Personnel and Public Employees Committee
July 30, 2024

City of Sacramento
Personnel and Public Employees Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-01315 7/30/2024 Consent Item 2.

Evaluation of City Council Appointive Officers - Receipt of Annual Reports of City Council Appointive Officers: City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer, Director of the Office of Public Safety Accountability, and Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA)
File ID: 2024-01315
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Receive annual reports: 1) consider and make recommendations to the city council, and 2) pass a Motion forwarding to the city council for approval.

Contact: Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney, (916) 808-5346, [email protected], Office of the City Attorney; Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, [email protected], Office of the City Clerk; John Colville, City Treasurer, (916) 808-8297, [email protected], Office of the City Treasurer; LaTesha Watson, Director of the Office of Public Safety Accountability, (916) 808-7345, [email protected], Office of Public Safety Accountability; LaShelle Dozier, Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, (916) 440-1319, [email protected], Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) Presenter: None
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Office of the City Attorney Annual Report
3-Office of the City Clerk Annual Report
4-Office of the City Treasurer Annual Report
5-Director of the Office of Public Safety Accountability Annual Report 6-Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) Annual Report - TBD
7-Council Rules of Procedure
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The city council is committed to performing regular annual reviews of its appointive officers, which include the following positions: city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, director of the office of public safety accountability, and executive director of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. These positions report directly to the city council.

File ID: 2024-01315 7/30/2024 Consent Item 2.

Annually, appointive officers shall present their annual reports, including past year accomplishments and strategic goals and objectives for the upcoming year, to the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee.

Policy Considerations: Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 18.

Economic Impacts: Not applicable.

Environmental Considerations:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines §15378(b)(5)).

Sustainability: Not applicable.

Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.

Rationale for Recommendation: Clear communication and performance metrics are at the core of the work of the council and the city. To evaluate council appointive officers on a consistent basis, the P&PE Committee has the role and responsibility of developing and leading annual performance metrics and evaluations.

Financial Considerations: Not applicable.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

ANNUAL REPORT
2023-2024

CITY ATTORNEY’S MESSAGE

MESSAGE FROM CITY ATTORNEY SUSANA ALCALA WOOD
I am pleased to provide the City Attorney’s Annual Report for Fiscal Y ear (“FY”) 2023-2024. Every year the Office of the City Attorney publishes an Annual Report to provide the Council and the City with an overview and accounting of the work we have performed on behalf of the City.

The Annual Report summarizes litigation matters, legal advice, transactional matters, ordinances, and other routine and special matters handled by the members of the Office.

Executive Summary
The Office’s annual budget for FY 23-24 was $12,985,144 and funded a staff of 62 employees who provide critical legal advice and counsel to the City Council, Charter Offices, Departments, Boards and Commissions. Additionally, during this reporting period, the Office handled the bulk of all litigation matters involving the City in-house and prosecuted all violations of the Sacramento City Code. • Legal Advice and Counsel: On a daily basis, we conduct in-depth legal research to provide expert legal advice and counsel regarding the application of federal, state and local law to all City operations. More specifically, we provide legal advice and counsel on all of the City’s policies, ordinances, agreements, programs, projects, services, and organizational/operational matters. • Representation of the City and its Officers and Employees in Litigation: We continued to diligently and expertly defend the City against all claims and lawsuits. We handle the litigation in- house, which not only saves the City money, but also capitalizes on our in-house expertise of City processes and operations.
• Community Advocacy and Public Safety: Through our department enforcement support, criminal prosecution, and Justice for Neighbors program, we diligently work throughout the City to address physical and social nuisances that create significant health and safety concerns for businesses, neighborhoods, and the community. We continually seek opportunities to collaborate with City departments and other public agencies to address and resolve these community challenges together. • Strategic Projects: We work hand-in-hand with council members and City staff on high-priority projects to advance efforts to create more economic opportunities, enhance amenities and services for residents, and respond to high-profile and sensitive matters.

I also am proud to present the City Attorneys Office’s initiative to pursue a Gold Seal from the California State Bar Association on our strategic efforts to fundamentally implement processes that seek to grow our talented team through more inclusionary practices. We firmly believe that diversity improves and informs our advice and enhances the legal counsel we provide to the City.

I am honored to serve as City Attorney for this amazing and innovative City. We actively support the City’s efforts to improve the community and pursue a better City for all by championing the law to empower, protect and advance the rights and interests of all. My Office is dedicated to working to uphold and advance constitutional rights, legal rights, economic interests, and the quality of life important to all residents and persons who work and do business in this great City.

Susana Alcala Wood

City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [1] 2023-2024 Annual Report The administration and general support functions of the office are performed under the direction of the City Attorney.

The Administration Team is City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood; Chief Assistant City Attorney Gustavo L. Martinez; Assistant City Attorneys Matthew D. Ruyak and Brett M. Witter; Supervising Deputy City Attorneys Kourtney C.

Burdick, Steve Y . Itagaki, Michael J. Benner, and Andrea M. Velasquez; Law Office Administrator Angela Kolak; and Special Assistant to the City Attorney Jenny Manzer Beck.

The Administration Team strives to maintain a work environment that inspires excellence and creativity, while rewarding productivity. We promote career enhancement with ongoing training and staff development. The office provides staff the opportunity to obtain needed credits for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE), as well as other professional- association seminars. The Administration Team develops and implements office policies and procedures; monitors overall office performance and individual performance; prepares and administers the office budget; handles all personnel hiring and other personnel matters; assembles and analyzes office productivity data, including production of an annual report; and engages in long-range and succession planning. Together the team prioritizes the establishment and maintenance of relationships and trust with the City Council and their staff, public commissions, and valued City departments, officers, and city staff.

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

ADMINISTRATION TEAM
Each year the Sacramento City Council adopts dozens of ordinances, most of which get incorporated into the published Sacramento City Code. Not only are ordinances fundamental statements of public policy, they create the legal framework for city government operations, economic activity in the city, and the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and promote the public health, safety, and welfare.

To ensure the council’s ordinances are constitutional, enforceable, consistent with state law and the rest of the Sacramento City Code, understandable, and accurate reflections of the council’s public policy intentions, the City Attorney’s Office has a process for the drafting and vetting of proposed ordinances. Key to that process is thorough review by a small group of seasoned attorneys who meet frequently for that vetting.

That group, the Draft Ordinance Review Committee, met 23 times in 2023. Among the notable ordinances drafted and reviewed in 2023 are the following:

LEGISLATION HIGHLIGHTS

NOTABLE ORDINANCES
• Amending Sacramento City Code (SCC) chapter 8.68,
to protect the health and safety of medical patients by establishing noise controls around health care facilities. • Amending SCC chapter 8.132 to cover the illegal
cultivation of cannabis on residential properties.
• A major overhaul (covering SCC chapters 5.68, 8.24,

12.48, 13.10, and 13.24) of solid waste management
regulations.
• Amendment of SCC chapter 15.104 to update the
code at request of the state after consultations with
the county, the state, and FEMA about a county-wide
update to a Flood Insurance Rate Map.
• An ordinance authorizing the city manager to identify sites for safe camping and motel shelters for persons
experiencing homelessness, and to commence
operations at those sites.

City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [2] 2023-2024 Annual Report • Completed incorporating new office space to existing
City Attorney suite, minimizing costs by using carryover budget, utilizing existing furnishings and electronic
equipment where possible.
• Implemented return to work plan formulated last FY
using current COVID-19 protocols and health orders,
and allowing for flexible staff hours, thus minimizing
impact on City Hall resources.
• Continued to reduce print materials and opt for
electronic where available to reduce cost and
increase access.
• Addressed vacant attorney positions by either
restructuring the work and holding vacancies, or
underfilling Senior Deputy City Attorney positions with Deputy City Attorney I/II level hires to optimize budget. • Cooperatively sourced e-discovery software with the
City Clerk and IT Department to allow for efficient
handling of PRA documents and emails, and case related
documents, resulting in greater accuracy in data and
record management, and legal compliance.
$ 530,892
Enterprise
or other
funding

OFFICE OVERVIEW

OPERATIONS AND OBJECTIVES
The Office’s annual budget for FY 23-24 was $12,985,144 and funded a staff of 62 employees who provide critical legal advice and counsel to the City Council, Charter Offices, Departments, Boards and Commissions. The office also handles the bulk of litigation matters involving the city and prosecute violations of the Sacramento City Code.

The City Attorney’s budget includes a fixed annual revenue amount of $52,000. That budgeted amount is recovered primarily from services billed to the Sacramento Public Library Authority, as well as other fees and charges recoverable to the City Attorney from the Citywide Fee and Charge Schedule.

DEPARTMENT EFFICIENCIES
The City Attorney also received an additional $14,600
for services rendered to the Sacramento Public Library
Authority in excess of the services delivered as part of the fixed annual amount. Pursuant to Council Resolution No. 2020-0227, these funds were set aside in the City
Attorney’s technology capital improvement project (CIP) which is used as the primary source for new computer
hardware when end-of-lifecycle equipment is replaced.

In addition to the revenue figures above, the City
Attorney recognized a total of $2,601 in revenue under
Council Resolution No. 2009-164 (Justice for Neighbors
Multi-Y ear Operating Project). Those funds were
set aside in the JFN MYOP , which is used to provide
resources to the City to combat quality-of life-issues
under the City’s social nuisance code.

Operating Budget for FY 2023-2024
$ 12,985,144
$ 10,470,489
General Fund
$ 1,983,763
Interdepartmental
Funds
City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [3] 2023-2024 Annual Report SERVICE-DELIVERY PRIORITIES ACHIEVED IN 2023
OBJECTIVES FOR FY2024/25
• Worked closely with the City Manager and City Clerk
to prepare for municipal elections.
• Enhanced the Office Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
efforts to assure that the city is well-served by a deeply talented, collaborative, and outstanding legal team.
• Advised the Council and City departments regarding
recent changes to cannabis laws and regulations, and
the ongoing development of the Cannabis Opportunity
Reinvestment and Equity program.
• Assisted the Council and City Manager with ordinance
drafting in response to an initiative that addresses
homelessness issues; advised on all options available
for the provision of services and housing to the City’s homeless population.
• Assisted the Council and City Manager by analyzing,
researching, and advising on issues related to
COVID-19, including the health and safety of
employees and citizens, economic recovery, access to
available funding, and return-to-work protocols.
• Provided citywide training through CityYOU courses
including Public Records Act, and public contracting.
• Follow through with process put in place to enhance
the Office Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals
designed to improve internal commitment for
recruitment and hiring, outreach to the community,
and operations within the City Attorney’s Office.
• Continue to advise the Council and City departments
regarding recent changes to cannabis laws and
regulations, and the ongoing development of the
Cannabis Opportunity Reinvestment and Equity
program.
• Assist the Council and City Manager with
interpretation and implementation of Measure L
(Sacramento Children & Y outh Health and Safety Act).
• Provide citywide training through CityYOU on the
Public Records Act, and First Amendment issues.
• Continue supporting the City’s pursuit of racial and
social justice and racial equity through ongoing
support for the Police Department and the Office of
Public Safety Accountability, by working to increase
the public’s oversight of its Police Department, and by helping to reimagine and retool the City’s delivery of
public safety services.
• Retain a staff of highly qualified and dedicated
attorneys and support staff with extensive knowledge
of the City of Sacramento and municipal law to deliver
high quality legal services and advice more efficiently and effectively.
• Continue to defend the City’s legal interests in court and in administrative proceedings and initiate legal
action and other initiatives to protect and advance the rights, interests, and quality of life of our community, and to ensure justice and equity.

City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [4] 2023-2024 Annual Report

CITY ATTORNEY BY THE NUMBERS

NEW ASSIGNMENTS/CASES BY CLIENTS
CITY DEPARTMENTS JANUARY 2023-MAY 2024
City Attorney’s Office 145
City Auditor 47
City Clerk 230
City Manager 794
City Mayor and Council 32
City Treasurer 37
Civil Service Board Commission 2
Community Development 486
Community Racial
Profiling Commission[1] 371
Community Response 227
Convention and Cultural Services 227
Office of Innovation and
Economic Development 222
Finance 184
Fire 87
Human Resources 216
Information Technology 187
Law and Legislation 15
Library Authority 71
Police 515
Public Works 1,355
Utilities 424
Youth Parks and
Community Enrichment 316
Staff Reports 1,120
[1] Reporting only on departments and commissions that
generate significant numbers of legal assignments
City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [5] 2023-2024 Annual Report

LITIGATION DIVISION
SPD Officer v. City of Sacramento
A former SPD officer appealed his termination from
employment, due to his failure to properly investigate
allegations of domestic violence during a call for service.

The officer also was dishonest with his partner and
supervisor about the substance of the investigation and was dishonest with Internal Affairs during a subsequent investigatory interview. Following a two-day arbitration hearing, the arbitrator issued an award denying the officer’s grievance and upholding the termination, and the Civil
Service Board adopted the arbitrator’s award.

SPD Officer v. City of Sacramento
A former SPD officer appealed his termination from
employment, resulting from an incident during which he
was rude and unprofessional to a civilian, failed to properly supervise his trainee, and failed to take numerous safety precautions, endangering himself, his fellow officers,
and the civilian, and failed to properly activate and
deactivate his body-worn camera device. The officer was subsequently dishonest during his investigatory interview with Internal Affairs. Following a two-day arbitration hearing, the arbitrator issued an award denying the officer’s grievance and upholding the termination, and the Civil
Service Board adopted the arbitrator’s award.

Caliber Collision v. City of Sacramento
and RASA
Plaintiff operates an autobody repair business located
at 2310 Lexington Street, Sacramento CA. Throughout
2020 and 2021, they claimed individuals experiencing
homelessness adjacent to its property threated the
health, safety, and well-being of employees, customers
and vendors, and caused detrimental effects to business.

Plaintiff sued the City in Federal Court alleging its
constitutional rights had been violated and sought
injunctive relief and the recovery of attorney’s fees
and costs. The City and RASA successfully entered
into a settlement whereby Plaintiff agreed to lease the adjacent RASA properties where the homeless camps
had proliferated in exchange for a dismissal of all claims.

Plaintiff is using the property as parking and storage.

Nguyen v. City of Sacramento, et al.

The City was sued for motor vehicle negligence as a result of a collision wherein Plaintiff rear-ended SPD Officer Paul Fong while he was driving Code 3 with lights and sirens.

Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case in its entirety after we filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the City and Officer Fong.

City of Sacramento v. Steve’s Rock & Ready
The City initiated a lawsuit against a concrete supplier who had unlawfully disposed of hazardous brake fluid
in the City’s storm drainage system. We successfully
negotiated a settlement that fully reimbursed the City for its remediation costs in exchange for a dismissal of the City’s lawsuit.

City of Sacramento v. Civil Service Board
The City initiated a writ petition challenging an adverse employment arbitration wherein the City’s termination
of a Department of Utilities wastewater supervisor was
overturned. The issue was whether being on-call is an
essential function of the job. The employee contended
that he was medically unable to take on-call shifts and the City’s position is that the position of wastewater supervisor requires on-call shifts. The Superior Court granted the City’s writ petition, agreeing that being on-call is an essential function of the job of wastewater supervisor.

The Litigation Division defends and prosecutes civil litigation cases on behalf of the City and its officers and employees acting in the course and scope of employment; and provides legal support to Risk Management. Division attorneys work in all manner of law including civil rights, personal injury, property damage, construction defect, eminent domain, breach of contract, employment, and CEQA. Division attorneys work in both the administrative and civil arenas providing litigation services in arbitration and administrative proceedings and in both state and federal courts.

NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS
City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [6] 2023-2024 Annual Report SPD Sergeant v. City of Sacramento
A former sergeant with the Sacramento Police Department was terminated for sustained violations of SPD general
orders arising out of her misuse of the CLETS system. The sergeant appealed the City’s decision on the grounds the City lacked good cause to terminate her employment, and the City participated in a two-day arbitration hearing. The arbitrator affirmed the City’s decision to terminate the sergeant and the CSB adopted the arbitrator’s decision.

Railroad 1900, LLC v. City of Sacramento
A business owner sued the City for constitutional violations, alleging that the City’s failure to move homeless individuals that surrounded his business effectively created a “zone of containment” that negatively impacted his business. We
filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Court
granted, finding that plaintiff had no standing to sue the City based on the City’s discretionary decisions on how, why, and when to enforce or not enforce its laws related to homeless encampment abatement.

CMS Lathrop v. City of Sacramento
This was another homelessness litigation matter filed by a business in Sacramento that claimed that the City’s failure to enforce certain laws related to encampment abatement negatively impacted its business. Following our successful motion for summary judgment in the Railroad 1900
matter, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss this case in its entirety.

Elisa Mederos v. City of Sacramento, et. al.

This case stemmed from a trip and fall that occurred
on 24th Street. Plaintiff alleged that she fell on uneven sidewalk. We filed a motion for summary judgment based
on lack of notice. The Court granted our dispositive motion and the case was dismissed.

Candida Johnson v. Patrick Mulligan, City of
Sacramento
Plaintiff alleged she was sexually assaulted by an SPD
Officer during a pat down for weapons prior to her being transported and booked in the Main Jail. We took this case to trial in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California and obtained a unanimous defense verdict in favor of the City and Officer Mulligan.

Vang v. City of Sacramento, et al.

This matter involved the officer-involved shooting of a man who had been pointing a replica gun at citizens on the streets of Sacramento. At the close of trial, a single juror hold-out prevented a defense verdict and a mistrial was declared. On the eve of the retrial a year later, we settled the matter for $100,000. The initial demand prior to the first trial was $7,000,000.

Alston v. City of Sacramento, et al.

Plaintiff asserted various civil rights violations after being detained while SPD investigated a shooting at a residence.

We filed a successful motion for summary judgment and
the case was dismissed in our favor.

City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [7] 2023-2024 Annual Report

STRATEGIC PROJECTS AND RESEARCH
Homelessness
SPR attorneys advised staff and council regarding the
implementation and performance of the Partnership
Agreement with the County of Sacramento regarding
homelessness and its companion Collaboration Protocol,
the Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act of 2022
(Measure O), as well as numerous other homelessness-
related service contracts and grant documents.

Sacramento Iceland
SPR attorneys provided legal advice and drafted
numerous transactional documents to provide $1.3M+ in
funding to the operator of Sacramento Iceland to build a roof over the ice rink and to make improvements to the
existing building façade.

North Natomas Community Facilities
District No. 4, City of Sacramento, County
of Sacramento, State of California, Special
Tax Refunding Bonds, Series G (2023) – Par
Amount $25,125,000.00
SPR attorneys assisted the City Treasurer with the issuance of these bonds to refund bonds the City previously issued for North Natomas community facilities. The issuance
lowered the interest owed on a portion of the outstanding bonds, benefiting all property owners within the CFD who are subject to the special tax.

Sacramento Innovation Grant Program
SPR attorneys provided legal advice about how to carry
out the Sacramento Innovation Grant Program, which
offers up to $1 million in grants annually from the City’s Innovation and Growth Fund to support the development
of Sacramento’s entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem.

St. Anton Ascent Project
The St. Anton Ascent project is a proposed 120-unit
affordable housing project in City Council District 1.

SPR attorneys provided legal advice to secure benefits
for residents of the project and City oversight of the
completed project.

City of Sacramento Water Revenue Refunding
Bonds, Series 2023 – Par Amount $20,985,000
SPR attorneys helped the City Treasurer issue the Series 2023 Bonds to partially refund the City of Sacramento Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2020, to partially refund the Series 2020 Bonds through use of a tender offer. The issuance resulted in savings of approximately $4 million to the City’s Water Fund through lower interest rates.

The Strategic Projects and Research Division provides legal advice on projects initiated by the City Council or that require multi-departmental coordination. SPR attorneys also provide legal advice to the City Council, charter offices, and city departments.

NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS
City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [8] 2023-2024 Annual Report

GENERAL COUNSEL AND ADVISORY
Assisted the City Managers’ Office in negotiating an
extension of the City’s Community Workforce Training
Agreement for another five-year term, which requires
public works contractors to utilize unionized labor for City construction projects over $1 million and prioritizes local hiring.

