwhenthe
Courtisnolongersupervisingthesematters.FortheCourtandthepublictohave
confidencethatOPDsdisciplineprocesshasbeenchangedinasustainableandlasting
fashion,OPD,theOCA,andtheCityadministrationshouldimplementreformsthatare
incorporatedintothepoliciesthatgoverntheiractions.
IftheCityimplementstheseorsimilarreformsanddoessoinasustainableway,weare
confidentitwillimprovenotonlyitsperformanceinpolicedisciplinaryarbitrations,butalsoits
relationshipoftrustandconfidencewiththecommunityitserves.
43
OCA 000149

Sent: 4/21/2015 11:48:29 PM +00:00
To:
CC:
Subject
Report on arbitrations
:
Barbara,
I'm going to be reading the report and writing an editorial tomorrow (Wednesday)
on it. Do you want to weigh in before I write?
Thanks,
Dan
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000150
From: Mike Blasky <mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com>

Sent: 3/25/2015 7:39:55 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Meeting
:
Hey Alex -- realized I wrote down "tomorrow" on my calendar to meet but for most
of the morning I've been thinking today was Thursday. So just to confirm, we said
tomorrow, THURSDAY, we're meeting at Awaken, yes?
Sorry man, been a long week few weeks...
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557
OCA 000151

Sent: 2/5/2015 7:54:02 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Re: Min wage FAQ
:
thanks.
Thanks,
Dan
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
wrote:
Dan,
Alex
Alex Katz
OCA 000152
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell


[v1.03]
OCA 000153

Sent: 4/22/2015 11:57:30 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Re: Page 30
:
I think I know the answer. ... The editorial is written. I'll give it a final read in the
morning. If she wants to discuss, I'm happy to talk first thing in the morning. But I
will file it by 9 a.m. ...
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
wrote:
Dan,
Shes in meetings until later today can she call you in the morning?
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000154

To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Page 30
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000155

[v1.03]
OCA 000156

Sent: 4/15/2015 11:55:04 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Re: Medical marijuana
:
Yes, in the morning. What's here availability?
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
wrote:
Dan,
Barbara would be the best person to talk to, but shes in a meeting for the next few hours.
Is tomorrow possible?
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000157

To: Katz, Alex; Parker, Barbara
Subject: Medical marijuana
Barbara, Alex:
Thanks,
Dan
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000158


[v1.03]
OCA 000159

Sent: 4/17/2015 12:49:35 AM +00:00
To:
Subject
Re: statement
:
Yes I got the statement in time
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557

wrote:
Thanks were you able to include in your story?
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell

To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Re: statement
OCA 000160
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557

wrote:
OCA 000161
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell


[v1.03]
OCA 000162

Sent: 3/4/2015 1:56:33 AM +00:00
To:
Subject
Outside employment policies and records for OPD
:
Hi Mr. Katz,
Im working on a story for next weeks newspaper about Oakland police officers who
work outside of the department/city for third parties (other government agencies,
private businesses, individuals, self-employed, etc.).
I understand that the city has policies pertaining to outside employment for sworn
officers, that they must get a commanders approval before working outside OPD,
that it must not detract from or conflict with their Oakland Police duties. I recently
requested approval forms for outside employment, but it appears the city isnt
maintaining these - http://records.oaklandnet.com/request/7464
Id like to speak with you, or anyone in the City Attorneys office about outside
employment. Im curious as to the potential legal liabilities for the city, and potential
concerns about an officers outside employment activities -- how they could affect
the city.
Im at 510-879-3733. Please get back to me at your convenience. My deadline is

Friday afternoon.
Thanks,
Darwin
---
OCA 000163
Darwin BondGraham
510.879.3733
OCA 000164

Sent: 4/21/2015 12:55:52 AM +00:00
To:
OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/KATZ9A>; "Lee, Heather" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/LEE9H>
Subject Surplus Land Act and city ordinance regarding public-owned land
:
disposition
Im working on a story for this weeks newspaper regarding the proposed sale of the
city-owned parcel known as the 12th Street Remainder Parcel to the developer
UrbanCore. Heres a description of the project and proposed sale http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/documents/agenda/oak052362.pdf
Opponents of this project allege that the city council and planning commission are in
violation of the state Surplus Land Act, and the citys own laws with respect to the
disposition of surplus publicly-owned land (Ordinances 11602, and Ordinance 13287).
Has the City Attorney considered this issue?