Advised on the drafting of the 2040 General Plan, Stockton Boulevard Plan, Marysville and Del Paso Boulevard Action Plan, and the Age-Friendly Action Plan.

Advised on various housing laws, including the laws
related to accessory dwelling units, ministerial housing approvals, and urban lot splits, all of which are aimed at increasing housing availability within the City.

Coordinated the efforts of Department of Utilities water quality staff and outside counsel in litigation to obtain a settlement estimated at $5 million to compensate the City for damages related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (i.e., forever chemicals) contamination of City water sources.

Assisted Recycling and Solid Waste in drafting an
ordinance updating collection and disposal requirements for organic waste to ensure compliance with new state
laws and reduce the amount of waste deposited in landfills, thereby reducing methane gas emissions.

Assisted the Convention and Cultural Services
Department in distributing state and federal grant funds, which allowed hundreds of organizations and individuals to continue to provide programs, services, and activities to communities that were adversely impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic. This effort involved preparing grant guidelines, notices of funding availability, and preparing nearly 200 grant agreements totaling over $7 million.

Drafted an ordinance authorizing new storm drainage
development fee and advised Department of Utilities staff on legal steps necessary to adopt updated nexus studies and water and sewer capacity charges.

The General Counsel and Advisory Division provides legal advice and support to the City Council, all City departments, and staff. The group advises on all aspects of municipal law, including the Brown Act; Public Records Act; Political Reform Act; the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); water law; Propositions 26 and 218; public bidding, construction, and procurement; contract negotiation, drafting, and review; prevailing wages; transportation; real estate procurement, conveyance, and leasing; solid waste disposal; landfill regulation; and various other areas of municipal law.

NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS
City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [9] 2023-2024 Annual Report

COMMUNITY ADVOCACY
& PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION (“CAPS”)
This division provides advisory and enforcement services to the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) and the Neighborhood Code Compliance, Business Compliance, and Housing & Dangerous Buildings divisions of the Community Development Department (CDD). The division partners with enforcement departments to prosecute and abate physical and social nuisances. The division also includes a Criminal Prosecution Unit that prosecutes criminal violations of the City Code.

Led the City’s Incident Management Team in drafting and publishing the Citywide Homeless Response Protocols.

Assisted the City Manager’s Office with the cleanup
of Roseville Road through effective legal advice on the relocation of approximately 24 camps located in the area and the eventual removal of 318,000 pounds of trash and debris.

Advised the Department of Utilities on the enforcement of the critical infrastructure ordinance to achieve the successful inspection, maintenance, and repair of the City’s flood- control infrastructure.

Assisted the Police Department with training and navigating the complex Military Use Policy.

Assisted the Community Development Department with
securing a receivership and subsequent demolition of a large burned-out commercial building near Executive Airport that had become a haven for squatters and drug users.

Continued to abate illegal cannabis production and collect administrative and civil penalties to fund the JFN Fund, which provides funding for training, equipment, and the Emergency Home Repair Program (EHRP).

Led the Justice for Neighbor’s team to abate social and physical nuisance properties throughout the City.

Assisted the Department of Community Response and the
City Manager’s Office with Citywide Homelessness Response Protocols and provided guidance on those Protocols to
protect both the public and the rights of people experiencing homelessness.

Assisted the Police Department with training and producing confidential police personnel records pursuant to SB 1421 and AB 748 (state disclosure laws).

Assisted the Police Department with prosecuting Gun
Violence Restraining Orders, taking weapons off the street and from individuals who pose a threat to either themselves or the public at large.

NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENTS
In its capacity as the general counsel for SPD and the
three divisions of CDD, CAPS advises on and helps draft ordinances, provides legal advice regarding the California Public Records Act, responds to subpoenas, and provides analysis and advice on the various provisions of state and federal law that pertain to the departments. In addition, attorneys in the division represent the city on all Pitchess motions and advise and make appearances regarding Gun
Violence Restraining Orders, and handle all Cal. Welf. & Inst. § 8102 Weapons Petitions.

In its enforcement role, the mission of the division is to fight corrosive social and criminal nuisances that
degrade the quality of life in the City. The division’s aim is to identify, prioritize, and address criminal problems before they grow into serious offenses that can lead to urban decay. The division understands that the ability to respond to neighborhood complaints and address criminal problems proactively is critical to improving quality of life in our neighborhoods.

Through the Justice for Neighbors (JFN) program, our office has coordinated with the City’s enforcement departments, including the Fire and Community Development
Departments, to target abandoned structures, nuisance
properties, and blight plaguing neighborhoods. The JFN
team files lawsuits seeking aggressive and specifically tailored injunctive relief, including stay-away orders, closure of properties, hiring of security guards, installation of video camera systems, and other improvements to properties.

In cases where such remedies are inadequate to abate the nuisance, CAPS attorneys have the ability to petition the court to request that a receiver be appointed to oversee the abatement of nuisances on the property.

City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [10] 2023-2024 Annual Report

OFFICE PROGRAMS
Law Clerk Program
Our award-winning law clerk program continues to thrive thanks to all the attorneys who work with and provide
guidance to the students. Our office has been acknowledged by McGeorge School of Law’s Public Legal Services Society as an exceptional supporter of their mission of enhancing the ability of law students to choose public interest or public-service careers.

Most of the program applicants are students from local law schools – McGeorge School of Law and UC Davis – but we
have also had applicants from UC Berkeley, Pepperdine,
University of Virginia, and William and Mary. Our office hosts students year-round, part-time during the school
semesters and full-time during the summer.

In addition to working on various legal issues, the law clerks also accompany attorneys to meetings, arbitrations, mediations, depositions, hearings, and trials, all of
which help them utilize their newly acquired skills in a professional setting.

In 2023, the City Attorney’s Office increased its investment in this program by providing a stipend to the summer law clerks, expanding the opportunity to those who may not be able to afford to forgo other employment during that period.

Several former law clerks have later been hired into full-time attorney positions in the office.

Externship Fair
On September 5th, the City Attorney’s Office participated in the externships fair held at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, which helps connect students with externships and job opportunities.

Career Fairs
Attorneys and support staff attend career fairs throughout the year, including the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law Externship Fair, the Sacramento Region
Diversity Career Fair, the UC Davis School of Law Public Interest & Government Career Fair, and the American River College Spring Career Fair. At each of these career fairs, employees speak directly with prospective hires about the office, the hiring process, and the office’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The Sacramento Region Diversity Career Fair held at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law featured an in-person discussion panel that included Sacramento
Superior Court Judge Bunmi Awoniyi, U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta, California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Elena Duarte, and U.S. Courts for the Ninth Circuit Executive Susan Soong. The panel spoke on issues affecting diverse law students and attorneys and led the audience in discussion groups to share ideas. Attorneys and paralegals from the City Attorney’s Office also participated in the career fair table talk and reception, where they met with many law students and attorneys from around the Sacramento region.

Habitat for Humanity
As the result of successful litigation regarding an unlawful cannabis grow house, the City Attorney’s Office, through the Justice for Neighbors program, was instrumental in
having a home donated to Habitat for Humanity of Greater Sacramento. Habitat selected a family to become the home’s owner, and through generous community donations and the hard work of volunteer labor (including that of the chosen family), the home was completely remodeled and returned to safe and clean housing in the City of Sacramento.

City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [11] 2023-2024 Annual Report DEI Leadership Seal Program of the State Bar of
California
In 2023, the City Attorney’s Office became a committed
participant in the State Bar of California’s DEI Leadership Seal Program which recognizes legal employers that commit to and implement research-driven actions that further
workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion. Pursuant to that program, the office is collecting and analyzing demographic data pertaining to the office, including our diversity mission statement in all job advertisements, requiring annual implicit bias training for all staff, and integrating DEI responsibilities into the job duties of the office leadership. We anticipate completing the DEI Leadership Seal program this summer.

Law Day 2024
On May 1st, the City Attorney’s Office commemorated
Law Day with an event to celebrate the rule of law and
cultivate a deeper understanding of the legal system. This year’s theme, “Voices of Democracy, ” was recognized with a program that included guest speakers from McGeorge
School of Law and the California League of Women Voters.

On that same day, the office opened its offices to city staff for tours and camaraderie.

Mentorship Program
Beginning in 2023, the office established a mentorship
program that connects all newly hired employees—both
attorneys and support staff—with a more experienced
employee to ensure that new members of the office are
welcomed into the workplace and are supported by all of the resources they need to thrive. The program supports monthly meetings between the pair for a full year, so that the new employees’ relationships with their mentors and the office can be built up over time.

Racial Equity Core Team
In FY 2023-24, the City Attorney’s Office’s Racial Equity Core Team led the efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout the office. The Core Team’s efforts were the catalyst to increasing the office’s outreach efforts by reviving its annual Law Day event, establishing a career fairs program to expand our reach in recruitment, and creating the mentorship program to enhance our inclusion and
retention efforts.

Finally, the Core Team initiated the office’s participation in the State Bar of California’s DEI Leadership Seal Program and led the efforts to complete the action items to further workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion.

City of Sacramento Office of the City Attorney [12] 2023-2024 Annual Report Susana Alcala Wood
City Attorney
Sacramento City Hall
915 I Street, Room 4006
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 808-5346
www.cityofsacramento.org/attorney
Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 1 of 15

Annual Report – July 2024

Statistics based on Fiscal Year 2023/24 – July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 2 of 15

Honorable Mayor, Councilmembers, Colleagues, and Constituents,

It is with great pleasure that I present to you the Annual Report of the City of Sacramento Office of the City Clerk for fiscal year 2023/2024. As custodians of the city’s records and facilitators of civic engagement, the Office of the City Clerk plays a pivotal role in supporting the transparency, integrity, and accessibility of local government operations.

Throughout the year our dedicated team has been committed to upholding the highest standards of service delivery to meet the needs of our community. This report serves as a comprehensive overview of our accomplishments and initiatives undertaken to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our services.

In the following pages, you will find detailed insights into our key responsibilities, achievements in legislative management, records management, operational support of mayor and councilmember offices, tickets program, elections and statutory compliance, and our good governance program.

As we look ahead, we remain steadfast in our commitment to continuous improvement and innovation, guided by our mission to serve the public with professionalism, integrity, and dedication.

Thank you for your continued partnership as we strive to foster a more informed, engaged, and inclusive community.

Regards,

Mindy Cuppy, MMC
Sacramento City Clerk

[email protected]
(916) 808-7200

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 3 of 15
Overview

The City Clerk oversees the activities and functions of the Office of the City Clerk including supervision of staff; performing highly advanced organizational tasks as prescribed by the City Charter, City Code, State Law, and various ordinances and resolutions; initiates, develops, and implements policies and procedures to execute the laws and administer the work of the Office of the City Clerk; maintains and disseminates records of action of legislative bodies, municipal ordinances, resolutions, codes and other government documents; and provides highly responsible and complex administrative support to the members of the City Council. This year a large focus was on implementing training centered around succession planning for the City Clerk’s Office. Succession planning will remain a focus into FY2024/25.

City of Sacramento Charter § 71 City Clerk mandates the following:

The city council shall appoint a city clerk who shall have custody of and shall be responsible for the official seal and records of the city. The city clerk shall act as secretary of the city council and all other boards, commissions and agencies of the city.

The city council shall prescribe the qualifications, additional duties and compensation of the city clerk. The city clerk shall appoint subject to the civil service provisions of this Charter, such deputies and employees as the council may by resolution prescribe.

The Office of the City Clerk’s mission is to provide excellent customer service to our internal and external customers. We strive to maximize public access to local government by recording and preserving the legislative history of the city and ensuring it is transparent and accessible.

The Office of the City Clerk is responsible for the following:

• Legislative management for City Council, Council Standing Committees, Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
• Boards and commissions administration.
• Ethics Commission staffing which includes ethics complaint coordination, Code of Ethics, and Sunshine Ordinance monitoring.
• Elections Official.
• Maintenance of the City’s Municipal Code and Charter. • Statutory compliance and filing officer for Fair Political Practices (FPPC) filings and mandatory training.
• Contracts processing, bid openings, and legal noticing. • Public records requests, citywide records management, and document retention. • Community Tickets Program (Golden 1 Center)
• Operational management for the mayor and council offices, including human resources, accounting, travel, and facilities management.
• Administrative, personnel, and fiscal operations support for the Office of the City Clerk, Mayor and Council Offices, and the Office of Public Safety Accountability Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 4 of 15
Evaluation Period Accomplishments

In addition to the statutory responsibilities of the City Clerk, over this past year the following are significant accomplishments in addition to our strategic goals and objectives as outlined in our last annual report:

• For the first time since 1999, the City Clerk’s Office organized and implemented an application and onboarding process to appoint a councilmember. The Office of the City Clerk was integral in the appointment process of a councilmember due to an unexpected vacancy that occurred on January 4, 2024. In consultation with the city council, we created a webpage with an anticipated timeline, guidelines and qualifications, process for the appointment, and application. We conducted outreach and received 14 applications. Our office facilitated interviews before the Personnel and Public Employee (P&PE) committee at an offsite location in the district and interviews before the city council. We conducted onboarding and education for the incoming member and the swearing in and seating of Councilmember Thao took place on April 2, 2024.

• We assisted in the process to establish the Sacramento Children’s Fund Planning and Oversight Commission. We conducted the recruitment for commissioners, processed the appointments, and assisted in training the commissioners on their roles and responsibilities of being an appointee on a city legislative body.

• In collaboration with the Sacramento Ethics Commission, we updated the Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Code as well as the scope of the Ethics Commission to bring Lobbyist’s under its authority.

• This year we had significant challenges with decorum in the city council chambers. We partnered with the City Attorney, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Mayor Pro Tem to develop guidelines for ensuring a fair and consistent processes for public meeting facilitation so that the city’s business could be accomplished.

• In March 2023, the Council Rules of Procedure were updated to include a Councilmember Proposal Process which is managed by our office. We created a proposal form, transparent Teams environment so that members can track progress of their proposals and have moved 25 proposals through the process.

• In the Spring of 2023, we transitioned from virtual boards, commission, and committee meetings and welcomed members back into the council chambers. Upon return to chambers, we welcomed members with digital business cards, nametags, and an orientation to chamber technology.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 5 of 15
• We have implemented a new public-facing webpage on schedule and in compliance with the DOTGOV Online Trust in Government Act of 2019, with a more streamlined appearance and a focus on transparency of the work of the Office of the City Clerk.

• We have continued to support our Sister Cites Council of Sacramento and have hosted representatives from our Sister Cities of Matsuyama, Japan and Jinan, China this year.

The council meets quarterly, and our office has created agendas to include reports from each city's representative, attended the meetings, and documented their activities.

Below is a status update on the strategic goals and objectives that were proposed last fiscal year:

• Proactive recruitment that ensures diversity, equity, and inclusion on city boards, commissions and committees.
o We conducted recruitments and seated 86 commissioners this fiscal year. We will continue to focus on proactive recruitments to ensure our boards, commissions and committees.

• Comprehensive commissioner and staff education.
o We formalized the Commissioner Orientation program and offered one-on-one training to all newly appointed and reappointed commissioners. We are in the process of creating an orientation video that will be posted to our website so that it can be viewed at any time by applicants and commissioners.

• Effective annual reporting process for constant communication between the council and commissions.
o We have formalized a process for commissions to report to the city council. This highlights for the council and our community the important work of city commissions and ensures clear and consistent policies, scope, council direction, and communication.
o The following commissions reported to P&PE and the city council this year:
 Active Transportation Commission
 Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee
 Measure U Advisory Committee
 Preservation Commission
 Planning and Design Commission
 Sacramento Arts Culture and Creative Economy Commission  Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
 Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission
 Sacramento Ethics Commission
 Sacramento Youth Commission

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 6 of 15
• Review of all city board, commission and committee establishing code for consistency and relevance and recommend any updates.
o In partnership with the City Attorney’s office, we have reviewed municipal code for all city established boards, commissions, and committees which are all currently in the process of being reviewed by the City Council. We anticipate that this initiative will be completed by the end of the calendar year.

• Research and begin implementation of a new agenda management system to improve transparency, consistency, accessibility, and maintenance of legislative history. o We have reviewed many agenda management systems and have not yet found a solution that is as robust as our city needs. We are working diligently with our current agenda management system vendor, Granicus, on upgrades and improvements to our current system and have made significant improvements in processes. This is an ongoing project.

• Expand mayor and councilmember support to include councilmember onboarding and training, council staff training, and expanded support for council community events. o We have created an Incoming Councilmember Resource Guide and have shared it with incoming councilmembers and their staff.

• Will professionalize our ceremonial recognition program to elevate prestigious recognition and create tools for council offices to recognize members of our community.

o We have developed templates for individual office ceremonial resolutions. We will be rolling out a tracking system in Teams and a new template design in January 2025.

• Research and begin implementation of a new codification vendor to update and maintain our municipal code.
o We are in the process of transitioning to a new codification vendor, American Legal Publishing, which will be complete on August 1, 2024.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 7 of 15
Strategic Goals and Objectives for the Upcoming Evaluation Period

In addition to always looking for innovative ways to complete our statutory obligations we are dedicated to continuing to serve the mayor, councilmembers, our colleagues, and constituents with professionalism and integrity.

We intend to move the following priorities forward in the upcoming fiscal year:

Mayor and Council Operational Support
• This year we will welcome and orient two councilmembers, a mayor, and their staff. • We will formalize our lunch and learn training program for Executive Assistants and Chief of Staff in the mayor and council offices.
• We will formalize the city council ceremonial recognition program.

City Boards, Commissions, and Committees
• We will continue the process of streamlining city commissions enacting code which should be complete by the end of 2024.
• We will create a commission staff handbook and training. • We will finalize a commissioner orientation video.
• We will continue to streamline the process for commissions to report to the city council. • We will create and present a Ralph M. Brown Act training course to all commissions.

Legislative Management
• We will create and conduct training on staff report writing. • We will modernize the city’s municipal code, including, but not limited to, updating the code for gender neutral language.

Records Management
• We will create and conduct training on the Records Management Policy. • We will create and conduct training on our Public Records Request software.

Statutory Compliance
• This year we will roll out a new ethics training and compliance tracking program to ensure compliance with AB1234 and our Code of Ethics.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 8 of 15
Office of the City Clerk Team

The Office of the City Clerk consists of an extremely dedicated and competent team. We are motivated to provide exceptional service to our internal and external customers.

Below is a chart of your partners:

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 9 of 15
Legislative Management
City Council, Council Standing Committees, Boards, Commissions, and Committees

The Office of the City Clerk is responsible for legislative management of the following city boards, commissions, and committees. This includes agenda management, staffing, and maintaining a clear and transparent history of each legislative body.

• Sacramento City Council
• Budget and Audit (B&A) Council Standing Committee
• Law and Legislation (L&L) Council Standing Committee
• Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Council Standing Committee • Racial Equity Council Standing Committee
• Active Transportation Commission
• Administration, Investment and Fiscal Management Boards • Aggie Square Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Public Financing Authority • Animal Care Services Citizens Advisory Committee
• Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission • Civil Service Board
• Compensation Commission
• Defined Contributions Plans Committee
• Ethel MacLeod Hart Trust Fund Advisory Committee
• Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board
• Litigation Resolution Committee
• Measure U Community Advisory Committee
• Parks and Community Enrichment Commission
• Planning and Design Commission
• Preservation Commission
• Sacramento Arts, Culture, and Creative Economy Commission • Sacramento Children’s Fund Planning and Oversight Commission • Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
• Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission
• Sacramento Ethics Commission
• Sacramento Independent Redistricting Commission
• Sacramento Youth Commission
• Stadium Area Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Public Financing Authority • Utilities Rate Advisory Commission

Over the past year, the Office of the City Clerk has published agendas and staffed 315 public meetings, processed 1,772 staff reports, 401 resolutions, 31 ordinances, and 374 motions.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 10 of 15
Citywide Records Management

The Office of the City Clerk is responsible for our Citywide Content Management System (CCM).

This system allows automated retention rules and litigation holds to be placed on documents within its system, and for vital records of the City’s legislative bodies to be available to the public via the online record library. We are constantly adding documents to the database and tagging fields to relate documents. Currently there are over 15.5 million records in CCM and 10 million records in the online record library.