Was a ruling or opinion ever provided to the council or planning commission on this
issue?
Or, can you tell me if this is an issue, or non-issue, simply based on your reading of
the laws?
My deadline is tomorrow at 11am.
Thanks,
Darwin
---
OCA 000165
Darwin BondGraham
Oakland, CA 94607
510.879.3733
OCA 000166
From: Matt Artz <martz@bayareanewsgroup.com>

Sent: 2/9/2015 7:12:48 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
we've got an extra copy of the homicide map
:
Guess you could pick it up. Or I could get it to you.
-Matthew Artz
Oakland Tribune
T: 510-208-6435
C: 510-435-8035
OCA 000167

Sent: 4/17/2015 12:59:01 AM +00:00
To:
Subject
RE: Comment on Swanson report?
:
Thanks, I updated the story with this comment on our site.
From: Katz, Alex [mailto:AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org]

To: Darwin BondGraham
Subject: RE: Comment on Swanson report?
OCA 000168
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
From: Darwin BondGraham [mailto:Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com]

To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Comment on Swanson report?
Hi Alex,

OCA 000169
Im at 510-879-3733
-Darwin
--Darwin BondGraham
Oakland, CA 94607
510.879.3733

OCA 000170

[v1.03]
OCA 000171
From: Sam Levin <Sam.Levin@eastbayexpress.com>

Sent: 4/6/2015 4:51:35 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
follow up RE real estate story
:
Hey Alex just circling back from our chats last week. I ended up pushing this story
back a week to give me more time to research it. Id love to touch base with you
when you have a few mins. Im at my desk til around 1:15 p.m. today if you have
some time this morning? If not, maybe we can connect later this afternoon. Thanks!
Desk: 510-879-3773.
Sam Levin
East Bay Express, Staff Writer
510-879-3773
@SamTLevin
OCA 000172

Sent: 4/17/2015 12:47:48 AM +00:00
To:
Subject
Re: statement
:
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557

wrote:
OCA 000173
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell


[v1.03]
OCA 000174

Sent: 4/22/2015 5:41:26 PM +00:00
To:
CC:
Subject Re: FW: 3:00-cv-04599-TEH Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, Exhibit A for
:
Statement Report of the Court-Appointed Investigator
Alex,
Yes, I have it. thank you. ... Diving in to reading it all now. Anything else I should
know?
thx
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
wrote:
Dan,
Just making sure you also have the citys report to the investigator.
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000175
From: Granger, Audrey

Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 9:35 AM
To: Boyd, Karen; Brooks, Desley; Campbell Washington, Annie; Cunningham, Oliver; Downing,
David; Figueroa, Paul; Flores, John; Gallo, Noel; Guillen, Abel; Harmon, Reygan E.; Joshi, Holly
J.; Kalb, Dan; Kaplan, Rebecca; McElhaney, Lynette; Moss, Tomiquia; Nosakhare, Shereda;
Orologas, Alexandra; Outlaw, Danielle; Reid, Larry; Schaaf, Libby; Whent, Sean
Cc: Cotton, Chantal; Fierro, Rocio; Hom, Donna; Hynes, Tricia; Jefferson, Jamilah; Katz, Alex;
McGee, Jr., Otis; Moreno, Doryanna; Parker, Barbara; Smith, Jamie
Subject: 3:00-cv-04599-TEH Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, Exhibit A for Statement Report of
the Court-Appointed Investigator
Dear All,
Attached please find Exhibit A for Statement Report of the Court-Appointed

Investigator.
Thank you,
Audrey Granger
Legal Administrative Assistant
Oakland City Attorney
(510)238-7341
agranger@oaklandcityattorney.org

OCA 000176

[v1.03]
OCA 000177
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sam Levin <Sam.Levin@eastbayexpress.com>

4/10/2015 5:42:04 PM +00:00
RE: Scanned document
Thanks Alex.
-----Original Message----From: Katz, Alex [mailto:AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org]
To: Sam Levin
Subject: FW: Scanned document
Sam,
This is just a westlaw search of the owner's names and some associated addresses.
Don't know whether these LLCs are associated or not, this is just what came up in our search. But if it helps your research, happy to
share it.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
-----Original Message----From: 6thFloorScanner@oaklandcityattorney.org [mailto:6thFloorScanner@oaklandcityattorney.org]
To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Scanned document
Here's your scanned document
This is a confidential attorney-client communication. This email contains confidential attorney-client privileged information and is for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and any attachments.

[v1.03]
OCA 000178

Sent: 3/2/2015 9:18:52 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Fwd: Sex offenders can't be banned from living near schools
:
I have to find out if Oakland has a law banning sex offenders from living near pubic
schools and parks.
Apparently San Diego had such a law and the Supreme Court struck it down. Josh R.
is writing it on a tight deadline.
Matt
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Sam Richards <srichards@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:50 AM
Subject: Fwd: Sex offenders can't be banned from living near schools
To: BANG EB City Team <ebcityteam@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Do any of your cities have such laws on the books? If so, shoot Josh and e-mail ...
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Mike Frankel <mfrankel@mercurynews.com>

Date: Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:48 AM
Subject: Sex offenders can't be banned from living near schools
To: &METRO EDITORS <MetroEditors@mercurynews.com>, &CCN LINE EDITORS
<ccnlineeditors@bayareanewsgroup.com>, Josh Richman
<jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Supreme Court decision out today in a San Diego case that says it's unconstitutional
to ban all sex offenders from living near schools and parks.
Josh Richman is going to jump on this after Dori Maynard memorial.
Can you please check with your city and cop reporters to see which of our cities
have passed similar bans?
If they do have them, please have them check with officials there to get comment
and some level of detail of how it's worked, when they passed it, what kind of
problems they have had in the past ... or send numbers to Josh to call.
He is on a tight deadline.
Thanks
OCA 000179
-Matthew Artz
Oakland Tribune
T: 510-208-6435
C: 510-435-8035
OCA 000180
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

4/10/2015 5:44:26 PM +00:00
Sam Levin (Sam.Levin@eastbayexpress.com)
FW: Scanned document
image2015-04-10-100933.pdf
Sam,
This is just a westlaw search of the owner's names and some associated addresses.
Don't know whether these LLCs are associated or not, this is just what came up in our search. But if it helps your research, happy to
share it.
Cheers,
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
-----Original Message----From: 6thFloorScanner@oaklandcityattorney.org [mailto:6thFloorScanner@oaklandcityattorney.org]
To: Katz, Alex
Subject: Scanned document
Here's your scanned document
OCA 000181

Sent: 2/5/2015 12:45:20 AM +00:00
To:
Subject
Re: Checking in
:
Can you find someone in your office who understands the ins and outs of MEasure
FF?
Thanks,
Dan
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
wrote:
Dan,
I could not find anybody here who knows any experts on state law re: tips in restaurants.
Is there anything else I can do here?
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
OCA 000182

To: Katz, Alex
Alex,
thanks,
Dan
-------------------------------------------------
Daniel Borenstein
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000183


[v1.03]
OCA 000184

Sent: 3/26/2015 6:36:37 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Thanks for meeting me!
:
Alex -- thanks again for the sitdown. Great talking with you.
When you get a chance to send me any press release you might have on the lawsuit,
would love to pitch it for a story.
Mike
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557
OCA 000185
From: Katy Murphy <kmurphy@bayareanewsgroup.com>