This year the Office of the City Clerk processed 4,358 public records requests, 80 litigation holds, and 65 subpoenas. Government Code states that within 10 days you shall respond to a requestor, however, should you need additional time, you may request an extension. For extensive requests, we may notify the requestor that additional time is needed as long as an estimated date when records will be made available is provided to the requestor. The majority of our requests (75%) have been fulfilled within the initial 10-day deadline. There are requests that are complex and take a longer period to provide records, however, we consistently follow the applicable regulations and provide the requestor an estimated date and disclose records as they become available. Our average closure time is 26 days.

4,358 public records requests processed.
75% completed within the initial 10-day deadline.

Average closure time is 26 days.

2,952 contracts and contract supplements were also processed through the Office of the City Clerk this past year.

On the next page are statistics on the distribution of public records requests by department and closure statistics.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 11 of 15
Public Records Requests by Department

Public Records Requests Closure Statistics

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 12 of 15
Operational Support to the Mayor and Councilmember Offices

Our Mayor/Council Operations team processes all human resources, training, and finance tasks for the Mayor, City Council, City Clerk, and Office of Public Safety Accountability. To ensure a high level of customer service we have cross trained staff and put processes in place to streamline services.

This past fiscal year, we processed 997 checks, 300 purchase card statements (56% increase from the previous year), 533 stipend invoices and payments, and 86 travel requests, as well as other financial requests, ultimately resulting in over 2,500 individual financial transactions entered, processed, and approved for the Offices of the Mayor and City Council, City Auditor, and Office of Public Safety Accountability.

We have onboarded 20 new Council staff, 6 OPSA staff (in newly created positions) and 47 volunteers.

2,500 Individual Financial Transactions
Entered, Processed, and Approved.

56% Increase in Purchase Cards Statements Processed.

We have also brought council event contracting support to the Office of the City Clerk in order to simplify the process for planning and hosting events. This past year we initiated 48 total contracts and assisted with the insurance and procurement processes involved in council events and services. Our office also took over contracting and scheduling of equipment needed for events that is outside of YPCE owned equipment (i.e. portapotties).

In support of the citywide contracting processes, the Office of the City Clerk hosted 60 public bid openings this past fiscal year.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 13 of 15
Ticket Policy and Golden 1 Center Community Group Ticket Program

During this evaluation period, the Office of the City Clerk distributed tickets to 130 events at the Golden 1 Center, for a total of 2,860 guests in the city suite.

91% of tickets distributed went to Community Groups for the public purpose of promoting community cultural, recreational, educational, and social services, facilities, and programs available with the public within the city.

6% of tickets were distributed for general employee morale or retention, 2% of the tickets were a behest by council, and 1% of tickets were distributed to promote economic development and to reward public service, respectively.

We have 128 participating Community Groups in our Community Group Ticket Program providing a variety of services across the city. The majority of groups participating identify as non-profits providing services focused on youth, education, and arts and culture.

Arts / Culture
Other
Environmental / Sustainability
Emergency / Crisis Services
Food Services
Health Services
Substance Abuse Services
Transportation Services
Housing Services
Rec / Sports
Family Services
Literacy
Education Services
Military / Veterans Services
Disability Services
Senior Citizen Services
Homeless Services
Youth Services
Community Center
Other
Neighborhood Association
Non-profit
Library
Youth Group
School / School Group
Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 14 of 15
Elections and Statutory Compliance

In March 2024 the following was presented to City of Sacramento voters:

• City Council Candidates for Mayor, District 2, District 4, District 6, District 8. o City Council Districts 4, 6, and 8 were decided in March, therefore no run-off election in November is needed.
• Measure C – Sacramento Business Operations Tax Update of 2024.

In November 2024 the following will be presented to City of Sacramento voters:

• City Council Candidates for Mayor and Council District 2. • Measure E – Sacramento Public Library Combined Parcel Tax Measure of 2024.

This year we again offered candidates for upcoming elections electronic submission of most election documents. In addition, candidates can schedule appointments for nomination package pick up and submission directly via the online portal, as well as appointments for a pre- review of documents prior to submittal. In conjunction with the City’s new website release, new updated election pages have been launched to provide the public with comprehensive information about the steps required to run for elective office.

The Political Reform Act requires certain public officials to disclose their personal financial information on a Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700, so the public may review that information and be knowledgeable that the official is not using their decision-making authority to affect their personal financial interests. The city has 1,044 filers. This year we had 99% of on- time filing compliance.

State law requires the filing of campaign disclosure statements by local candidates for elective office, elected officeholders, and committees supporting or opposing local candidates or ballot measures. These statements provide the public with details on who contributes money to a committee, and how that money is spent. We currently have 108 active campaign committees.

Lobbyists are also required to register with the Office of the City Clerk. The purpose of the Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Code is two-fold: 1) To ensure the public has full knowledge of who is attempting to influence the decisions that affect City policy; and 2) To ensure that elected City officials are informed of what interests each lobbyist represents. This year we implemented an electronic filing platform to ensure timely filing and instant online access. We currently have 19 active lobbyists registered.

The filing of financial disclosure forms are managed through the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public viewing via our website.

Office of the City Clerk Annual Report – FY 2023/24
City of Sacramento Page 15 of 15
Good Governance Program

The City Clerk is responsible for reporting to the city council on the operations of Title 4 of the Sacramento City Code, Ethics and Open Government includes the Code of Ethics and Transparent Government and Public Engagement.

• Sacramento City Code Chapter 4.02, Code of Ethics provides that city employees shall treat their office or position as a public trust.

• Sacramento City Code Chapter 4.04, Transparent Government and Public Engagement provides that the city’s business shall be conducted in an open and transparent fashion.

The Office of the City Clerk also supports the Sacramento Ethics Commission. This past year we collaborated with the commission to bring to the city council recommendations regarding modernizing the Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Code which was adopted by the city council on June 25, 2024. The ordinance updates included the following:

• Changed lobbying registration thresholds to (a) 15 hours per 3-month period for in- house lobbyists and (b) $1,500 per 3-month period for contract lobbyists.

• Requires lobbyists’ quarterly lobbying reports to indicate (a) how much lobbying firms are receiving from clients and how much lobbyist employers are paying lobbying firms; in addition to, (b) stating any gifts, campaign contributions, and behested payments made to city officials by a lobbying firm, lobbyist, or lobbyist employer.

• Limits gifts from lobbyists and lobbying firms to an amount valued at less than $10 per month to elected officials and prohibits lobbyists and lobbying firms from directly contributing to campaigns of the elected officials whom they lobby.

• Extended the Sacramento Ethics Commission’s authority to include Lobbyist’s.

Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer –July 30, 2024 Page 1 of 7 City Council Appointive Officer Evaluation Template

Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer Review Period: 06/2023 – 06/2024

Overview
Please list the core responsibilities of the appointive officer.

The city treasurer performs executive management duties by overseeing the activities and functions of the Office of the City Treasurer, including the supervision of a professional staff, the investment and management of all city funds, issuance and management of city debt, and the coordination and administration of the city’s banking operations.

City of Sacramento Charter § 73 City Treasurer mandates the following:

The city treasurer shall be responsible for the deposit and investment of all funds of the city treasury not made subject to the control of others pursuant to this Charter. The city treasurer shall keep the city council fully advised as to the deposit and investment of funds subject to his control. The city council shall prescribe the qualifications, additional duties, and compensation of the city treasurer. The city treasurer shall appoint, subject to the civil service provisions of this Charter, such deputies and employees as the council may by resolution prescribe.

The City Treasurer is responsible for the following:

• Banking
o Serve as the Citywide Lead/Program Manager and principal liaison between the city’s business units and the city’s banking vendor.
o Establish and administer a variety of banking services for the receipt, disbursement, and safekeeping of city monies and investments.
o Responsible for the implementation and sustainability of the city’s Compliance Program for Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS). o Formulate and implement policies, programs, and procedures of banking operations including armor car services, PCard, ACH, and electronic payments. o Provide, coordinate, and conduct training for city departments on internal and external banking activities and compliance issues.

• Debt Management
o Responsible for the planning, coordination, and issuance of all city debt (public or private placement).
o Work with Finance Department and City Attorney's Office staff, as well as external staff to develop the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax related to new Mello- Roos Districts.
o Manage the pre-issuance process of all financings, whether public or direct placement.

Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer –July 30, 2024 Page 2 of 7 o Manage the feasibility analysis of potential projects (such as small-equipment lease or enterprise revenue bond issues), working in conjunction with various city departments. o Manage communication between the city and rating agencies and current bondholders. o Review and provide material edits to all draft rating agency credit reports or rating surveillance publications.
o Manage the levy development process for land-secured districts. o Evaluate and determine collections of land-secured districts; if necessary, initiate accelerated foreclosure proceedings.
o Manage the delinquency process; including stripping parcels from the secured roll (in accordance with bond covenants) and seek payment for bondholders. o Manage the reconciliation for special tax collections to determine sufficiency of covering necessary debt service payments and administrative costs of land-secured districts. o Review and approve reserve fund valuation as prepared by the trustees. o Review and approve all debt service payments, including sweeps of the reserve fund or supplants of the reserve fund.
o Review and approve all continuing disclosure filings, annual filings, event filings, and voluntary filings before the filings are uploaded to MSRB's EMMA system.

• Investments
o Manage the city’s Pool A ($1.5B) and SHRA’s Pool D ($145 mm) short-term investment portfolios for principal preservation, liquidity, and income. o Portfolio Manager for the Sacramento City Employees’ Retirement System (SCERS) which includes equities, fixed-income, and equity option securities. o Manage endowment and trust funds that were bequeathed to the city:
 Ann Land/Bertha Henschel Endowment ($4.7mm) – Poor and indigent citizens  Ethel Hart Memorial Endowment ($3.5mm) – Senior citizens  George H. Clark Memorial Scholarship ($1.9mm) – Sacramento high school student scholarships
o Participate on the Defined Contribution Committee which conducts advisory activities for the city’s 401A and 457 defined contribution programs. o Oversee and monitor the daily cash management to ensure adequate liquidity for the city.
o Prepare monthly, quarterly, and annual reports for the council and portfolio participants to ensure transparency.
o Complete all reporting in compliance with SEC regulations.

Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer –July 30, 2024 Page 3 of 7 Evaluation Period Accomplishments
Please list accomplishments for this evaluation period.

In addition to the statutory responsibilities of the City Treasurer, over this evaluation period the following are significant accomplishments:

• Banking
o Banking Operations continues to manage the City’s Merchant Services Program.  Monitoring over 80+ Merchant Accounts, with gross sales averaging $212M, equating to more than 4.5M transactions, annually.
 Despite limited public counter operations, gross sales increased by 22% from the prior fiscal year, due primarily to offering more online options. o Coordinated and co-led team in a Clean Report of Compliance, using established Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) Policy and Procedures, while continuing to streamline the annual audit by improving monitoring and compliance gaps that ensure the City remains compliant with all new and ongoing payment card regulations.
o Worked with city council staff and CBOs to explore the concept of a Public Bank to facilitate funding for affordable housing, climate initiatives, small business loans, and other mayor and council objectives.
o Partnered with Finance to develop and implement a citywide Wire Transfer Policy to mitigate fraud and streamline money transfers.
o Assisted Finance in implementing, testing and set up of the Citywide Cashiering online payment system.

• Debt Management
o Completed the issuance of the North Natomas CFD No. 4 Special Tax Refunding Bonds in the amount of $25.13 million generating $4.3 million in aggregate cashflow savings for certain constituents in Council District 1 through FY2033. o Completed the issuance of Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2023, in the amount of $20.99 million resulting in a $4 million aggregate cashflow savings through FY2043. o Received an upgrade from Standard & Poor’s for the Sacramento City Financing Authority Special Tax Refunding Bonds (Westlake and Regency Park) from “A-” to “A”. o Received an upgrade from Fitch Ratings for the City’s long-term issuer default rating from “AA” to “AA+”.
o Received an upgrade from Fitch Ratings for the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2015 (Golden 1 Center) from “A+” to “AA-”.
o Worked with DOU to develop the Designated Reserve Policy for the city’s Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage funds.
o Worked with bond counsel, City Real Estate staff, and the City Attorney’s Office staff to amend lease agreements associated with the City’s Master Lease Program which enabled the city to release certain properties from the Master Lease Program’s collateral requirement.

Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer –July 30, 2024 Page 4 of 7 o Completed the comprehensive update of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) forecast to determine the city’s ability to issue additional TOT bonds for eligible projects.

• Investments
o The Investment Staff manages over $1.5 billion in the City’s Pool A account. The portfolio is consistently ranked in the top tier of California cities with similar populations and pool sizes. Staff also manages over $145 million in the SHRA Pool (D) account. These pools' main objectives in order of importance are principal preservation, liquidity, and yield. For the most recent fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, the Pool A portfolio had an annual 5-year average return of 1.88% vs the 5-year average annual return of the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) at 1.80%. Based on the average portfolio size over the last 5 fiscal years of $1.55 billion, this equates to an additional $1.2mm in additional earnings per year.
o The Investment Staff manages over $250 million in multiple asset classes in the SCERS plan. The plan has just 779 active participants and 1 current employee. The plan has an annual actuarial target of 6.0%. Through fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, the plan has a 10-year average annual return of 7.41%. This outperformance equates to approximately $3.5mm of additional earnings per year based on an average portfolio size of $250mm.

The funding status of the system is nearly 100%.

SCERS CalPERS CalSTRS
FY ROR Funded Ratio ROR Funded Ratio ROR Funded Ratio 2024 12.74%

9.30% 75.00%

2023 10.13% 95.50% 5.80% 72.00% 6.30%

2022 -10.69%

-7.50%

-3.30%

2021 29.46%

21.30%

27.20%

2020 3.24%

4.70%

3.90%

2019 7.25%

6.70%

6.80%

2018 7.83%

8.60%

9.00%

5 - Year 7.11%

6.10%

10 - Year 7.58% 7.10%

Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer –July 30, 2024 Page 5 of 7

CORE COMPETENCIES
Consider each core competency separately and check the
rating which most accurately reflects the employee’s most typical performance.

Out of
Compliance
In
Compliance Exceptional Comments
Has treated the council as a whole and is responsive to individual council members except where substantial
resources are required to fulfill a request.
☐ ☐ ☐

Keeps Council and colleagues informed in a timely manner. ☐ ☐ ☐ Willing to try new ideas proposed by governing body
members and/or staff. ☐ ☐ ☐
Maintains knowledge of current developments affecting the practice of local government management. ☐ ☐ ☐
Demonstrates a capacity for innovation and creativity. ☐ ☐ ☐ Diligent and thorough in the discharge of duties. ☐ ☐ ☐ Anticipates and analyzes problems to develop effective
approaches for solving them. ☐ ☐ ☐
Sets a professional example by handling affairs of the public office in a fair and impartial manner. ☐ ☐ ☐
Consistently maintains a positive and respectful attitude toward others. Develops cooperative relationships and
works collaboratively to achieve goals by sharing
information in an appropriate, timely, and professional manner.
☐ ☐ ☐

Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer –July 30, 2024 Page 6 of 7

POSITION SPECIFIC COMPETENCIES
Consider each competency separately and check the rating which most accurately reflects the employee’s most typical performance.

Out of
Compliance
In
Compliance Exceptional Comments
Manage Pool A within the guidelines of the investment policy and California State Investment Code 53601 ☐ ☐ ☐
Maintain a high level of interest income for the City’s Pool A (yield in top 10 California municipalities) ☐ ☐ ☐
Provide a Pool A yield return above the State’s Local Area Investment Fund (LAIF). ☐ ☐ ☐
Implement and maintain an approved asset allocation for SCERS, with the expectation of achieving the retirement system’s actuarial assumption.
☐ ☐ ☐

Maintain a risk profile, for the SCERS’ portfolio, in which active risk does not exceed 200 basis points of attribution away from the custom benchmark.
☐ ☐ ☐

Ann Land/Bertha Henschel Endowment – Generate $140K
annually for distribution to the poor and indigent. ☐ ☐ ☐ Hart Endowment – Generate $400K over a five-year period to assist the senior citizens of the city. ☐ ☐ ☐
George H. Clark Scholarship Fund – Generate $20K annually to distribute college scholarships to high school seniors within the city.
☐ ☐ ☐

Comply with bond covenants for tax-exempt financings. ☐ ☐ ☐ Maintain or improve on the City’s targeted issuer credit ratings of AA- or Aa2.
☐ ☐ ☐
Maintain debt service coverage levels that satisfy the requirements of the applicable bond covenants.
☐ ☐ ☐
Ensure compliance with the guidelines in the City’s Debt Management Policy.
☐ ☐ ☐
Performance Evaluation of John Colville, City Treasurer –July 30, 2024 Page 7 of 7 Strategic Goals and Objectives for the Upcoming Evaluation Period List and describe the strategic goals and objectives that are expected to be achieved in the upcoming evaluation period.

Priority Description Resources Needed
1 Re-issue an RFQ for a Public Bank to determine feasibility. 2 Work with Finance on a proposal to eliminate city subsides on merchant fees for credit card payments.

3 Work with YPCE on new gateway P2PE (Point to Point
Encryp�on) integra�on to secure payment methods.

4 Complete and implement citywide banking policies and
procedures to streamline workflow and mi�gate fraud.

5 Complete the issuance of Greenbrier CFD (Improvement Area No. 2), Series 2024 bonds.

6 Complete the issuance of Delta Shores CFD (Improvement Area No.1), Series 2024 bonds.

7 Work with Finance Dept. staff on forma�on efforts of the CFD / EIFD for Innova�on Park.

8 Ini�ate the issuance of the Aggie Square CFD, Series 2025 bonds.

9 Facilitate the issuance of addi�onal TOT bonds for eligible projects that may include Old Sacramento.

10 Continue to outperform actuarial assumptions for the SCERS retirement plan to lessen and/or eliminate the need for future City funded contributions.

11 Revisit and update all internal policies and procedures manuals within the department to ensure clear department guidelines to use for any new incoming investment staff.

12 Continue to work with the Council and City Manager to find financing solutions for affordable housing projects, climate initiatives, economic development (Aggie Square, Railyards etc.) and other strategic objectives.