Sent: 5/7/2015 3:45:42 PM +00:00
To:
Subject out of the office Re: State Bar Honors Oakland City Attorney Barbara J.
:
Parker as 2015 Public Lawyer of the Year
Thanks for writing! I am out on maternity leave, but if you have a news tip, please
let my editor know. You can reach Mike Frankel at mfrankel@mercurynews.com.
Best,
Katy
-Katy Murphy
Higher education reporter
Oakland Tribune - Mercury News - Contra Costa Times
phone: 510/208-6424
Twitter: @katymurphy
Facebook: KatyEMurphy
OCA 000186

Sent: 4/15/2015 10:10:24 PM +00:00
To:
OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/KATZ9A>; "Parker, Barbara" <CITY OF
OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE/RECIPIENTS/PARKE9B>
Subject
Medical marijuana
:
Barbara, Alex:
Thanks,
Dan
Contra Costa Times
Oakland Tribune
(925) 943-8248
OCA 000187

Sent: 4/24/2015 8:47:18 PM +00:00
To:
Subject
Media query: OCRA ban on contractor campaign contributions
:
Hi Alex,
I have a question about Oaklands Campaign Reform Act. The act states:
No person who contracts or proposes to contract with or who amends or proposes

to amend such a contract with the city for the rendition of services, for the
furnishing of any material, supplies, commodities or equipment to the city or for
selling any land or building to the city or for purchasing any land or building from the
city whenever the value of such transaction would require approval by the City
Council shall make any contribution to the Mayor, a candidate for Mayor, a City
Councilmember, a candidate for City Council, the City Attorney, a candidate for City
Attorney, the City Auditor, a candidate for City Auditor, or committee controlled by
such officeholder or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations
and either one hundred eighty (180) days after the completion of, or the termination
of, negotiations for such contract.
My question is: if a contractor enters into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA)

with the city, is this considered the commencement of negotiations? An ENA is
itself a contract, but it is also a negotiating period toward a second contract or
agreement. So assuming an ENA runs for 18 months, does this mean a contractor
would be barred over the entire 18 month period from making a contribution, rather
than just the 180 days after the signing of the ENA with the city?
Im at 510-879-3733.
-Darwin
OCA 000188
--Darwin BondGraham
Oakland, CA 94607
510.879.3733
OCA 000189
From:
Sent:
To:
CC:
Subject:

4/22/2015 12:31:14 AM +00:00
FW: 3:00-cv-04599-TEH Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, Exhibit A for
Statement Report of the Court-Appointed Investigator
Attachments
1054-1.pdf
:
Dan,
Just making sure you also have the citys report to the investigator.
Alex
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell
From: Granger, Audrey

To: Boyd, Karen; Brooks, Desley; Campbell Washington, Annie; Cunningham, Oliver; Downing,
David; Figueroa, Paul; Flores, John; Gallo, Noel; Guillen, Abel; Harmon, Reygan E.; Joshi, Holly
J.; Kalb, Dan; Kaplan, Rebecca; McElhaney, Lynette; Moss, Tomiquia; Nosakhare, Shereda;
Orologas, Alexandra; Outlaw, Danielle; Reid, Larry; Schaaf, Libby; Whent, Sean
Cc: Cotton, Chantal; Fierro, Rocio; Hom, Donna; Hynes, Tricia; Jefferson, Jamilah; Katz, Alex;
McGee, Jr., Otis; Moreno, Doryanna; Parker, Barbara; Smith, Jamie
Subject: 3:00-cv-04599-TEH Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, Exhibit A for Statement Report of
the Court-Appointed Investigator
Dear All,
OCA 000190
Attached please find Exhibit A for Statement Report of the Court-Appointed

Investigator.
Thank you,
Audrey Granger
Legal Administrative Assistant
Oakland City Attorney
(510)238-7341
agranger@oaklandcityattorney.org


[v1.03]
OCA 000191
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054-1 Filed04/16/15 Page1 of 43
EXHIBIT A
OCA 000192
OCA 000193
OCA 000194
OCA 000195
OCA 000196
OCA 000197
OCA 000198
OCA 000199
OCA 000200
OCA 000201
OCA 000202
OCA 000203
OCA 000204
OCA 000205
OCA 000206
OCA 000207
OCA 000208
OCA 000209
OCA 000210
OCA 000211
OCA 000212
OCA 000213
OCA 000214
OCA 000215
OCA 000216
OCA 000217
OCA 000218
OCA 000219
OCA 000220
OCA 000221
OCA 000222
OCA 000223
OCA 000224
OCA 000225
OCA 000226
OCA 000227
OCA 000228
OCA 000229
OCA 000230
OCA 000231
OCA 000232
OCA 000233
OCA 000234

Sent: 4/24/2015 10:49:57 PM +00:00
To:
Subject Re: NEWS RELEASE: Oakland City Attorney Secures Settlement in Fraud
:
Case against Prominent Taxi Family
Nevermind Alex... for some reason your email ended up in my spam folder, as well
as Pamela's... weird
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Mike Blasky <mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com>
wrote:
Hey Alex, I missed this... I think I'm on your media list tho so I'm puzzled why we
didn't get it!
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Pamela Lewis-Turntine <pturntine@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:38 PM
Subject: Fwd: NEWS RELEASE: Oakland City Attorney Secures Settlement in Fraud
To: Mike Blasky <mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Hey Mike,
Can you write something on this; probably just need about 8-10". I can run it in Late
Local
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Patricia Hannon <phannon@mercurynews.com>
To: Pamela Lewis-Turntine <pturntine@bayareanewsgroup.com>
did we have this already?
Patricia Hannon
Senior editor, Digital Breaking News
San Jose Mercury News / Bay Area News Group
4 North 2nd St., Suite 800
OCA 000235
San Jose, CA, 95113

twitter.com/phannon50
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Subject: NEWS RELEASE: Oakland City Attorney Secures Settlement in Fraud Case
against Prominent Taxi Family
To: "Katz, Alex" <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
News from:
Oakland City Attorney Barbara
Parker
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 24, 2015
Oakland City Attorney Secures

Media Contacts:
City Attorneys Office

Alex Katz
Settlement in Fraud Case against

Prominent Taxi Family
Settlement resolves Citys lawsuit against
defendants including Dhar Mann, reality TV
persona and member of a family with extensive
real estate and business interests in Oakland
(510) 238-3148
akatz@oaklandcityattorney.org
Oakland, CA Today City Attorney Barbara Parker

announced the resolution of the Citys 2012 fraud
lawsuit against members of a family with extensive
including a prominent taxi company.
OCA 000236
Under the terms of a recent settlement of a civil

lawsuit filed by the Oakland City Attorney in 2012,
the defendants will pay the City $37,500 in civil
penalties under the California False Claims Act. One
of the defendants, minor reality TV persona Dhar
Mann, pleaded no contest in 2014 to five felony
counts related to a scheme to defraud the City by
submitting false claims and receipts in order to
receive redevelopment grant money.
This civil settlement amount is on top of $44,400 in

restitution Mann paid to the City under the terms of
his criminal conviction. The restitution covered the
full amount the City paid defendants due to their
fraud scheme.
Mann is a member of the Singh family, which owns

the Friendly Cab taxi company and other interests in
Oakland. Mann founded the marijuana business
weGrow and appeared on the reality TV show
Shahs of Sunset.
$37,500 is not a huge amount of money for these

defendants. But this lawsuit demonstrates that no
matter how connected you are, or how much money
you have, or how many photos of your Lamborghini
you post on social media, we will hold you
accountable if you attempt to defraud Oakland
taxpayers," Parker said. My Office will continue to
work with the City Auditor and other agencies to
ensure that City residents are protected from fraud
and rip-off schemes."
Parker also thanked Deputy City Attorney Pelayo

Llamas, the lead attorney on the case.
OCA 000237
Evidence in the Citys lawsuit showed that Mann and

the other defendants received at least six grant
contracts to pay for development plans, faade
renovation and other work at five Oakland
properties, including the headquarters of the Friendly
Cab taxi company owned by Manns family. Evidence
showed that the defendants participated in a scheme
to overbill the City for work on the properties, and in
some cases, submitted claims for thousands of
dollars of work that was never done.
Mann and the other defendants received at least