2023
Annual Report

Council Members
MAYOR

DARRELL STEINBERG
(916) 808-5300
[email protected]

District One

LISA KAPLAN
(916) 808-7001
[email protected]

District Two

SEAN LOLOEE
(916) 808-7002
[email protected]

District Three

KARINA TALAMANTES
(916) 808-7003
[email protected]

District Four

KATIE VALENZUELA
(916) 808-7004
[email protected]
District Five

CAITY MAPLE
(916) 808-7005
[email protected]

District Six

ERIC GUERRA
(916) 808-7006
[email protected]

District Seven

RICK JENNINGS, II
(916) 808-7007
[email protected]

District Eight

MAI VANG
(916) 808-7008
[email protected]

CITY MANAGER

HOWARD CHAN
(916) 808-5704
[email protected]

3 Table of Contents
Council Members .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Mayor and City Council ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 About the Office of Public Safety Accountability .................................................................................................. 6 Background ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................................. 7 Public Access to the City’s Complaint Process .................................................................................................. 7 Office of Public Safety Accountability ................................................................................................................... 8 Table 1: SPD Further Review Results ................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2: SFD Further Review Results .............................................................................................................. 10 2023 Police Case Review ................................................................................................................................ 11 2023 Fire Case Review .................................................................................................................................... 11 Table 3: SPD Cases Reviewed by OPSA ........................................................................................................... 12 Chart 1: Cases Reviewed vs. Not Reviewed by OPSA ..................................................................................... 12 Review Process Chart ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Office of Public Safety Accountability – Inspector General ................................................................................ 14 Critical Incident Response .............................................................................................................................. 14 Table 4: SPD Officer-Involved Shooting & Death In Custody Incidents .......................................................... 14 Critical Incidents ................................................................................................................................................. 15 February 9th, 2023 ......................................................................................................................................... 15 May 20th, 2023 ............................................................................................................................................... 16 June 27th, 2023 ............................................................................................................................................... 17 August 15th, 2023........................................................................................................................................... 18 September 12th, 2023 .................................................................................................................................... 19 Inspector General Police Case Review ............................................................................................................ 20 Chart 2 - SPD Cases Reviewed by the Inspector General ............................................................................... 20 OPSA Audits/Inspections ................................................................................................................................ 21 Audit Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 22 Sacramento Police Department .......................................................................................................................... 25 Complaint Process .......................................................................................................................................... 25

4 Police Complaint Classifications and Allegations ............................................................................................ 26 Chart 3: SPD & OPSA Allegation Comparison 2017-2023 ............................................................................... 27 Chart 4: SPD Complaint Comparison 2020-2023 ............................................................................................ 28 Chart 5: SPD Allegation Breakdown 2023 ....................................................................................................... 28 Chart 6: OPSA Allegation Breakdown 2023 .................................................................................................... 29 Chart 7: SPD Allegation Dispositions .............................................................................................................. 30 Chart 8: SPD Dispositions by Allegation .......................................................................................................... 31 Chart 9: SPD Discipline from Completed Investigations ................................................................................. 32 Sacramento Fire Department ............................................................................................................................. 33 Fire Complaint Allegations .............................................................................................................................. 33 Chart 10: SFD Complaint Comparison 2017-2023 .......................................................................................... 34 Chart 11: SFD Allegation Comparison 2016-2023 .......................................................................................... 34 Chart 12: SFD Allegation Breakdown 2023 ..................................................................................................... 35 Chart 13: OPSA Allegation Breakdown 2023 .................................................................................................. 35 Chart 14: SFD Allegation Dispositions ............................................................................................................. 36 Chart 15: SFD Dispositions by Allegation ........................................................................................................ 36 Chart 16: SFD Discipline from Completed Investigations ............................................................................... 37 Outside Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................................ 38 Outreach & Events .............................................................................................................................................. 39 Annual Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 40 Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA) ................................................................................................. 40 Sacramento Police Department (SPD) ............................................................................................................ 40 Sacramento Fire Department (SFD) ................................................................................................................ 40 Frequently Asked Questions ............................................................................................................................... 41 Meet the Office of Public Safety Accountability ................................................................................................. 43 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 46

5 Mayor and City Council
Please find attached, for your review and comment, the Office of Public Safety Accountability’s annual report covering calendar year 2023.

Summary
The City of Sacramento’s Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA) encompasses oversight practitioners responsible for the investigation, review, and audit of allegations of misconduct involving the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) and the Sacramento Fire Department (SFD) personnel. OPSA ensures that investigations have been completed fairly, thoroughly, and objectively.

The Office of Public Safety Accountability continues its efforts in the improvement of policing and better serving the interests of the public. The goals and objectives of the office involves creating meaningful opportunities for the community to influence decisions that impact them, incorporating innovative and progressive ideas to resolve issues, explaining challenges and limitations, and ensuring outcomes meet goals while remaining inclusive and accessible.

OPSA transitioned from remote work to a hybrid schedule in 2023 while remaining invested in strengthening community trust and supporting and promoting constitutional policing . OPSA continued fulfilling its core mission of providing independent and impartial public safety oversight for the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) and the Sacramento Fire Department (SFD) by executing the roles and responsibilities of the office ensuring timely communication with complainants and community stakeholders, as well as strengthening the process in the thorough review of completed investigations.

The annual report provides a comprehensive review of the Office of Public Safety Accountability performance in tracking and monitoring internal investigations, reviewing completed investigations, as well as statistical data for all misconduct allegations i nvolving the City of Sacramento public safety personnel. In 202 3, there were a total of 734 allegations regarding police misconduct and 124 allegations regarding fire misconduct reported directly to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, through SPD I nternal Affairs Division, or SFD Professional Standards Unit. Additionally, the report outlines misconduct allegation findings regarding the completed police and fire as well as any reported discipline. The report also provides summaries of the five critical incidents that occurred in 2023, four officer-involved shootings and one death in custody.

Note: OPSA utilized the best available case data at the time of reporting to prepare this report. Case work is dynamic and has multiple moving parts.

6 About the Office of Public Safety Accountability
The Mission of the Office of Public Safety Accountability is to improve the relationship between the City's public safety departments and the community they protect and serve. We promote trust, excellence, transparency, and accountability through independent and impartial oversight of complaints related to public safety employee misconduct.

Background
In 1998, a Blue Ribbon Citizens’ Committee appointed by the City Manager examined concerns regarding the Sacramento Police Department (SPD). The Committee recommended significant changes in the processing and investigation of community complaints of police misconduct. As a result, in 199 9, the Mayor and City Council established the Office of Police Accountability.

The Committee additionally recommended giving the City Manager the authority to extend the Office’s scope and review responsibilities. In 2004, the City Manager, with the approval of the Mayor and City Council, expanded the scope of responsibility of the Office to include the Sacramento Fire Department (SFD). The name was changed to the Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA).

OPSA’s charter is to provide civilian oversight to the City’s Police Department and Fire Department complaint process and become a liaison between the City and its diverse communities. The goals of OPSA are to promote trust, transparency, and accountability in the City’s most critical public service departments.

OPSA provides fair and impartial civilian oversight of the Police and Fire Departments’ complaint process. OPSA is charged with receiving complaints from the community, auditing departmental investigation results , and independently conducting investigations into allegations of police or fire employee misconduct. Additionally, OPSA issues recommendations concerning community relations outreach, public safety departments’ policy and procedures, the training needs of their personnel, and individual case resolution, as needed.

In November 2016, Council approved an ordinance which provided greater community input and participation by sun -setting the Sacramento Community Police Commission and replacing it with the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC), with staff support provided by OPSA. The ordinance also expanded the role and authority of OPSA by increasing the office’s budget to hire additional staff. Further, the reporting chain was changed so that the OPSA Director reports to the Mayor and City Council, rather than the City Manager. The provisions of the ordinance went into effect in 2017 and resulted in OPSA’s growth from an office of one to an office of four. On July 1, 2020, the Sacramento City Council passed a motion authorizing the creation of an Inspector General (IG) posit ion in the Office of Public Safety Accountability, further expanding the office. The IG position entails full independence and authority to investigate officer-involved shootings and use-of-force incidents that result in serious bodily injury or death. On September 12, 2023, the Sacramento City Council passed a motion authorizing additional staffing within the Office of the Public Safety Accountability. Six additional full-time employees (FTEs) were authorized to increase OPSA’s productivity and efficiency.

To safeguard the public trust, OPSA works closely with community members and its leaders, maintains a close working relationship with Police and Fire Command staffs, the Sacramento Police Officers Association (SPOA) and the Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522. OPSA functions with complete and necessary independence, which is key to success in providing fair, objective, and impartial oversight service to the City and its communities, all while maintaining a professional relationship with the Sacramento Police and Fire Departments.

7 Responsibilities
Under the direction, control and supervision of the City Council, the Director has the following authority and responsibility as related to the Sacramento Police Department and Fire Department:

A. Audit all citizen complaint investigations of the police department and fire department, as the director deems necessary.

B. Monitor all citizen complaint investigations conducted by the police department and fire department.

C. Request the police department and fire department perform further investigation in those citizen complaint cases that require additional investigation as determined by the director.

D. Receive all documents, reports, or any other item necessary to monitor or audit a complaint investigation.

E. Assist the city council, or any duly appointed committee of the council, in performing its investigative functions under section 34 of the charter.

F. As needed, request the city council, or any duly appointed committee of the council, to issue subpoenas as provided in section 34 of the charter. The city council may, by resolution, establish the procedures for the request, issuance, and service of those subpoenas.

G. Perform such other inquiries and investigations as prescribed by council resolution.

H. Accept and document complaints directly from citizens as an alternative procedure for citizen complaints concerning public safety personnel, using a complaint form distinct from that used by the police department or fire department. All such complaints shall be promptly forwarded to the respective public safety department for investigation.

I. Provide complainants with timely updates on the status of investigations, excluding disclosure of any information that is confidential or legally protected.

J. Explain how the complaint process works to all complainants.

K. Monitor or independently investigate any other matter as directed by the city council pursuant to section 34 of the charter.

L. Serve in a public information capacity, including providing public information, excluding disclosure of any information that is confidential or legally protected, on pending investigations as directed by the city council; and making presentations in community forums.

M. Respond to critical incidents involving police or fire personnel and provide a report to city council regarding the details and concerns of those incidents.

Public Access to the City’s Complaint Process
Members of the public can file a misconduct complaint against Sacramento Police or Fire Department employees through OPSA or directly to the Police or Fire Department. Complaints made to OPSA can be filed by email, postal mail, telephone, in person or online using the Public Safety Complaint Form on the website. OPSA maintains a comprehensive, independent database of complaints received from the community. OPSA also collects data points to identify potential systemic issues and provide early warning of complaint trends.

8 Office of Public Safety Accountability

Under the direction, control, and supervision of the City of Sacramento Mayor and City of Sacramento City Council, the Office of Public Safety Accountability tracks and monitors any internal investigation, reviews completed investigations, and advises the Sacramento Police Chief and the Sacramento Fire Chief of deficient investigations involving misconduct allegations against public safety personnel.

OPSA receives all police and fire complaints, regardless of where the complaints are filed. After OPSA conducts a preliminary review of each alleged complaint, a determination is made as to whether the case will or will not be reviewed. OPSA documents the determination by sending a review form to the Sacramento Police Department Internal Affairs Division and Sacramento Fire Department Professional Standards Division indicating whether the case will be reviewed or not reviewed. For all cases selected for oversight review, OPSA receives access to all investigative materials utilized to render a finding prior to discipline being imposed.

During 2023, OPSA fully reviewed 100% of the complaints filed against the Sacramento Fire Department and 39% of the complaints filed against the Sacramento Police Department. Of the completed investigations reviewed by OPSA, 27 investigations for police and 20 investigations for fire required further review.

Review Finding Options
• Agree
• Discussed – Revised
• Discussed – Not Revised, Memo Sent
• Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree/Recommendation Accepted • Discussed – Further Investigation, Disagree/Memo Sent Table 1: SPD Further Review Results
Month

Recommendation/Disagreement
Outcome
January Disposition Incorrect Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree January Disposition Incorrect Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree January Allegation Should Be Sustained Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree/Recommendation Accepted
January Disposition Incorrect Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree January Disposition Incorrect Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree January Allegation Should Be Sustained Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree/Recommendation Accepted
March Disposition Incorrect Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree March Allegation Should Be Sustained Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree/Recommendation Accepted
April Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Agree June Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Agree

9 June Additional allegation needed Discussed - Further Investigation, Agree June Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
July Allegation Incorrect – separate allegation
for each employee
Discussed - Further Investigation, Agree
August Incomplete Investigative Information Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
August Incomplete Investigative Information Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
September SPD Policy Issue Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
September Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Agree September Additional Allegation Needed Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
September Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
October Allegation Correction Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree November Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
November Additional Information Needed Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree December Additional Allegation Needed Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Accepted
December Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Agree December Disposition Incorrect Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
December Additional Allegation Needed Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Accepted
December Disposition Incorrect Discussed-Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under
Consideration/Recommendation Accepted

10 Table 2: SFD Further Review Results
Month

Recommendation/Disagreement
Outcome
February Disposition Incorrect Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree February Disposition Incorrect Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree March Allegation Should Be Not Sustained Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree/Recommendation Accepted
April Disposition Incorrect Discussed-Further Investigation, Disagree/Memo Sent/Recommendation Accepted
April Incomplete investigative information Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree April Additional allegation needed Discussed-Further Investigation, Agree/Recommendation Accepted
May Incomplete investigative information Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree May Incomplete investigative information Discussed-Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
May Incomplete investigative information Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree June Incomplete investigative information Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree June Incomplete investigative information Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree June Incomplete investigative information Discussed-Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
June Incomplete investigative information Discussed-Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
September Disposition Incorrect Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree September Incomplete Investigative Information Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
September Additional Allegation Needed Discussed - Further Investigation, Disagree/Recommendation Under Consideration
October Incomplete Investigative Information Discussed – Further Investigation, Agree October Incorrect Disposition/ Additional
Investigative Information Needed
Discussed-Further Investigation,
Disagree/Recommendation Under
Consideration/Recommendation Accepted
November Additional Investigative Information
Needed
Discussed-Further Investigation. Recommendation
Accepted
November Additional Investigative Information
Needed/ Missing Dispositions
Discussed-Further Investigation. Agree

11 2023 Police Case Review
OPSA documented 297 complaints of misconduct filed against the Sacramento Police Department with a total of 734 allegations. Of those complaints, 674 allegations were filed with SPD and 60 allegations were filed directly with OPSA. There were 286 complaint investigations completed during the year, closing a total of 792 allegations. Of those completed investigations, 181 complaints were originally filed in 2023, 101 were originally filed in 2022, and the remaining 4 complaints were from older 2020 and 2021 cases. A total of 85 allegations were Sustained and referred to Police Command Staff for disciplinary action.
2023 Fire Case Review
OPSA documented 45 complaints of misconduct filed against the Sacramento Fire Department with a total of 124 allegations. Of those complaints, 115 allegations were filed with SFD and 9 allegations were filed directly with OPSA. There were 47 complaints investigated and completed by the Sacramento Fire Department’s Professional Standards Unit giving dispositions to 129 allegations. Of those completed investigations, 33 complaints were originally filed in 2023 and the remaining 14 complaints were from 2022 cases. A total of 23 allegations were Sustained and referred to Fire Command Staff for disciplinary action.

12 Table 3: SPD Cases Reviewed by OPSA
Annual Totals
Reviewed 111
Not Reviewed 175

Chart 1: Cases Reviewed vs. Not Reviewed by OPSA
Chart 1 reflects OPSA conducted a full formal review of 39% of all complaints filed against SPD. After an initial screening by the Director, the remaining 61% of cases did not receive additional OPSA review. OPSA fully reviewed 100% of all complaints filed against SFD. Note that one case can include multiple allegations against multiple individuals.

Reviewed
39%
Not
Reviewed
61%

POLICE CASES
Reviewed
Not Reviewed
Reviewed
100%

FIRE CASES
Reviewed

13 Review Process Chart
Investigative Materials
sent to OPSA for
Review
Agree
Case Closed
Disagree
Case Discussion with
Internal Affairs/
Professional Standards
Not Revised
Further
Investigation
Agree
Revised/
Recommendation
Accepted
Case Closed
Disagree
Meeting between
Director & Police/Fire
Administration
Agree
Revised/
Recommendation
Accepted
Case Closed
Disagree
Director-Memo to City
Manager generated
documenting
disagreement with
completed
investigation
(Mayor/Council cc’d)
City Manager Decision
Case Closed
Revised
Case Closed
14 Office of Public Safety Accountability – Inspector
General
Critical Incident Response
Under the direction of the Director of the Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA), the newly established Inspector General (IG) conducts concurrent independent investigations of officer-involved shootings, deaths while in police custody, and police use-of-force incidents resulting in serious bodily injury. Upon completion of the investigations, the IG will report the respective findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the City of Sacramento City Council, the Sacramento Community Review Police Commission (SCRPC), and the public.

The IG’s primary responsibility is serving in an on-call capacity responding to critical incidents involving the City of Sacramento public safety personnel. In this reporting period, the IG responded to four officer-involved shootings, one death in custody, and initiated independent investigations.

Table 4: SPD Officer-Involved Shooting & Death In
Custody Incidents

INCIDENT CALL FOR SERVICE DATE LOCATION STATUS
Officer-
involved
Shooting (OIS)
Suspicious Vehicle 02/09/2023 Cantalier Street and Baseball Alley Report Writing
Phase
Officer-
involved
Shooting (OIS)
Armed Subject 05/20/2023 Q Street and 28th Street
Evidence
Gathering Phase
Death in
Custody (ICD) Suspicious Subject 06/27/2023 2500 Block of 51st Avenue Report Writing
Phase
Officer-
involved
Shooting (OIS)
Armed Subject 08/15/2023 3800 Block of 24th Street
Evidence
Gathering Phase
Officer-
involved
Shooting (OIS)
Armed Subject 09/12/2023 300 Block of L Street
Evidence
Gathering Phase
15 Critical Incidents
February 9th, 2023
Officer Involved Shooting – Cantalier Street and Baseball Alley On February 8, 2023, a carjacking occurred in the 100 block of Stanford Avenue in north Sacramento. During this incident, the victim stated that a masked suspect forcibly stole their vehicle and fled the area. A crime report was taken following the carjacking.

On February 9, 2023, at approximately 9:42 a.m., a Sacramento Police Department patrol officer located the victim's carjacked vehicle parked near Cantalier Street & Baseball Alley. The officer approached the vehicle and located one suspect inside it. The officer gave the suspect many commands to comply with his orders, but the suspect remained non-compliant throughout the contact. As the suspect continued to ignore commands, the officer utilized a Conducted Energy Device (Taser) multiple times in an attempt to take him into custody, but it was ineffective.

Additional officers arrived on the scene to assist in detaining the suspect. As the struggle continued, the suspect began driving away with the initial contacting officer still in the vehicle's door frame. As the suspect fled, he struck another officer with his vehicle, resulting in injuries to that officer's leg. That officer was later transported to an area hospital, treated, and released.

The suspect then rammed a second patrol vehicle. Immediately after, the suspect reversed and, for a third time, struck a police vehicle. An officer-involved shooting then occurred; two officers discharged their duty firearms striking the suspect at least one time. The suspect fled the scene in the carjacked vehicle which was later located in the 500 Block of Las Palmas Avenue. The suspect arrived at an area hospital with non-life- threatening injuries and was subsequently taken into custody by responding officers.

The suspect was identified as 32-year-old Clayton Freeman. Freeman was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on related charges once he was medically cleared.

This incident was investigated by the Sacramento Police Department's Internal Affairs Division and Professional Standards Unit. Additionally, the Sacramento Police Department's Force Investigation Team investigated this incident. The investigation focused on policy, tactics, and training regarding the use of force.

The Sacramento Police Department encouraged any witnesses with information regarding this incident to contact the dispatch center at (916) 264-5471 or Sacramento Valley Crime Stoppers at (916) 443-HELP (4357). Callers can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a reward up to $1,000. Anonymous tips can also be submitted using the free "P3 Tips" smartphone app. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 16 May 20th, 2023
Officer-Involved Shooting - Q Street and 28th Street
On May 20, 2023, at approximately 12:15 p.m., Sacramento Police Department patrol officers responded to a business in the 1100 block of 24th Street regarding reports of an individual saying they had a gun. The complainant provided a detailed description of the individual. Officers responded to the location and checked the area.

About twenty minutes later, while officers were checking the area of the above-listed call, the Sacramento Police Department received a report of an individual waving around a gun near the intersection of 28th Street and N Street. A third additional caller stated an individual was pointing a gun at the customers of a business in the same area. Detailed descriptions of the armed individual were provided to dispatch, similar to those provided on the 24th Street call.

Sacramento Police Department patrol officers responded to the 28th Street and N Street area. A uniformed Sacramento Police Department K9 handler observed an individual near 28th Street and Q Street matching the description provided by the callers. The officer attempted to contact the individual, but the individual ran from the officer. As the individual was running from the officer, the officer issued numerous commands that were ignored. An additional uniformed K9 handler arrived in his patrol vehicle. The individual stopped running, turned toward the officers, and produced what appeared to be a silver handgun. The officers confronted the individual, who continued to ignore the officers’ orders to comply and pointed the silver gun at the K9 handlers. An officer-involved shooting occurred shortly thereafter. Both K9 handlers discharged their weapons, and neither was injured.

Officers rendered emergency medical aid to the adult female. She was transported to an area hospital by the Sacramento Fire Department, where she was listed in stable condition. After receiving medical clearance, the female was booked into the Sacramento County Main Jail on related charges.

This incident was investigated by the Sacramento Police Department's Homicide Unit, Internal Affairs Division, and Professional Standards Unit. An investigation into the incident was also conducted by the Force Investigation Team. The investigation focused on policy, tactics, and training as it relates to the use of force.

The Office of Public Safety Accountability and the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office provided oversight by monitoring the investigation.

This incident falls under the City Council’s policy on Police Use of Force as well as SB 1421. As a result, the video and audio associated with this incident was released to the public within 30 days of the incident.

Detectives identified and retrieved video associated with this incident.

The Sacramento Police Department encouraged any witnesses with information regarding this incident to contact the dispatch center at (916) 264-5471 or Sacramento Valley Crime Stoppers at (916) 443-HELP (4357). Callers can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000. Anonymous tips can also be submitted using the free “P3 Tips” smartphone app. 17 June 27th, 2023
Death in Custody Investigation - 2500 Block of 51st Avenue On June 27, 2023, at approximately 4:27 a.m., Sacramento Police Department patrol officers responded to multiple calls of a person possibly prowling in the 2500 block of 51st Avenue. One caller indicated they heard an unknown individual enter their backyard. Officers arrived on the scene and contacted a male adult in the area of the calls. The officers initiated a preliminary investigation. During the investigation, the male began experiencing an apparent medical emergency. Officers rendered emergency medical aid, including CPR. The Sacramento Fire Department arrived on the scene and transported the male to an area hospital, where he was pronounced deceased.

Due to the male having a medical emergency while detained by the officers, the department initiated a death-in-custody investigation. Homicide Detectives responded to the scene and worked closely with Crime Scene Investigators to determine the incident's circumstances. The officers did not use force against the male, nor was he handcuffed at any point during the encounter. Detectives investigated the possibility that the male was involved in a vehicle collision before contact with the officers.

The Sacramento County Coroner's Office released the individual's identity after the next of kin was notified.

This incident is was investigated by the Sacramento
Police Department's Homicide Unit, Internal Affairs
Division, and Professional Standards Unit. The Office of Public Safety Accountability and the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office provided oversight by monitoring the investigation. This incident falls under the City Council policy on video release. As a result, the video and audio associated with this incident was released to the public within 30 days of the incident.

The Sacramento Police Department encouraged any witnesses with information regarding this incident to contact the dispatch center at (916) 264-5471 or Sacramento Valley Crime Stoppers at (916) 443-HELP (4357). Callers can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000. Anonymous tips can also be submitted using the free "P3 Tips" smartphone app. 18 August 15th, 2023
Officer-Involved Shooting – 3800 Block of 24th Street
On August 15, 2023, at approximately 5:08 p.m., Sacramento Police Department patrol officers responded to multiple callers reporting a person armed with a machete or large knife on a Sacramento Light Rail Train. The train had stopped near the 3800 block of 24th Street. When officers arrived, they removed one passenger from the train and tried to talk with the male, who was armed with a large knife. Officers attempted to deescalate the situation for several minutes. Less lethal munitions were used, however they were ineffective.

While still armed with the knife, the suspect charged at officers and an officer involved shooting occurred.

Officers disarmed the suspect and rendered medical aid until relieved by Sacramento Fire Department personnel. Despite these efforts, the male was pronounced deceased on scene.

The Sacramento County Coroner’s Office released the identity of the deceased after the next of kin was notified. This incident is was investigated by the Sacramento Police Department's Homicide Unit, Internal Affairs Division, and Professional Standards Unit. An investigation into the incident was also conducted by the Force Investigation Team. The investigation focused on policy, tactics, and training as it relates to the use of force. The Office of Public Safety Accountability and the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office provided oversight by monitoring the investigation.

This incident falls under the City Council’s policy on Police Use of Force as well as SB 1421. As a result, the video and audio associated with this incident was released to the public within 30 days of the incident.

Detectives identified and retrieved video associated with this incident.

The Sacramento Police Department encouraged any witnesses with information regarding this incident to contact the dispatch center at (916) 808-5471 or Sacramento Valley Crime Stoppers at (916) 443-HELP
(4357). Callers can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a reward up to $1,000. Anonymous tips can also be submitted using the free “P3 Tips” smartphone app. 19 September 12th, 2023
Officer-Involved Shooting - 300 Block of L Street
On September 12, 2023, at approximately 1:01 a.m., Sacramento Police Department patrol officers responded to a parking garage in the 300 block of L Street regarding a man armed with a gun and pointing it at multiple security guards. The complainant provided a detailed description of the individual. Upon arrival, officers located the individual, who had a firearm in his hand. Officers attempted to talk to the individual, however he did not follow orders to put the firearm down.

A perimeter was established, and our Crisis Negotiation Team, Uncrewed Aerial Systems Unit, and SWAT Team responded to the scene. De-escalation techniques were attempted for several hours. While on-scene, officers saw the individual fire the gun. Throughout this incident͕ the individual repeatedly brandished a firearm. During this encounter, the individual pointed the firearm at officers, and an officer-involved shooting occurred. A SWAT officer discharged their duty weapon one time, striking the individual.

Officers rendered emergency medical aid until relieved by Sacramento Fire Department personnel. Despite these efforts, the male was pronounced deceased on scene.

Officers recovered a firearm at the scene͘ No officers were injured during the encounter.

The Sacramento County Coroner’s Office releaseĚ the identity of the deceased after the next of kin ǁĂƐ notified.

This incident ǁĂƐ investigated by the Sacramento Police Department's Homicide Unit, Internal Affairs Division, and Professional Standards Unit. An investigation into the incident ǁĂƐalso conducted by the Force Investigation Team. The investigation focusĞĚ on policy, tactics, and training as it relates to the use of force.

The Office of Public Safety Accountability and the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office provided oversight by monitoring the investigation.

This incident falls under the City Council’s policy on Police Use of Force as well as SB 1421. As a result, all pertinent video and audio associated with this incident was released to the public within 30 days of the incident. Detectives identified and retrieved video associated with this incident.

The Sacramento Police Department encouraged any witnesses with information regarding this incident to contact the dispatch center at (916) 808-5471 or Sacramento Valley Crime Stoppers at (916) 443-HELP (4357). Callers can remain anonymous and may be eligible for a reward up to $1,000. Anonymous tips can also be submitted using the free “P3 Tips” smartphone app. 20 Inspector General Police Case Review
In addition to critical incident response and conducting independent investigations, the IG is responsible for the inspection, review, and research of all aspects of complaint investigations regarding allegations of misconduct by public safety personnel. The chart below depicts the total number of cases in which the IG reviewed during this reporting period.

Chart 2 - SPD Cases Reviewed by the Inspector General
Chart 2 shows the percentage of 2023 police misconduct cases personally reviewed by the Inspector General (IG). The IG reviewed 109 of the 286 SPD complaint cases.

Reviewed by IG
38%
Reviewed
Not Reviewed

21 OPSA Audits/Inspections

Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA): External Audit Report An Audit of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD):

Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure*

The Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA) conducted an audit on the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) complaint case investigations that encompassed the allegation of ‘Improper Search and Seizure’ after concerns emerged during the review of misconduct complaint cases in May of 2022.

OPSA oversight practitioners discovered an initial pattern of Fourth Amendment violations of Sacramento community members, specifically Black and Latino community members, during police- citizen interactions. The initial evaluation illustrated search and seizure issues with what officers learn through training, how officers interpret the law, and officers’ application of the knowledge in the field.

With such a limited amount of information, oversight practitioners could not make a conclusive determination of whether a systemic problem within the police department existed. Therefore, a determination was made that an external audit would be conducted to obtain a conclusive finding of whether there is a systemic problem or only isolated incidents that OPSA oversight practitioners discovered.

The audit evaluated complaint case investigations from June 1, 2020, through June of 2022. There was a total of 108 cases containing the allegation of Improper Search and Seizure during the specified period.

OPSA conducted the audit to obtain a conclusive finding of whether there is a systemic problem or only isolated incidents from police case review. OPSA’s practice prohibits pre-judgement and requires detailed, thorough evaluations based on factual evidence in drawing relative conclusions.

OPSA’s goal is to ensure that effective training is accompanied by detailed policies and procedures that assist SPD in achieving constitutional policing. SPD must maintain engaged supervisors who model the practices and principles in accordance with law, organizational policy, and training standards.

Supervision must recognize when officers are not in compliance and hold them accountable. OPSA found that the SPD manual covering search and seizure was outdated. The last revision to the manual was in 2007. During the OPSA Director’s 2021 Annual Report presentation, one of the recommendations identified is the development of a separate standalone policy for search and seizure in relation to subject stops, traffic stops, suspicious activity investigations, and detentions.

The audit concluded with numerous findings and recommendations. These issues discovered from the audit were not unique to SPD and include challenges that police organizations across the country grapple with daily. The negative connotation associated with the policing profession is a direct result of continued high-profile incidents of violence against unarmed Black males and females. The continued occurrence of unlawful stops, searches, and seizures could lead to disastrous results and more victimization of Sacramento residents. Federal courts in the United States have held that a pattern or practice may be found where incidents of violations are repeated and are not isolated instances. Courts interpreting the term “pattern or practice” in similar states have established that statistical evidence is

22 not required. Additionally, a court does not need a specific number of incidents to find a pattern or practice, instead each case must turn on its own facts. Clear, detailed policies aligned with effective training will assist in achieving constitutional policing practices as well as mitigating the identified Fourth Amendment issues.

OPSA should be SPD’s accountability partner. OPSA’s expectation is that SPD acknowledges the areas in need of improvement. Our expectation as oversight practitioners is that SPD acts in good faith. True collaboration requires effective communication, mutual respect, honest dialogue, and ownership of one’s actions. SPD and OPSA working together will be crucial to ensuring the successful implementation and sustainability of the changes necessary. Organizational leadership plays a pivotal role in signaling change.
*See Appendix for OPSA’s 2023 External Audit Report. The full external audit report, including the appendices, is located on the OPSA website: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/opsa/reports-

Audit Findings and Recommendations

Finding One:

SPD Does Not Have a Current, Stand-Alone Policy Regarding the Fourth Amendment and Includes Search and Seizure.

Recommendations:
1) SPD should update its search and seizure manual from 2007. 2) SPD should draft a clear and detailed stand-alone Fourth Amendment policy that includes such things as cell phone searches, probations searches, investigatory stops, and consent searches.

Finding Two:

Automatic Pat Downs of Citizens are in Direct Conflict with the 1968 United States Supreme Court Decision, Terry v. Ohio1.

Recommendations:
3) SPD should require officers to articulate in their reports why they stopped a citizen and/or why they felt the need to pat down the person.
4) SPD should establish a clear detailed policy on pat downs, investigatory stops, and investigative detentions.
5) SPD should provide training to new recruits and police officers on investigatory stops, pat downs, reasonable suspicion, and Fourth Amendment fundamentals, in accordance with the newly issued policy.

1 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

23 Finding Three:

SPD Officers Improperly Searched or Seized Citizens Cell Phones in Direct Violation of State and Federal Laws.

Recommendation:
6) SPD should develop a clearly defined policy outlining procedures for the search and seizure of cell phones.

Finding Four:

Rights of Non-Probation Citizens were Violated During Probation Waiver Searches.

Recommendations:
7) SPD should develop a clear policy defining the rules and procedures for conducting probation searches.
8) SPD should implement continuous education and training for legal updates, probation search waivers, implicit bias, and community-oriented policing. 9) SPD should train officers to obtain search warrants whenever feasible and not rely so heavily on search waivers.

Finding Five:

Inconsistent Vehicle Tow Procedures.

Recommendation:
10) SPD should establish a clear policy outlining towing procedures as well as procedures for releasing personal property from their respective vehicles and releasing citizens from police custody when their vehicles are being towed.

Finding Six:

SPD Does Not Have a Policy Regarding Handcuffing Minor Children.

Recommendations:
11) SPD should develop policy specifying handcuffing procedures for minors. 12) SPD should receive continuous education and training on implicit bias.

Finding Seven:

Warrantless Entry into Citizens’ Homes and Conducting Searches without Sufficient Legal Authority.

Recommendation:
13) SPD should develop a policy for conducting welfare checks that encompasses warrantless entry into citizen’s homes.

Finding Eight:

SPD Does Not Have a Policy Regarding Officers Interacting with Citizens Holding a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) license.

24 Recommendation:
14) SPD should develop a policy for police interactions with citizens who have a CCW license and carrying their weapon at the time of the interaction.

Finding Nine:

Stops Based on Minor Traffic Infractions Such as Improper Window Tint with No Apparent Intention to Enforce the Vehicle Code or Ticket the Driver Amount to Pretextual Stops.

Recommendations:
15) SPD should eliminate the practice of pretextual stops or set clear restrictions on conducting pretextual stops.
16) SPD should develop a policy for traffic stops.

Finding Ten:

Internal Reviews by Supervisors do not Consistently identify Fourth Amendment Violations.

Recommendations:
17) SPD misconduct complaint cases investigated by the Internal Affairs Division as well as misconduct complaint cases investigated by supervising personnel within an employee’s assigned division must be investigated impartially and thoroughly to ensure the most accurate findings.
18) SPD leadership team received supplemental search and seizure training on January 24, 2023, from the Sacramento Assistant District Attorney Office. Sacramento Assistant District Attorney advised that supplemental training would be developed specifically for officers. All SPD officers should be mandated to attend this supplemental training. 19) Police officers as well as SPD leadership should take cultural sensitivity training, fair and impartial policing training, implicit bias training, and constitutional policing training.

25 Sacramento Police Department
Complaint Process

OPSA lists all complaint allegations made in this report. One misconduct complaint investigation can have several allegations listed and more than one officer accused. Once the complaint is received, the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) starts a preliminary investigation into the complaint. The complainant is interviewed to determine which policies the employee may have violated. Often the IAD investigator will review body worn camera footage to determine if the video can resolve the complaint in the prelimi nary stages. If there are no violations of policy seen, the IAD investigator will explain to the complainant why the officer’s behavior does not violate policy and may offer to watch the body worn camera footage with the complainant.

The Internal Investigations Manual published effective August 1, 2019, requires that all complaints be investigated and documented on a Personnel Complaint Form (SPD 330). OPSA receives notification of all complaints received by SPD and continues to send complaints submitted to OPSA to IAD for investigation.

When a member of the public makes a complaint against a public safety employee, there must be a policy violation as well as behavior that falls into at least one of the allegation definitions listed on page 26. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������

26 Police Complaint Classifications and Allegations
Complaints are allegations of misconduct against any Department employee involving a violation of any law, rule, regulation, policy, or other improper job performance.

The following is a list of complaint classifications and their definitions (SPD Internal Investigations Manual updated 1/17/23). More than one classification can be attached to a complaint .

CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN EMPLOYEE –
Behavior that is malicious, criminal, brings
discredit upon the department, or fails to follow
ordinary and reasonable rules of good conduct
while on or off duty.

DISCOURTESY – Rude or abusive actions
directed towards another person.

DISCRIMINATION – Actions or misconduct due
to the race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age,
religion, gender identity or expression, sexual
orientation, or mental or physical disability of
any person.

DISHONESTY – Knowingly giving false or
misleading information.

FALSE ARREST – Removal of personal liberty
without proper authority or legal justification.

FIREARM DISCHARGE – Anytime a firearm is
discharged in violation of Department policy.

FORCE – Any unreasonable amount of force,
ranging from any physical contact to use of any
weapon.

HARASSMENT – Any unsolicited or
unwarranted employee action or conduct that
reasonably appears meant to annoy, threaten,
intimidate, or alarm any person.

IMPROPER SEARCH AND SEIZURE – A
detention, arrest, search, or seizure of an
individual’s person or property that is unlawful
or in violation of Department policy.

IMPROPER TACTICS – Procedures utilized by an
employee that are different from approved
practices or procedures.

IN-CUSTODY DEATH – Administrative review of
an in-custody death incident.

INSUBORDINATION – Failure or refusal to
follow a lawful written or verbal order issued by
a superior.

INTOXICATION – On-duty personnel under the
influence of any intoxicant.

MISSING PROPERTY – Property that has been in
the custody of an employee and becomes
unaccounted for or missing. This also includes
the misappropriation or theft of funds or
property.

NEGLECT OF DUTY – The failure to perform a
required duty.

OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING – Administrative
review of an officer involved shooting incident.

PROFILING – The consideration or reliance on
actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity,
national origin, age, religion, gender identity or
expression, sexual orientation, or mental or
physical disability when deciding to subject a
person to law enforcement activities. However,
an officer may consider or rely on
characteristics listed in a specific suspect
description.

SERVICE – The failure to adequately provide
timely and required police action.

TRAFFIC – Improper or illegal driving by an
employee.

WAGE GARNISHMENT – Failure to pay just
debts

27 Chart 3: SPD & OPSA Allegation Comparison 2017-2023

Chart 3 compares the total complaint allegations received by OPSA and SPD from 201 7 through 2023. The significant increase from 201 7 to 2019 correlates with complaint documentation changes that resulted from DOJ recommendations.
246 253
575
711
629
900
674
99 102
163
83 78 48 60
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS
YEAR
SPD
OPSA

28 Chart 4: SPD Complaint Comparison 2020-2023
Chart 4 compares the total complaints concerning SPD from 2020 through 2023 – prior to 2020, complaint cases were tracked alternatively.

Chart 5: SPD Allegation Breakdown 2023

Chart 5 identifies the 674 misconduct allegations that were filed directly with SPD against police personnel during this reporting period.
313
289
306
297
275
280
285
290
295
300
305
310
315
2020 2021 2022 2023

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
YEAR
60 71
21 29 32
1 50
27 74
51 2
18 81
9 131
17 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
140NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS

TYPE OF ALLEGATION

29 Chart 6: OPSA Allegation Breakdown 2023

Chart 6 identifies the 60 misconduct allegations that were filed with OPSA against police personnel during this reporting period. These allegations were evaluated with OPSA receiving the preliminary complaint information and discussed or forwarded to SPD for investigation, as needed. Note: one investigation could include multiple allegations.

Dispositions
Each allegation of misconduct shall receive one of the following dispositions:

SUSTAINED: Sufficient evidence supports the allegation against the employee(s).

NOT SUSTAINED: Sufficient evidence does not exist to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.

EXONERATED: The investigation clearly established that the alleged act occurred and was justified.

UNFOUNDED: The investigation clearly established that the alleged act did not occur, or the identified employee was not involved. This also includes frivolous complaints, which are found to be totally and completely without merit, or those for the sole purpose of harassing an employee.
10 3
1 3 2
6 18
4 4
8 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS

TYPE OF ALLEGATION

30 Chart 7: SPD Allegation Dispositions

Chart 7 shows that of the 286 completed misconduct cases with a total of 792 allegations, 85 of the allegations were Sustained and referred to Police Command Staff for disciplinary action against employees.

60 27
85 620
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Exonerated Not Sustained Sustained Unfounded

NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS

DISPOSITION

31 Chart 8: SPD Dispositions by Allegation
Chart 8 shows the dispositions of the 792 allegations closed out in 202 3. Of those completed investigations , 181 complaints were originally filed in 202 3, 101 were filed in 2022, and the remaining 4 complaints were from older 2020 and 2021 cases.
4 2
10 21
9 7
1 6
1 4
2 6
2 1
1 1
1 5
3 12
6 16
2 3
10 6
1 2
10 17
2 111
27 94
13 1
31 93
30 28
45 28
15 66
36 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

NUMBER OF DISPOSITIONS

TYPE OF ALLEGATION
Exonerated
Not Sustained
Sustained
Unfounded

32 Chart 9: SPD Discipline from Completed Investigations Chart 9 reflects the discipline imposed from misconduct investigations completed in 2023 according to data provided by Internal Affairs . Note: On e case can result in multiple disciplinary action s against multiple employees.

23 1
2 1
9 2
2 1
8 14
1 0 5 10 15 20 25
Verbal Counseling
Termination
Terminated Prior to Discipline Imposed
Suspension
Retraining
Retired
Resigned Prior to Imposition of Discipline
No Longer Employed
Letter of Reprimand
Documented Counseling
Crisis Intervention Training

TYPE OF DISCIPLINE

NUMBER OF SUSTAINED CASES

33 Sacramento Fire Department
Fire Complaint Allegations
COMPLAINT — Any complaint pertaining to SFD policies, rules, procedures, or employee conduct.

Misconduct complaints include, but are not limited to, allegations of:

CRIMINAL OFFENSE
As statutorily defined.

CITY EQUIPMENT
Any misuse of City equipment.

CONDUCT UNBECOMING
Behavior that is malicious or criminal or a failure
to follow ordinary and reasonable rules of good
conduct and behavior. This includes any
misconduct bringing discredit upon the SFD.

DISCOURTESY
Rude or abusive actions directed toward another
person.

DISCRIMINATION
Allegations that the employee’s actions or
misconduct was due to race, sex, religion, physical
disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of an
individual.

DISHONESTY
Theft, misappropriation of funds, property of the
City or others, or giving false, or misleading
information.

HARASSMENT
Any action or conduct including, but not limited
to, the making of threats of violence, physical
intimidation, verbal abuse, derogatory comments,
sexual demands, or an act of retaliation because
of the sex, race, ancestry, physical handicap,
medical condition, marital status, age, sexual
preference, or any other protected characteristic
of a citizen or employee.

EXCESSIVE FORCE
Includes attempted or actual intimidation as well
as physical use of force.

IMPROPER TACTICS
Improper or unapproved procedures and
techniques used by an employee, such as giving
inappropriate advice or taking in appropriate
action.

INSUBORDINATION
Failure or refusal to follow a lawful written or
verbal order of a superior.

INTOXICATION
The use of intoxicants by on-duty personnel.

MISSING PROPERTY
Property missing, which has, at one time, been
in the custody or control of a member of the
SFD.

NEGLECT OF DUTY
The failure to perform a required duty.

SERVICE
The failure to provide adequate, timely and
required action.

TRAFFIC
Improper or illegal driving by an employee.

WAGE GARNISHMENT
Failure to pay just debts.

34 Chart 10: SFD Complaint Comparison 2017-2023

Chart 10 compares the total complaints concerning SFD from 2017 through 2023.

Chart 11: SFD Allegation Comparison 2016-2023
Chart 11 compares the total complaint allegations received by SFD from 2016 through 2023. *This data includes 2016 and the first 6 months of 2017. Note: one investigation could include multiple allegations. 56 86
55 59
74 70
45 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
YEAR
104
179
79 114
167
125 124
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
2016 - 2017* 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS
YEAR

35 Chart 12: SFD Allegation Breakdown 2023

Chart 12 identifies the breakdown of the 115 misconduct allegations filed against SFD employees during the period of this report. Note: There may be multiple allegations per investigation.

Chart 13: OPSA Allegation Breakdown 2023
Chart 13 identifies the 9 misconduct allegations that were filed with OPSA against fire personnel during this reporting period. These allegations were evaluated with OPSA receiving the preliminary complaint information and discussed or forwarded to SFD for investigation, as needed. Note: one investigation could include multiple allegations
7 43
3 9 7
2 5
39 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 50NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS

TYPE OF ALLEGATION
4 3
2 0
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 Discourtesy Neglect of Duty Service

NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS

TYPE OF ALLEGATION

36 Chart 14: SFD Allegation Dispositions
Chart 14 shows that of the 47 completed 2023 misconduct cases with a total of 129 allegations, 23 of the allegations were Sustained and referred to Fire Command Staff for disciplinary action against employees.

Chart 15: SFD Dispositions by Allegation
Chart 15 shows that allegations of Discourtesy and Service were the most common complaint type made against Fire personnel in 2023.

5 12
5 20
3 4
3 1
3 5
4 23
4 1
4 6
4 19
3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

NUMBER OF DISPOSITIONS

TYPE OF ALLEGATION
Exonerated
Not Sustained
Sustained
Unfounded
5 37
23 64
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Exonerated Not Sustained Sustained Unfounded

NUMBER OF ALLEGATIONS

DISPOSITION

37 Chart 16: SFD Discipline from Completed Investigations Chart 16 reflects the discipline imposed on 2023 misconduct investigations according to data provided by SFD PSU. Note that discipline imposed can be imposed upon multiple employees involved in a single incident.

1 4
2 2
1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Written Reprimand
Verbal Counseling
Suspension
Resigned Prior To Imposition of Discipline
Resignation
Documented Counseling

TYPE OF DISCIPLINE

NUMBER OF SUSTAINED CASES

38 Outside Jurisdiction
There were 37 complaints or inquiries reported to OPSA that were not a ttributed to misconduct allegations against Sacramento Police Department or Fire Department personnel. OPSA staff attempts to connect constituents with the proper agency or informa tion to help resolve their issues regardless of it falling outside of the office’s scope of authority and responsibility.

39 Outreach & Events
The Office of Public Safety Accountability continues to focus on reaching out to our community to inform them about the work of the office. OPSA ensures that community concerns are being heard and considered by the City’s Public Safety Departments. By providing information to the community regarding the complaint process and by making public safety policies and implementation of those policies more transparent, more trust can be built. Despite limitations for in person events due to COVID 19 restrictions, OPSA engaged with the community at the following events:

➢ You And The Law Podcast: Black Women Leaders in Law enforcement - March 9, 2023

➢ African American Employee Leadership Council (AAELC), Presentation: OPSA Audit Findings - July 6, 2023

➢

➢ Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC), Presentation: OPSA Complaint Reporting Overview - September 11, 2023

➢ Sacramento Community Police Review Commission Presentation – October 9, 2023

➢ San Joaquin Delta College Paralegal Studies Program - November 9, 2023

➢ Sacramento Observer’s 60th Anniversary Gala Celebration – November 10, 2023

➢ Sacramento Public Defender Racial Justice Meeting – November 16, 2023

�������������������������������������������������������������������������

40 Annual Recommendations
Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA)

➢ OPSA must increase staffing in order to review 100% of misconduct allegations filed against Sacramento Police Department personnel.*
➢ OPSA must increase awareness and community engagement throughout the City of Sacramento.* Sacramento Police Department (SPD)

General Recommendations
➢ Sacramento Police Department internal investigations conducted by the Internal Affairs Division as well as internal investigations conducted by supervising personnel within an employee’s assigned division must be investigated impartially and thoroughly to ensure the most accurate findings.*
➢ The Sacramento Police Department must diligently work to ensure internal investigations are investigated in a timely manner, work to minimize delays, and decrease lengthy case backlogs.* ➢ The Sacramento Police Department Internal Affairs Division must ensure that the Office of Public Safety Accountability receives all completed case investigations for review prior to closing the case and prior to any involved officer(s) receiving notification of case findings.* Policy Recommendations
➢ The Sacramento Police Department should implement all recommendations outlined in the OPSA 2023 audit report, An Audit of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD): Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure.

Sacramento Fire Department (SFD)

General Recommendations
➢ The Sacramento Fire Department Professional Standards Unit must conduct internal investigations impartially and thoroughly to ensure the most accurate findings.*

Policy Recommendations
➢ Sacramento Fire Department Professional Standards Division should update its operations manual from 2007. *

*Repeat recommendations that have not been acted upon by the departments.

41 Frequently Asked Questions

WHAT IS THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC SAFETY
ACCOUNTABILITY?
The Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA)
is a Mayor and City Council established office
whose main responsibilities are: (1) taking in
complaints from members of the public against
Sacramento Police (SPD) or Fire Department
(SFD) employees,
(2) makes sure that SPD and SFD investigates
those complaints thoroughly and fairly, and (3)
recommends improvements to SPD and SFD
policies and procedures.

WHY DOES OPSA MATTER?
OPSA helps keep SPD and SFD accountable to the
communities they serve by auditing the
investigations into claims of police or fire
employee(s) misconduct to ensure that those
investigations are fair and thorough. The work of
OPSA has resulted in improved department
policies and increased transparency.

IS OPSA PART OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?
WHY SHOULD I TRUST OPSA?
No. OPSA is not part of the police department.

The OPSA Director answers to the Mayor and
City Council. The Chief of Police answers to the
City Manager. The City Manager answers to the
Mayor and City Council.

You should trust OPSA because the office is
independent. OPSA is free to agree or disagree
with the decisions of SPD.

WHAT CAN I DO IF I THINK A PUBLIC SAFETY
EMPLOYEE DID SOMETHING WRONG?
One of the things you can do is file a Misconduct
Complaint with OPSA.

WHAT IS A MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT?
A Misconduct Complaint is a statement from you
explaining why you think a City of Sacramento
public safety employee broke one (or more) of
the rules that the employee is required to follow
and requesting that the employee’s conduct be
investigated by the department. The SPD
General Orders are the Police Department’s
policies governing every aspect of their day -to-
day operations and actions. The SFD Manual of
Operations contains all policies and procedures
that fire personnel are required to follow.

WHAT IF I DON’T KNOW WHICH RULE THE
EMPLOYEE MAY HAVE VIOLATED?
There are many rules SPD and SFD personnel are
required to follow, and you do not need to know
them. If you have a question about whether a
certain kind of behavior by a public safety
employee is against the rules, you can contact
OPSA to ask.

DO I HAVE TO KNOW THE EMPLOYEE’S NAME
OR BADGE NUMBER?
No, you do not. While it is useful information, if
you do not have that information, you can still
file your complaint.

CAN I FILE A COMPLAINT WITH OPSA AGAINST

A PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT

WITH THE SACRAMENTO POLICE OR FIRE
DEPARTMENT?
No. OPSA can only process your complaint if it is
about an SPD or SFD employee. Complaints
about public safety employees employed by
other law enforcement agencies cannot be filed
with OPSA. However, OPSA will do its best to
guide you to the proper authority.

42 WHO CAN FILE A MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT
WITH OPSA?
Any member of the public can file a Misconduct
Complaint about SPD or SFD personnel. You can
file a Misconduct Complaint about something
that happened to you or about something that
happened to somebody else. You can live in
Sacramento or outside the city. You can be a U.S.
citizen, or you can be an immigrant – with or
without papers. OPSA staff are fluent in English
but can access a translation service to assist in
taking your complaint if necessary.

You can also file a complaint if you are a
defendant in a criminal case; but if the case is
related to the complaint you want to tell us
about, we recommend that you talk to your
lawyer first.

HOW DO I FILE A COMPLAINT OR
COMMENDATION?
You can file a complaint or commendation by
email, regular mail, telephone, on our website,
or in person.

Please provide as much information as possible
regarding the incident, including:

1. Your contact information: Name, Address,
Phone Number(s).

2. Incident information: Date, Time, Location.

3. Employee(s) involved: Name and Badge
Number, if possible.

4. Unit involved: Fire Company, Fire Station,
and/or Fire Vehicle, if possible.

5. Description of the incident: Please provide as
much detail as possible.

6. Witness information: Name, Address, Phone
Number(s) of any witnesses to the incident.

WILL I HAVE MORE PROBLEMS WITH POLICE
OR FIRE IF I FILE A MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT?
No. SPD and SFD have strict rules that prohibit
personnel from retaliating against complainants.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I FILE A MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINT?
When a complaint is received by OPSA, it is
reviewed by the Director or staff and then
forwarded to Internal Affairs Division (IAD) of
SPD or to the Professional Standards Unit (PSU)
of SFD for a preliminary investigation. IAD or PSU
reviews and categorizes the complaint.

Sometimes a complaint can be resolved after
speaking to the complainant. In other instances,
a formal investigation is conducted. IAD has one
year to complete that investigation.

OPSA reviews completed formal investigations
for the final disposition as recommended by the
Police or Fire Chief.

IAD or PSU notifies the complainant(s) of the
case disposition(s). Throughout this process
OPSA is available to the complainant to provide
information and answer questions excluding
disclosure of any confidential or legally
protected information.

WHAT IF I DON’T HAVE A MISCONDUCT

COMPLAINT AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL
EMPLOYEE, BUT I DON’T LIKE A PATTERN I SEE
WITH THE POLICE OR FIRE DEPARTMENT?
You can file a policy complaint. Policy complaints
are not requests for individual personnel to be
investigated and disciplined. Instead, they are
requests that SPD or SFD change its policies or
procedures or adopt new ones. You can file a
policy complaint with OPSA.

I HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME. WILL

FILING A COMPLAINT AFFECT THE CRIMINAL
CASE AGAINST ME?
No. The complaint you file with us is separate
from your criminal case. OPSA cannot advise or
represent you on any legal matter.

43 Meet the Office of Public Safety Accountability

OPSA DIRECTOR
DR. LATESHA WATSON

EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

ALAYNA MAGDALENO
Mrs. Magdaleno is the most tenured OPSA team
member in the office. She joined the team in 2018
bringing management experience from the banking
industry to the office. She holds an Associate degree
in General Studies.

Dr. Watson joined the OPSA team in 2020. She is an
accomplished police executive and leadership expert
bringing more than 27 years of experience in the
policing profession to the office. As a Deputy Chief of Police in Arlington Police Department, she became
the youngest chief in tenure and age to obtain the
rank in 2014. She also became the 1st female African
American Chief of Police in the entire State of
Nevada and in the City of Henderson, Nevada. She
holds a Ph.D. in International Psychology with a
concentration in systems and organizations, a Ph.D.
in Management and Organizational Leadership, a
Master’s degree in Criminology, and a Bachelor’s
degree in Criminal Justice.

44 Mr. White joined the OPSA team in 2021. He brings a
wealth of knowledge conducting significant criminal
investigations as a Certified Illinois Lead Homicide
Investigator for the City of Chicago – Civilian Office
of Police Accountability (COPA). He also has financial
crimes investigative experience. He obtained his law
degree in 2014 from the University of Illinois Chicago
– School of Law, formerly The John Marshall Law
School.

OPSA INSPECTOR GENERAL

DWIGHT WHITE

OPSA SPECIALIST

MICHELE VALEROS
Mrs. Valeros joined the OPSA team in 2022. She has
an extensive amount of experience in the law
profession as a paralegal in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Small Business Administration. In
addition, she has experience conducting
investigations with the San Joaquin County District
Attorney’s Office – Bureau of Investigations. She is
also a professor instructing college courses for
paralegal studies, criminal litigation and procedure,
social justice, and ethics. She holds a Master’s
degree in forensic science with a concentration in
investigation, a Bachelor’s degree in Pre-Law studies,
and an Associate degree in Behavioral Science.

45 The Office of Public Safety Accountability is a Mayor and City Council established office designed to improve the relationship between the City’s public safety departments and the community they protect and serve. We promote trust, excellence, transparency, and accountability through independent and impartial oversight of complaints related to public safety employee misconduct.

OPSA’s main responsibilities are to:
(1) receive complaints and commendations from members of the public regarding City of Sacramento Police (SPD) or Fire Department (SFD) employees;
(2) review SPD and SFD complaint investigations for thoroughness and fairness, and (3) make recommendations for improvements to SPD and SFD policies and procedures.

The Director has broad oversight authority to evaluate the overall quality of SPD and SFD personnel performance and the authority to encourage systemic change.

OPSA is available to conduct presentations to a wide spectrum of community groups, schools, neighborhood meetings, civic organizations, State and National professional agencies and associations to make sure OPSA is known throughout the Sacramento community as a resource and provide information on how the Office can be utilized.

If you are interested in scheduling a brief presentation, please contact us.

Call: (916) 808-7525
Online: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/OPSA
Mail: 915 I Street, Historic City Hall 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

46 APPENDIX

Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA):

External Audit Report

An Audit of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD):

Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

April 19, 2023

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4 Background ......................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................. 6 Fourth Amendment Rules ................................................................................... 8 Audit Overview .................................................................................................... 9 Chart 1: SPD Case Dispositions ..................................................................................................... 9 Case Disposition Comparison ............................................................................ 10 Chart 2: OPSA vs. SPD Fourth Amendment Violations........................................................ 11 Chart 3: SPD Sustained Cases ..................................................................................................... 12 Chart 4: OPSA Sustained Cases .................................................................................................. 13 Chart 5: SPD vs. OPSA Sustained Cases .................................................................................. 14 Audit Findings .................................................................................................. 15 Finding 1: SPD Does Not Have a Current, Stand-Alone Policy Regarding the Fourth Amendment and Includes Search and Seizure. ....................................................... 15 Finding 2: Automatic Pat Downs of Citizens are in Direct Conflict with the 1968 United States Supreme Court Decision, Terry v. Ohio. ............................................ 16 Finding 3: SPD Officers Improperly Searched or Seized Citizens Cell Phones in Direct Violation of State and Federal Laws. ....................................................................... 17 Finding 4: Rights of Non-Probation Citizens were Violated During Probation Waiver Searches……………… .............................................................................................. 18 Finding 5: Inconsistent Vehicle Tow Procedures. .................................................... 19 Finding 6: SPD Does Not Have a Policy Regarding Handcuffing Minor Children ...... 19 Finding 7: Warrantless Entry into Citizens’ Homes and Conducting Searches without Sufficient Legal Authority ....................................................................................... 20 Finding 8: SPD Does Not Have a Policy Regarding Officers Interacting with Citizens Holding a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) license. ................................................. 21 Finding 9: Stops Based on Minor Traffic Infractions Such as Improper Window Tint with No Apparent Intention to Enforce the Vehicle Code or Ticket the Driver Amount to Pretextual Stops. ................................................................................................ 22 Traffic Stop Breakdown ....................................................................................... 24 Chart 6: Type of Traffic Violations ....................................................................... 24 Traffic Violation Breakdown:................................................................................ 25 Improper Window Tint Violation .......................................................................... 25 Table 1: Breakdown of Improper Window Tint Violations ..................................... 25 Finding 10: Internal Reviews by Supervisors do not Consistently ........................... 26 External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Identify Fourth Amendment Violations. .................................................................. 26 Statistical Findings: Complainant Demographics .............................................. 28 Chart 7: Complainant Age ...................................................................................... 28 Chart 8: Complainant Gender ................................................................................. 28 Chart 9: Complainant Race .................................................................................... 29 Complaint Location ........................................................................................... 30 Chart 10: Complaints by Council District ............................................................... 30 Chart 11: Complaints by SPD Command Area ........................................................ 30 Chart 12: Complaints by SPD Police Beat Locations ............................................... 31 Chart 13: Complaints by Officer Assignment .......................................................... 32 Type of Police – Citizen Interactions ................................................................. 33 Chart 14: Type of Police-Citizen Interaction ............................................................ 33 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 34

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Introduction

The mission of the Office of Public Safety Accountability (OPSA) is to enhance relationships between the City of Sacramento’s public safety employees and the community they protect and serve. Under the direction, control, and supervision of the City of Sacramento Mayor and City Council, OPSA has broad oversight authority of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) and the Sacramento Fire Department (SFD). Established in 1999 by the City of Sacramento Mayor and City Council, OPSA is charged with independently accepting, tracking, monitoring, and reviewing misconduct complaint investigations.

OPSA also tracks and monitors critical incident investigations involving public safety personnel. The role of OPSA oversight practitioners was expanded in 2020 by the City of Sacramento Mayor and City Council establishing an Inspector General (IG) position within OPSA to independently investigate officer involved shootings and use-of-force incidents.

The current climate of policing in the United States (U.S.) demand the institutionalization of police reform efforts combating systemic racism, excessive uses of force, unreasonable stops and searches, and the lack of police accountability. Independent oversight of police organizations is a necessary ingredient of police reform.

OPSA adds an independent layer of oversight review to SPD and SFD misconduct complaint cases and critical incident investigations. OPSA’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the investigation of misconduct complaint cases and critical incident investigations are conducted timely, thoroughly, and fairly. OPSA’s broad oversight authority includes evaluating the overall quality of performance of public safety employees as well as encouraging systematic change to improve it.

Background

The frequency of high-profile police killings of minorities across the country in recent years has led to unprecedented levels of public scrutiny regarding police operations and the need to hold officers accountable. With racial justice at the forefront, the number of police oversight agencies has expanded around the country. Currently, there are more than 160 police oversight agencies in the U.S., distinctly different from a total of seven oversight agencies in existence in 1975. Recognizing the need for a higher level of accountability to the public and responding directly to demands to “defund” the police, the Sacramento City Council directed its OPSA Director to deploy the newly created Inspector General, and its staff, to provide review and oversight of all police practices on its behalf.

Oversight agencies throughout the U.S. have experienced challenges fulfilling their mission and meeting set objectives due to the police, police unions, and other interest groups who have worked to successfully block oversight practitioners from performing their job duties and responsibilities. Oversight practitioners are undermined consistently by law enforcement. Police personnel as well as police unions contend that oversight practitioners are ill-equipped to judge police officers because they lack the expertise and experience of trained law enforcement professionals. OPSA oversight practitioners dispel this notion by encompassing law enforcement professionals with extensive knowledge, expertise, and experience in the profession, but resistance remains.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Under the direction, control and supervision of the City Council, the Director of the Office of Public Safety Accountability shall have the following authority and responsibility as related to the Sacramento Police Department and Sacramento Fire Department:

A. Audit all citizen complaint investigations of the police department and fire department, as the director deems necessary;

B. Monitor all citizen complaint investigations conducted by the police department and fire department;

C. Request the police department and fire department perform further investigation in those citizen complaint cases that require additional investigation as determined by the director;

D. Receive all documents, reports, or any other item necessary to monitor or audit a complaint investigation;

E. Assist the city council, or any duly appointed committee of the council, in performing its investigative functions under section 34 of the charter; 1 F. As needed, request the city council, or any duly appointed committee of the council, to issue subpoenas as provided in section 34 of the charter. The city council may, by resolution, establish the procedures for the request, issuance, and service of those subpoenas;

G. Perform such other inquiries and investigations as prescribed by council resolution;

H. Accept and document complaints directly from citizens as an alternative procedure for citizen complaints concerning public safety personnel, using a complaint form distinct from that used by the police department or fire department. All such complaints shall be promptly forwarded to the respective public safety department for investigation;

I. Provide complainants with timely updates on the status of investigations, excluding disclosure of any information that is confidential or legally protected;

J. Explain how the complaint process works to all complainants;

K. Monitor or independently investigate any other matter as directed by the city council pursuant to section 34 of the charter;

L. Serve in a public information capacity, including providing public information, excluding disclosure of any information that is confidential or legally protected, on pending investigations as directed by the city council; and making presentations in community forums; and

M. Respond to critical incidents involving police or fire personnel and provide a report to city council regarding the details and concerns of those incidents. 2 1 Pursuant to Sacramento City Charter Section 34
2 OPSA general responsibilities outlined in City Council Report #2016-01504, November 29, 2016 External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

In May of 2022, concerns emerged during the review of misconduct complaint cases.3 OPSA oversight practitioners discovered an initial pattern of Fourth Amendment violations of Sacramento community members, specifically Black and Latino community members, during police-citizen interactions. From the evaluation of the initial pattern, apparent issues with improper search and seizure demonstrate a lack of understanding of what officers learn from training on the law and the actual application of that training in the field. With such a limited amount of information, oversight practitioners could not make a conclusive determination of whether a systemic problem within the police department existed.

Therefore, a determination was made that an external audit would be conducted to obtain a conclusive finding of whether there is a systemic problem or only isolated incidents were discovered. The external audit consisted of all misconduct complaint cases encompassing the allegation of improper search and seizure over the course of a two-year period, from June of 2020 to June of 2022.

Objective

The objective of this audit was to determine whether there is a systemic problem in the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) regarding officers engaging in pattern or practice of unreasonable stops, searches, and seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Sacramento community members, specifically Black and Latino community members, during police-citizen interactions. If the audit deemed any conduct to be unlawful policing, an evaluation of organizational practices contributing to the unlawful conduct would be performed.

Scope

This audit included a review of 109 misconduct complaint cases only for the period June 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022. Case information beyond this period was reviewed as deemed necessary to fulfill the objectives of the audit.

Methodology

To achieve the audit objective, OPSA performed the following:

 Reviewed 109 misconduct complaint case files with the allegation of improper search and seizure (e.g., officer, complainant, witness statements, investigative summaries, offense/incident reports, interview transcripts, dispatch call sheet logs, police radio transmission audio, observation reports, emails);
 Reviewed body worn camera (BWC) footage and dash cam footage relevant to completed misconduct complaint cases;
 Reviewed SPD General Orders, Reference Materials (RMs), Training and Education materials, City of Sacramento City Ordinances, and City of Sacramento City Code;  Reviewed California Penal Code, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court legal decisions, and applicable laws;
 Researched national best practices and reviewed numerous major city police organizations’ policies and procedures; and

3 A misconduct complaint case is the investigation of an internal or external complaint filed citing allegation(s) of misconduct against any department employee involving a violation of any law, rule, regulation, policy, or other improper job performance.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

 Reviewed relevant materials from the National Policing Institute (NPI), the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), International Association Chiefs of Police (IACP), U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), and Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Civil Rights Division – Special Litigation Section.

In accordance with the Sacramento City Code, Chapter 2.22 Office of Public Safety Accountability duties and responsibilities, OPSA oversight practitioners performed this external audit of the Sacramento Police Department’s misconduct complaint cases that encompass the allegation of ‘Improper Search and Seizure’. This audit evaluated misconduct complaint cases from June 1, 2020, through June of 2022. In addition, OPSA began reviewing all incoming cases encompassing an allegation of misconduct for improper search and seizure as of August of 2022.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Fourth Amendment Rules

 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from performing unreasonable searches and seizures on citizens.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describin g the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” 4

 This means the arrests, searches, and detainments of citizens cannot be unreasonable.

 An arrest of a person is reasonable if it is supported by an arrest warrant or by probable cause.5

 In California, probable cause exists when the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of arrest, would lead an objectively reasonable officer to believe that the person arrested has committed the crime in which they are being arrested for.6

 A detainment or investigatory stop is reasonable if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” some criminal activity is occurring, and the person being detained is/was/or about to be involved in that criminal activity in some capacity.7

 Police officers are permitted to perform warrantless pat down searches on people they detain, if they reasonably believe that the person being patted down is presently armed and dangerous.8

 During traffic stops, police officers have the power as a matter of course to order drivers and passengers out of their vehicles.
9 However, a mere traffic violation does not grant officers the right to perform pat-down searches.10 Even during a traffic stop officers still must reasonably believe that the person they are patting down is armed or dangerous.11

 Although certain amounts of cannabis are legal to possess and consume in California, it is still illegal to drive or operate a vehicle under the influence of cannabis or with open containers of cannabis in the vehicle. If a police officer smells or observes cannabis cigarettes or loose cannabis in a car, they have the power to pat down all the occupants in the vehicle and search the entire vehicle to ensure the statutory requirements of the law are being upheld.12

4 U.S. Constitution, Amend. 4
5 Kaupp v. Texas, 538 US 626 (2003)
6 People v. Souza, 9 Cal.4th 224 885 (1994)
7 Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968)
8 Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968)
9 Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, (1997) 10 People v. Superior Court (Simon) 7Cal.3d 186, 206 (1972), People v. Superior Court (Kiefer)3 Cal.3d 807, 830 (1970) People v.

Lawler 9 Cal.3d 156, 161(1973)
11 Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)
12 People v Fews,27 Cal.App.5th 553 (2018)
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Audit Overview

OPSA performed an external audit of SPD completed misconduct complaint cases that encompassed allegations of improper search and seizure from June 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022. The case list for the audit included one duplicate case as well as three cases that were not able to be reviewed due to the lack of pertinent information missing from the case file. Although complaints were filed in these three cases, SPD was unable to obtain the necessary information to conduct a full investigation of the allegations. As a result, SPD closed two of these complaints with a disposition of unfounded and the other complaint was closed with a disposition of not sustained.

A total of 109 misconduct complaint cases met the audit criteria for the two-year period and were reviewed for the audit. As depicted in Chart 1 below, 86 of the 109 completed misconduct complaint cases received a disposition of UNFOUNDED from SPD. SPD defines the disposition of unfounded as the investigation clearly established that the alleged act did not occur, or the identified employee was not involved. This also included frivolous complaints, which are found to be totally and completely without merit, or those for the sole purpose of harassing an employee. Sustained, Not Sustained, and Exonerated are the other three dispositions in which allegations of misconduct can receive. SPD defines the disposition of sustained as when sufficient evidence supports the allegation against the employee(s).

SPD defines the disposition of not sustained as when sufficient evidence does not exist to clearly prove or disprove the allegation. SPD defines the disposition of exonerated as the investigation clearly established that the alleged act occurred and was justified. 13 Chart 1: SPD Case Dispositions
Chart 1 shows that 17 of the 109 misconduct complaint cases reviewed for this audit were SUSTAINED by SPD and referred to Police Command Staff for disciplinary action against employees.

Dispositions
Each allegation of misconduct shall receive one of the following dispositions:

13 Sacramento Police Department Internal Affairs Investigations Manual 220.01 Disposition of Complaints 17 4 2
86 05101520253035
40 45
50 55
606570
758085
90 95
Sustained Exonerated Not Sustained Unfounded

NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

SUSTAINED: Sufficient evidence supports the allegation against the employee(s).

NOT SUSTAINED: Sufficient evidence does not exist to clearly prove or disprove the allegation.

EXONERATED: The investigation clearly established that the alleged act occurred and was justified.

UNFOUNDED: The investigation clearly established that the alleged act did not occur, or the identified employee was not involved. This also includes frivolous complaints, which are found to be totally and completely without merit, or those for the sole purpose of harassing an employee.

Case Disposition Comparison

During initial review of completed misconduct complaint cases, there have been instances when SPD changed their initial disposition of unfounded to sustained after detailed discussions with OPSA. OPSA has also experienced instances in which SPD agreed with OPSA that the disposition should be changed to sustained but the disposition was unable to be changed due to issues with the timing of the case completion.

SPD and OPSA disagreed on the disposition of several completed misconduct complaint cases in this audit regarding Fourth Amendment Violations. The differences between OPSA and SPD completed misconduct complaint case dispositions are illustrated below in Chart 2. OPSA determined that 35% of the 109 completed misconduct complaint cases contained Fourth Amendment violations. SPD determined that only 16% of the 109 completed misconduct complaint cases contained Fourth Amendment violations. Pursuant to this audit, OPSA also discovered additional Fourth Amendment violations that were not discovered during the initial review of the completed misconduct complaint cases.

The largest proportion of completed misconduct complaint cases with sustainable Fourth Amendment violations arose from improper searches and seizures related to cell phones, unlawful detention during traffic stops, unlawful pat downs, and unlawful warrantless residential searches. These cases consisted of multiple Fourth Amendment violations. In each case, the evaluation of whether the officer’s conduct violated the Fourth Amendment was based on published Fourth Amendment decisions by the United States Supreme Court that existed at the time of the incident. Other applicable California state court decisions, California State law, and the SPD Search and Seizure Manual was also utilized in the evaluation of each completed misconduct complaint case.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Chart 2: OPSA vs. SPD Fourth Amendment Violations
Chart 2 compares OPSA and SPD findings regarding Fourth Amendment violations for the completed misconduct complaint cases reviewed for this audit. OPSA determined that 38 of the total completed misconduct complaint cases reviewed contained Fourth Amendment violations. Contrastingly, SPD determined that 17 of the total completed misconduct complaint cases reviewed contained Fourth Amendment violations.

65%
35%
OPSA
No Violation Sustained Violation
84%
16%
SPD
No Violation Sustained Violation
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

In Charts 3,4, and 5 below, challenges were experienced categorizing the information due to more than one Fourth Amendment violation being discovered in multiple misconduct complaint cases.

Chart 3: SPD Sustained Cases
Chart 3 illustrates the breakdown of the types of Fourth Amendment violations in the 17 completed misconduct complaint cases.
0 1 2 3 4
Welfare Check
Warrantless Residential Search
Warrantless Cell Phone Search
Unlawful Vehicle Search
Unlawful Pat-Down / Search
Unlawful Detention - Traffic Stop
Unlawful Detention - Tow Procedures
Unlawful Detention - Subject Stops
Unlawful Detention
Probation Waiver Search - Residential, Vehicle
Probation Waiver Search - Residential
Probation Search - Business
Probation Search
Not In Plain Sight
No Probable Cause
Excessive Force - Cell Phone
Destruction of Evidence
Number of Sustained Cases
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Chart 4: OPSA Sustained Cases
Chart 4 illustrates the breakdown of the types of Fourth Amendment violations in the 38 completed misconduct complaint cases.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Welfare Check
Warrantless Residential Search
Warrantless Cell Phone Search
Unlawful Vehicle Search
Unlawful Pat-Down / Search
Unlawful Detention - Traffic Stop
Unlawful Detention - Tow Procedures
Unlawful Detention - Subject Stops
Probation Waiver Search - Residential
Probation Search - Business
Not In Plain Sight
No Probable Cause
Excessive Force - Cell Phone
Destruction of Evidence
Number of Sustained Cases
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Welfare Check
Warrantless Residential Search
Warrantless Cell Phone Search
Unlawful Vehicle Search
Unlawful Pat-Down / Search
Unlawful Detention - Traffic Stop
Unlawful Detention - Tow Procedures
Unlawful Detention - Subject Stops
Unlawful Detention
Probation Waiver Search - Residential, Vehicle
Probation Waiver Search - Residential
Probation Search - Business
Probation Search
Not In Plain Sight
No Probable Cause
Excessive Force - Cell Phone
Destruction of Evidence
Number of Sustained Cases
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Chart 5: SPD vs. OPSA Sustained Cases

Chart 5 depicts the differences between SPD and OPSA’s breakdown of the types of Fourth Amendment violations for completed misconduct complaint cases.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Welfare Check
Warrantless Residential Search
Warrantless Cell Phone Search
Unlawful Vehicle Search
Unlawful Pat-Down / Search
Unlawful Detention - Traffic Stop
Unlawful Detention - Tow Procedures
Unlawful Detention - Subject Stops
Unlawful Detention
Probation Waiver Search - Residential, Vehicle
Probation Waiver Search - Residential
Probation Search - Business
Probation Search
Not In Plain Sight
No Probable Cause
Excessive Force - Cell Phone
Destruction of Evidence
SPD Number of Sustained Cases OPSA Number of Sustained Cases External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Audit Findings
Finding 1: SPD Does Not Have a Current, Stand-Alone Policy Regarding the Fourth Amendment and Includes Search and Seizure.

The Fourth Amendment is implicated in just about every interaction between police officers and citizens. In addition, a violation of the Fourth Amendment was alleged in 109 misconduct complaint cases in two years. Therefore, SPD should have a search and seizure policy that clearly lays out the responsibility of the responding officers and the fundamental legal standards of detaining and searching a citizen.

SPD has a search and seizure manual. However, this manual is from 2007, and only generically describes search and seizure issues. It is unclear how SPD distinguishes a manual from a policy. This is significant because the United States Supreme Court, federal district court, and California state courts have issued several significant decisions pertaining to the Fourth Amendment since 2007.14 SPD should either update this 16-year-old manual or create a completely new, stand-alone policy that describes the specific instances of search and seizure issues that officers face daily. It would be beneficial for SPD to create a policy that addresses cell phone searches for arrestees and bystanders, the manner and scope of probation searches, the technical aspect of investigatory stops, and consent searches versus show of force.

Recommendations
• SPD should update its search and seizure manual from 2007. • SPD should draft a clear and detailed stand-alone Fourth Amendment policy that includes such things as cell phone searches, probations searches, investigatory stops, and consent searches.
• A sample policy from the San Francisco Police Department and Baltimore Police Department can be found in Appendix A.

14 The below cases were decided after 2007 and have significant Fourth Amendment implications:

Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
United States v. Jones 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ____, [138 S. Ct. 2206] (2018) People v Fews, 27 Cal.App.5th 553 (2018)
U.S. v. Landeros. 913 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2019)
Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ___, [141 S. Ct. 1596] (2021)

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 2: Automatic Pat Downs of Citizens are in Direct Conflict with the 1968 United States Supreme Court Decision,
Terry v. Ohio15.

Unlawful pat down searches occurred in a substantial number of the sustained cases reviewed. For officers to conduct a pat down or stop and frisk of a citizen, the Fourth Amendment requires the officer to be able to articulate that the citizen is armed or dangerous.

From the review of body worn camera footage associated with the misconduct complaint cases, there were instances in which police officers assigned to the Gang Enforcement Team stated, "I pat everyone down" or demonstrated a pattern of conducting pat downs as an automatic police practice when officers encounter a citizen. In addition, the police reports associated with these searches rarely articulated what was dangerous about the citizen that necessitated a pat down. Since there is nothing in their reports to indicate that the officers do not perceive the citizen to be armed or dangerous, these automatic pat downs can be viewed as being per se unlawful according to the established law of Terry v.

Ohio.

Example One
SPD Gang Enforcement officers pulled over a citizen for going 47-mph in a 40-mph zone. In viewing the body worn camera footage, the citizen was not an apparent threat to the officers. The citizen was apologetic for speeding, non-aggressive, calm, and respectful in his interaction with police officers.

Although the driver was compliant, the officer decided to order the citizen out of the vehicle, conduct a pat down search of his body, and ordered him to sit on the hood of their car. There was no report and no articulation of what made the officer believe the driver was currently armed and dangerous.

In 1977, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a decision entitled Pennsylvania v. Mimms16 that officers have the ability to order citizens out of their vehicle based on officer safety reasons as a matter of course. However, this power does not automatically extend to conducting pat down searches on citizens once they have been ordered out of their vehicles. Even during a routine traffic stop, officers must still be able to articulate the reasons why they suspect that the person being patted down is armed or dangerous. Otherwise, pat down searches based solely on routine traffic violations without required justification violate the Fourth Amendment.

Recommendations
• SPD should require officers to articulate in their reports why they stopped a citizen and/or why they felt the need to pat down the person.
• SPD should establish a clear detailed policy on pat downs, investigatory stops, and investigative detentions. A sample policy from the San Francisco Police Department can be found in Appendix B.
• SPD should provide training to new recruits and police officers on investigatory stops, pat downs, reasonable suspicion, and Fourth Amendment fundamentals, in accordance with the newly issued policy.

15 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
16 Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 3: SPD Officers Improperly Searched or Seized Citizens Cell Phones in Direct Violation of State and Federal Laws.

The Supreme Court established in Riley v. California17 that warrantless searches of an arrestee's cell phone are unconstitutional. Searching the cell phone of a probationer without specific language in the probation waiver agreement allowing officers to search is also a Fourth Amendment violation.18

Example Two
In one case, police officers towed a citizen's vehicle for his failure to consent to a cell phone search.

Federal courts have held that individuals have a right to record police officers in the performance of their public duties if the police activity is in public and the individual has the right to be there.19 SPD officers searched a citizen’s cell phone without a warrant and threatened a detainee with jail time for failing to allow the officers to search their cell phone. There were multiple cases reviewed in which SPD officers forcibly seized cell phones from bystanders who were recording officers in public.

Example Three
In one case, an elderly woman was outside recording several officers while they arrested her son.

Her demeanor was calm, and she was on the sidewalk away from the officers who were on the street. Without speaking to her or obtaining her consent, one officer grabbed her while another officer twisted her arm until she lost control of her phone. The officers then seized the cell phone.

Recommendation
• SPD should develop a clearly defined policy outlining procedures for the search and seizure of cell phones. A sample policy from the San Francisco Police Department and Baltimore Police Department can be found in Appendix E.

17 Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
18 United States v. Lara, 815 F. 3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) 19 The below cases recognized the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials by the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Gilk v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011)
ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012)
Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F. 3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F. 3d 1332-1333 (11th Cir. 2000)

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 4: Rights of Non-Probation Citizens were Violated During Probation Waiver Searches.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, when citizens are granted probation, they generally agree to waive their Fourth Amendment right. When a citizen is on probation and signs this waiver, they consent to warrantless searches by law enforcement officers of their homes and vehicles.

Although probationers sign over their Fourth Amendment rights, citizens who are not on probation still have a constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In some cases, police officers are allowed to conduct warrantless searches on citizens who are not on probation. For example, if a citizen is in a vehicle with a probationer or seen hanging out with the probationer. However, issues generally surface in the context of the home due to officers searching an entire house and bedrooms that are not controlled or occupied by the probationer rather than limiting the search to the probationer’s bedroom and common areas. There were multiple cases where officers conducted a probation search of every room in a house or apartment, even those rooms that the probationer did not occupy or control.

Example Four
In one case, officers conducted a probation search on a car belonging to a citizen that was not on probation. The probationer was not in the vehicle and was not seen driving the vehicle.

Example Five
In one case, officers searched and detained everyone at a local business establishment.

The officers detained the employees and customers for over an hour and further detained them even after it was clear that the customers and employees were not a part of any wrongdoing.

There were cases involving warrantless searches being conducted despite the fact that substantial opportunity and time existed to request a search warrant. Instead, the officers relied solely on a citizen’s probation waiver to conduct the search. The SPD manual does speak to conducting probation searches. However, the manual excludes any reference to the limitations that apply when conducting probation searches.

Recommendations
• SPD should develop a clear policy defining the rules and procedures for conducting probation searches. See Appendix A.
• SPD should implement continuous education and training for legal updates, probation search waivers, implicit bias, and community-oriented policing. • SPD should train officers to obtain search warrants whenever feasible and not rely so heavily on search waivers.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 5: Inconsistent Vehicle Tow Procedures.

This issue is significant enough to warrant a finding in this audit due to concerns with the unlawful detainment of citizens when police officers are towing citizens’ vehicles. There have been cases when citizens are allowed to obtain their personal property from their vehicles and leave the scene. In other cases, citizens were prohibited from obtaining their personal property from their vehicle and were not permitted to leave until after the tow truck left the scene with the vehicle. Whether the detainment is in violation of policy appears to be dependent upon which supervisor reviews the case.

Recommendation
• SPD should establish a clear policy outlining towing procedures as well as procedures for releasing personal property from their respective vehicles and releasing citizens from police custody when their vehicles are being towed.

Finding 6: SPD Does Not Have a Policy Regarding Handcuffing Minor Children.

Although this issue appeared in just one case, it is significant enough to warrant a finding in this audit.

SPD should have a policy regarding the handcuffing of minor children.

Example Six
The incident involves a ten-year-old African American female child who was scared and crying in her pajamas after being handcuffed and reprimanded by an SPD officer. The female child turned off the lights inside her home and failed to open the door fast enough for the officer. The female child was clearly not a threat to officers but was still handcuffed immediately upon opening the door of her home.

Although the child in this case was not handcuffed for a long period of time, this incident was obviously traumatic to the child and will certainly shape her view of police officers in the future. A policy outlining procedures in dealing with minor children would be beneficial to officers and lead to less traumatized children in the future.

Recommendations
• SPD should develop policy specifying handcuffing procedures for minors.20 A sample policy from the San Jose Police Department Baltimore Police Department can be found in Appendix F.
• SPD should receive continuous education and training on implicit bias.

20 This recommendation is not referencing juveniles arrested for criminal offenses.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 7: Warrantless Entry into Citizens’ Homes and Conducting Searches without Sufficient Legal Authority.

In many circumstances, police officers need to gain entry into people’s homes. However, “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”21 As a result, “warrantless home entry is unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, like exigent circumstances, which includes the need to render emergency aid.”22 Despite the importance of this subject, SPD does not have a policy for warrantless entry into homes.

Police officers are routinely requested to respond to the homes of citizens to check on their general well-being. For instance, citizens may ask officers to check on the welfare of a family member who they haven’t heard from in an unusually long time, just in case they are in need of medical assistance but are incapacitated. For decades, welfare checks were viewed as an exception to the warrant requirement.

Welfare checks were covered under the so-called ‘Community Care Taking Doctrine’ in the State of California until 2019 when the California Supreme Court abolished it in the decision of People v.

Ovieda.23 In that case, the court ruled that police officers cannot make warrantless entries and searches into a person’s home under the theory of community care taking or under the mere possibility of exigent circumstances. The court held that officers must perceive actual exigent circumstances before making a warrantless entry.

The audit found that despite the 2019 decision, SPD officers still make warrantless entry into citizens’ homes. In some cases, SPD officers were observed breaking down doors or physically pushing citizens aside to conduct these welfare checks. These welfare checks are performed without documentation as to the actual perceived emergency situation. Additionally, SPD officers continue to perform welfare checks without any policies or procedures to protect officers or citizens. Numerous complaints have been filed by citizens alleging that officers damaged their property or were overzealous in conducting these welfare checks.

In other complaint cases, SPD officers forced entry into citizens’ homes to search for felony suspects.

Police officers searching for criminal suspects is a vital function of policing, but police officers are prohibited from forcibly entering citizens’ homes in search of suspects without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

Recommendation
• SPD should develop a policy for conducting welfare checks that encompasses warrantless entry into citizen’s homes. A sample policy from the Baltimore Police Department can be found in Appendix B.

21 People v. Ovieda, 7 Cal. 5th 1034, 1041(2019)
22 People v. Ovieda, 7 Cal. 5th 1034, 1038(2019)
23 People v. Ovieda, 7 Cal. 5th 1034 (2019)
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 8: SPD Does Not Have a Policy Regarding Officers Interacting with Citizens Holding a Concealed Carry
Weapon (CCW) license.

Although this issue appeared in just one case, it was significant enough to warrant a finding in this audit.

SPD should have a policy and train officers on properly dealing with citizens who hold a CCW. As more citizens obtain a CCW, police interactions with CCW holders will become more prevalent. To ensure the safety of police officers and citizens holding CCWs, SPD must establish clear guidelines and tactically sound training protocols to mitigate unnecessary uses of force.

Example Seven
During a routine traffic stop for a tinted windows violation, the driver notified the officer that he had a CCW license and that he was carrying his weapon on his side. The officer immediately took out her weapon, held the driver at gunpoint in the low ready position, and called for backup. Several officers responded to the scene and tactically ordered the driver out of his vehicle. The officers took his firearm, handcuffed him, and sat him on the ground. Throughout the interaction the driver was calm and cooperative. Several officers remained on scene while the driver’s information was checked and CCW permit verified. The officers released the driver once they were finished with the records check. Although this is not a blatant Fourth Amendment violation, a clearly defined policy and effective tactics training for these interactions would be beneficial to the department.

Recommendation
• SPD should develop a policy for police interactions with citizens who have a CCW license and carrying their weapon at the time of the interaction.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 9: Stops Based on Minor Traffic Infractions Such as Improper Window Tint with No Apparent Intention to
Enforce the Vehicle Code or Ticket the Driver Amount to Pretextual Stops.

More than half of the complaints received during the review period regarding improper search and seizure stemmed from traffic stops24. In many instances, the Fourth Amendment is violated when these "window tint" traffic stops get needlessly prolonged. In a 2015 decision, Rodriguez v. US25, the Supreme Court ruled that when a traffic violation is the purpose of a stop, the stop “may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose”. The traffic stop can become unlawful if it is unnecessarily prolonged for an unrelated matter that has nothing to do with the purpose of the stop, even if an officer’s initial traffic stop of the citizen was lawful.

Although pretext stops are not a technical violation of the Fourth Amendment, they are extremely subjective in their enforcement. If performed without restrictions, pretext stops can deteriorate relationships within the community between citizens and the police. During this review period, every complaint regarding the conduct of traffic stops for illegal window tint was filed by a Black or Latino driver26.

In most cases, the officers did not investigate or question the driver about the window tint. The window tint appears to be a pretext to initiate an unrelated investigation that had nothing to do with the window tint. These interactions are intense and can become needlessly adversarial. Officers question drivers stopped for window tint violations about their criminal history, specifically asking if the individual has ever been in jail, arrested, or whether they are on probation or parole even though the citizens were only being stopped for minor traffic violations. Although asking criminal background questions during a routine traffic stop is not by themselves unconstitutional, they serve no real purpose, and are irrelevant to whether the driver violated a vehicle code or traffic law. Furthermore, this criminal background information is readily available to officers when they run the citizen’s driver’s license information. These types of exchanges can lead to the perception that the officers are dishonest and attempting to harass the drivers for improper reasons.

Example Eight
A driver was pulled over for illegal window tint and was observed to be in his employment uniform. The driver was ordered out of his vehicle, placed in handcuffs, patted down and detained for 15 minutes.

During this traffic stop, the officer conducted an investigation on a completely unrelated criminal matter.

The officer suspected the driver was involved in an unrelated criminal offense in the same area, but the officer had no physical description of the suspect. The officer did not have any information or evidence that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the driver was involved in the criminal activity.

The officer made the driver call his supervisor for an alibi. Even though the supervisor confirmed the driver’s whereabouts, the officer continued to detain the driver. The officer did not release the driver until he consented to have his vehicle searched. The search did not yield any contraband and the driver was not cited for any violations.

24 See Chart 14 page 33
25 Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)
26 See Table 1 page 25
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Example Nine
A Latino female was pulled over by SPD patrol officers for an improper window tint violation. The officer asked for her driver's license and the driver told the officer that her license was in her purse located in the back seat of her car. Without the driver's consent, the officer reached into the backseat, pulled out her purse, and then handed it to her through the driver's side window. The officer then quickly snatched the purse from the driver. The driver, still holding on to her purse, struggled to retrieve her purse from the officer. After a short struggle over the purse, the officer ultimately arrested the driver for resisting arrest. The officer then searched her purse and her car and found nothing. The woman had never been arrested before and did not have a criminal record. The officer had no legal authority to reach into the driver’s car or search the driver’s purse.

Recommendations
• SPD should eliminate the practice of pretextual stops or set clear restrictions on conducting pretextual stops. San Francisco Police Department has a policy curtailing the use of pretextual stops. See Appendix C.
• SPD should develop a policy for traffic stops. A sample policy from the Tampa Bay Police Department can be found in Appendix D.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Traffic Stop Breakdown

Chart 6: Type of Traffic Violations

Chart 6 shows the breakdown of traffic stops by listing the violations warranting the traffic stop. A total of 19 traffic stops were conducted due to a window tint violation.

0 5 10 15 20
Tip of Person Selling Drugs out of their car
Tinted Window
Suspended Registration
Suspended Driver's License
Stopped Pass Limit Line
Speeding
Sleeping In Parked Car
Ran Red Light
Probation Search of car
No Front License Plate
No Details
Investigative Stop
Illegally Parked Car
Illegal U-Turn
Felony Stop
Failure to Signal
Failed to Stop at Stop Sign
Expired Registration
DUI-Suspicion
Cracked Windshield
Broken Tail-Light
Number of Instances
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Traffic Violation Breakdown:

Improper Window Tint Violation

94.74% of the traffic stops conducted by SPD officers for improper window tint encompassed the driver’s vehicle being searched. From the vehicle searches conducted, two firearms were located. Two arrests were made for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. 26.32% of the traffic stops discovered drugs during the searches. The drugs were usually minimal amounts of cannabis, and the driver received a citation.

SPD officers reported the smell of cannabis on the driver or reported that loose cannabis was observed in the vehicle during these traffic stops. Because it is illegal to smoke cannabis and drive or have open containers of cannabis in the State of California, officers performed searches of the entire vehicle and pat down searches of vehicle occupants to determine if they were in possession of an illegal amount of cannabis. These types of searches are legal in California.

The audit revealed that this practice of making traffic stops based on improper window tint violations disproportionately affect Black and Latino drivers more than any other racial demographic. The table below illustrates that only Black and Latino males and females filed complaints pertaining to traffic stops for improper window tint violations.

Table 1: Breakdown of Improper Window Tint Violations

Traffic Violation Search Guns Drugs Arrest Citation Race Sex Age Beat Improper Window Tint no no no no no Black M 43 2B
Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 48 1B
Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 24 2A
Improper Window Tint yes no no no tow Latino M 24 2A
Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Latino M 29 2A
Improper Window Tint yes yes yes yes tow Latino M 53 2C Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 41 2A
Improper Window Tint yes no yes no tow Black M 34 Arden Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 43 2C
Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 20 2A
Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 29 2A
Improper Window Tint yes no no yes no Latino F 30 1C
Improper Window Tint yes no yes no yes Black F 28 1B
Improper Window Tint yes yes no yes tow Black M 21 2C
Improper Window Tint yes no yes no no Black M 31 2C
Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 20 2B
Improper Window Tint yes no yes no yes Black M 20 5B
Improper Window Tint yes no no no no Black M 53 6A
Improper Window Tint yes no no no yes Black M 20 2B
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Finding 10: Internal Reviews by Supervisors do not Consistently Identify Fourth Amendment Violations.

The audit revealed multiple examples of allegations of improper search and seizure that progressed through several levels of SPD supervision without recognition of Fourth amendment violations.

Example Ten
A citizen was alleged to have been in possession of a handgun. However, the officer can be heard on the body worn camera footage saying, "It was somebody in white, I can’t tell you who it was though - probably this guy [points to a guy in a white shirt sitting near him]". The officer then arrested this individual for being in possession of a handgun without knowing whether he had the firearm or not. A misconduct complaint was filed alleging the arrest was made without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This complaint was reviewed by the area captain, and it was deemed unfounded.

The OPSA Director and the IG met with the reviewing captain who admitted to not fully reviewing the entire case. The arrested citizen sued the city, and the matter was settled out of court. It is OPSA’s opinion that this matter might have been avoided had the officer been better trained on fundamental Fourth Amendment laws and had the SPD supervisors fully reviewed the unlawful arrest during the initial review of the citizen’s complaint.

Example Eleven
Gang Enforcement Team officers detained and conducted a search of a citizen without apparent reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing other than the fact that he was wearing a satchel. The reviewing lieutenant believed the interaction was consensual and submitted another case to the IG for review between the same officers and the same citizen that occurred two weeks prior. The second case was more egregious. Three Gang Enforcement Team officers tactically surrounded the citizen as soon as he parked his car in a parking lot. The officers observed no vehicle code or any other violations before detaining him. After a short exchange where the officers questioned him about the clothes he was wearing, the citizen asked, "Can I go finish out my day?" The officer responded in the negative. Since the officer denied his request to leave the interaction, this was a detainment or seizure that the Fourth Amendment requires the officers to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. However, when the citizen filed a complaint alleging the Fourth Amendment violation, it was reviewed internally by a captain and deputy chief who found there was no wrongdoing by officers because it deemed a consensual encounter outside of the reach of the Fourth Amendment, not a detainment. The case progressed through every rank up to the Chief of Police before it was finally sent back for further review. In both interactions, the police officers clearly did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the detainment of the citizen. Routine training on investigatory stops, shows of force, and consensual encounters would have likely prevented this citizen from having his Fourth Amendment rights violated.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Example Twelve
SPD officers arrived at a local barbershop due to suspicion that one of the barbers who worked in the shop was in violation of his probation terms. The officers stopped the suspected barber outside of the business. Then ten SPD officers ascended into the barbershop to conduct a probation search, stopped the normal business, and detained all the customers and employees. The officers then searched everyone in the shop, searched the entire shop, and refused to allow anyone to enter or leave the establishment. This detainment lasted over an hour without any reasonable suspicion that the customers and employees were involved in any criminal activity. This matter went through multiple review channels, including the Chief of Police each finding that the customers and employees consented to the encounter. No one in SPD management identified any issues with the search or detainment of these citizens even though there was a United States Supreme Court decision that clearly prohibited these types of detainments and searches against citizens. Moreover, no one in SPD leadership had any issues with how the employees, or customers were treated throughout the interaction when the discourtesy behaviors were pointed out by OPSA oversight practitioners.

Recommendations
• SPD misconduct complaint cases investigated by the Internal Affairs Division as well as misconduct complaint cases investigated by supervising personnel within an employee’s assigned division must be investigated impartially and thoroughly to ensure the most accurate findings.
• SPD leadership team received supplemental search and seizure training on January 24, 2023, from the Sacramento Assistant District Attorney Office. Sacramento Assistant District Attorney advised that supplemental training would be developed specifically for officers. All SPD officers should be mandated to attend this supplemental training. • Police officers as well as SPD leadership should take cultural sensitivity training, fair and impartial policing training, implicit bias training, and constitutional policing training. A sample policy pertaining to these trainings from the Baltimore Police Department can be found in Appendix D.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Statistical Findings: Complainant Demographics

Chart 7: Complainant Age

Chart 7 shows the age breakdown of the complainants who filed the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit.

Chart 8: Complainant Gender

Chart 8 shows the gender breakdown of the complainants who filed the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Over 70
61-70
51-60
41-50
31-40
19-30
18 and under
Age of Complainants
Female
28%
Male
72%
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Chart 9: Complainant Race

Chart 9 shows the racial breakdown of the complainants who filed the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
White/Caucasian
Middle Eastern
Hispanic/Latino
Black/African American
Asian
Race/Ethnicity
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Complaint Location
Chart 10: Complaints by Council District
Chart 10 shows the breakdown of the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit by the City of Sacramento council district. There were not any completed misconduct complaints filed in District 7 and District 8.

Chart 11: Complaints by SPD Command Area

Chart 11 shows the breakdown of the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit by the Sacramento Police Department police command area.
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Central and East
Command - Richards
Police Facility
North Command -
Kinney Police Facility
South Command -
Rooney Police Facility
Unincorporated Area
Number of Complaints
0 10 20 30 40 50
Unicorporated
Area
District 6
District 5
District 4
District 3
District 2
District 1
Number of Complaints
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

From the corresponding police beats listed in Chart 12 below, the most traffic stops for improper window tint violations occurred in Council District 2. Specifically, these traffic stops occurred in the Raley Industrial Park neighborhood, Del Paso Heights neighborhood, Hagginwood neighborhood, and the Cal Expo/Arden neighborhood.

Chart 12: Complaints by SPD Police Beat Locations

Chart 12 shows the breakdown of the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit by the Sacramento Police Department police beat locations.

External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Chart 13: Complaints by Officer Assignment

Chart 13 shows the breakdown of the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit by the Sacramento Police Department officer’s assignment.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Unknown
Protest Team
Problem Oriented
Policing
Patrol
Impact Team
Gang Enforcement Team
Detective
Number of Complaints
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Type of Police – Citizen Interactions
Chart 14: Type of Police-Citizen Interaction

Chart 14 shows the breakdown of the completed misconduct complaints included in this audit by the type of interaction. A total of 65 complaint cases resulted from traffic stops conducted by SPD.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Welfare Check
Warrantless Home Entry
Use of Force
Undercover Operation
Traffic Related Stop
Probation Home Search
Probation Business Search
Investigatory Stop
Investigative Detention
Home Entry via Search Warrant
Domestic Violence Call
Disturbance With a Weapon
Number of Complaints
External Audit: SPD Misconduct Complaint Cases – Improper Search and Seizure

Conclusion

Constitutional policing is the mere foundation for ethical and lawful police practices that work to eliminate bias and seek to protect the civil rights of citizens. Constitutional policing practices adhere to the U.S. Constitution, court decisions, laws, and regulations. Proactively addressing unconstitutional law enforcement practices leads to more effective organizations making the necessary changes to build trust by strengthening relationships with their respective communities.

Police organizations engaging in unconstitutional policing can become potential subjects for investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The Civil Rights Division – Special Litigation Section conducts pattern-or-practice investigations to foster constitutional and effective policing. Patterns-or-practice investigations focus on systemic misconduct such as uses of excessive force, repeated stops, searches, or arrests that are unreasonable, and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, or sex.

Many of the findings and recommendations outlined in this audit report are not unique to SPD and include challenges that police organizations across the country grapple with daily. The negative connotation associated with the policing profession is a direct result of continued high-profile incidents of violence against unarmed Black males and females. The continued occurrence of unlawful stops, searches, and seizures could lead to disastrous results and more victimization of Sacramento residents.

Federal courts in the United States have held that a pattern or practice may be found where incidents of violations are repeated and are not isolated instances. Courts interpreting the term “pattern or practice” in similar states have established that statistical evidence is not required. Additionally, a court does not need a specific number of incidents to find a pattern or practice, instead each case must turn on its own facts. Clear, detailed policies aligned with effective training will assist in achieving constitutional policing practices as well as mitigating the identified Fourth Amendment issues.

While OPSA is encouraged by SPD’s eagerness to receive these audit findings and recommendations, OPSA’s expectation is that SPD acknowledges the areas in need of improvement. Our expectation as oversight practitioners is that SPD acts in good faith. True collaboration requires effective communication, mutual respect, honest dialogue, and ownership of one’s actions. SPD and OPSA working together will be crucial to ensuring the successful implementation and sustainability of the changes necessary. Organizational leadership