$75,000 of grant funds from the City and the Citys
former Redevelopment Agency over a period of
several years. About $30,000 was used to pay for
improvements at the intended properties. The rest
was paid based on false, forged or misleading claims
and documentation.
For example, on multiple occasions Mann secured

cashiers checks to pay contractors for work
authorized under the grant agreements. But instead
of paying the contractors, Mann deposited the
cashiers checks in his companys bank account. He
then submitted photocopies of the checks to the City
falsely claiming that the contractors had been paid
and received payments of grant funds as
reimbursement. Some of the checks were endorsed
with the phrase Not used for purpose intended.
In other instances, defendants negotiated with

contractors to reduce their bills, but submitted false
claims for reimbursement at the original higher price.
Other documents and checks submitted to the City
contained false information.
OCA 000238
Manns 2014 criminal sentence includes five years of

probation, during which time he is prohibited from
applying for government grants or similar funding.
OCA 000239
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell


[v1.03]
-Pamela Turntine | Oakland Tribune Managing Editor|

1970 Broadway, Suite 100, Oakland, CA 94612
pturntine@bayareanewsgroup.com
www.insidebayarea.com
www.oaklandtribune.com
Twitter: pturntine
(510) 208-6445 (office)
OCA 000240
OCA 000241

Sent: 5/7/2015 3:45:42 PM +00:00
To:
Subject Out of Office: Matthew Artz Re: State Bar Honors Oakland City Attorney
:
Barbara J. Parker as 2015 Public Lawyer of the Year
I will be out of the office from May 4 through May 8, returning Monday, May 11. For
breaking news, please contact Cecily Burt at cburt@bayareanewsgroup.com.
-Matthew Artz
Oakland Tribune
T: 510-208-6435
C: 510-435-8035
OCA 000242

Sent: 4/24/2015 10:41:17 PM +00:00
To:
Subject Fwd: NEWS RELEASE: Oakland City Attorney Secures Settlement in Fraud
:
Hey Alex, I missed this... I think I'm on your media list tho so I'm puzzled why we
didn't get it!
--Office: 510-208-6429
Cell: 702-378-7557

---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Pamela Lewis-Turntine <pturntine@bayareanewsgroup.com>
To: Mike Blasky <mblasky@bayareanewsgroup.com>
Hey Mike,
Can you write something on this; probably just need about 8-10". I can run it in Late
Local
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Patricia Hannon <phannon@mercurynews.com>
To: Pamela Lewis-Turntine <pturntine@bayareanewsgroup.com>
did we have this already?
Patricia Hannon
Senior editor, Digital Breaking News
San Jose Mercury News / Bay Area News Group
4 North 2nd St., Suite 800
San Jose, CA, 95113
twitter.com/phannon50
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Katz, Alex <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
Date: Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Subject: NEWS RELEASE: Oakland City Attorney Secures Settlement in Fraud Case
against Prominent Taxi Family
To: "Katz, Alex" <AKatz@oaklandcityattorney.org>
OCA 000243
News from:
Oakland City Attorney Barbara
Parker
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 24, 2015
Oakland City Attorney Secures

Media Contacts:
City Attorneys Office

Alex Katz
Settlement in Fraud Case against

Prominent Taxi Family
Settlement resolves Citys lawsuit against
defendants including Dhar Mann, reality TV
persona and member of a family with extensive
(510) 238-3148
akatz@oaklandcityattorney.org
Oakland, CA Today City Attorney Barbara Parker

announced the resolution of the Citys 2012 fraud
lawsuit against members of a family with extensive
including a prominent taxi company.
Under the terms of a recent settlement of a civil

lawsuit filed by the Oakland City Attorney in 2012,
the defendants will pay the City $37,500 in civil
penalties under the California False Claims Act. One
of the defendants, minor reality TV persona Dhar
Mann, pleaded no contest in 2014 to five felony
counts related to a scheme to defraud the City by
OCA 000244
submitting false claims and receipts in order to

receive redevelopment grant money.
This civil settlement amount is on top of $44,400 in

restitution Mann paid to the City under the terms of
his criminal conviction. The restitution covered the
full amount the City paid defendants due to their
fraud scheme.
Mann is a member of the Singh family, which owns

the Friendly Cab taxi company and other interests in
Oakland. Mann founded the marijuana business
weGrow and appeared on the reality TV show
Shahs of Sunset.
$37,500 is not a huge amount of money for these

defendants. But this lawsuit demonstrates that no
matter how connected you are, or how much money
you have, or how many photos of your Lamborghini
you post on social media, we will hold you
accountable if you attempt to defraud Oakland
taxpayers," Parker said. My Office will continue to
work with the City Auditor and other agencies to
ensure that City residents are protected from fraud
and rip-off schemes."
Parker also thanked Deputy City Attorney Pelayo

Llamas, the lead attorney on the case.
Evidence in the Citys lawsuit showed that Mann and

the other defendants received at least six grant
contracts to pay for development plans, faade
renovation and other work at five Oakland
properties, including the headquarters of the Friendly
Cab taxi company owned by Manns family. Evidence
showed that the defendants participated in a scheme
OCA 000245
to overbill the City for work on the properties, and in

some cases, submitted claims for thousands of
dollars of work that was never done.
Mann and the other defendants received at least

$75,000 of grant funds from the City and the Citys
former Redevelopment Agency over a period of
several years. About $30,000 was used to pay for
improvements at the intended properties. The rest
was paid based on false, forged or misleading claims
and documentation.
For example, on multiple occasions Mann secured

cashiers checks to pay contractors for work
authorized under the grant agreements. But instead
of paying the contractors, Mann deposited the
cashiers checks in his companys bank account. He
then submitted photocopies of the checks to the City
falsely claiming that the contractors had been paid
and received payments of grant funds as
reimbursement. Some of the checks were endorsed
with the phrase Not used for purpose intended.
In other instances, defendants negotiated with

contractors to reduce their bills, but submitted false
claims for reimbursement at the original higher price.
Other documents and checks submitted to the City
contained false information.
Manns 2014 criminal sentence includes five years of

probation, during which time he is prohibited from
applying for government grants or similar funding.
OCA 000246
OCA 000247
Alex Katz
Chief of Staff
(510) 238-3148 direct
(510) 599-6874 cell


[v1.03]
-Pamela Turntine | Oakland Tribune Managing Editor|

1970 Broadway, Suite 100, Oakland, CA 94612
pturntine@bayareanewsgroup.com
www.insidebayarea.com
www.oaklandtribune.com
Twitter: pturntine
(510) 208-6445 (office)
OCA 000248
OCA 000249

Alex Katzs Emails PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alex Katzs Emails PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Katz, Alex" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S

Not yet, but Im trying.

Sign up for the City Attorney's Newsletter

From: Daniel Borenstein [mailto:dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com]

Checking in to see if you were able to reach anyone for me.

Darwin BondGraham <Darwin.BondGraham@eastbayexpress.com>

The Oakland City Attorneys Office demonstrated neglect and indifference in

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page1 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page2 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page3 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page4 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page5 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page6 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page7 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page8 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page9 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page10 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page11 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page12 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page13 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page14 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page15 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page16 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page17 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page18 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page19 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page20 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page21 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page22 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page23 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page24 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page25 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page26 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page27 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page28 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page29 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page30 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page31 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page32 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page33 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page34 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page35 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page36 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page37 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page38 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page39 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page40 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page41 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page42 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page43 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page44 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page45 of 46

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1054 Filed04/16/15 Page46 of 46

From: Daniel Borenstein <dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com>

From: Daniel Borenstein <dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com>

"Katz, Alex" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S

Here is a statement from Barbara.

Oakland outside of the injunction zone or in other cities.

"Katz, Alex" <CITY OF OAKLAND/CITY ATTORNEY'S

Sign up for the City Attorney's Newsletter

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document1055 Filed04/20/15 Page1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA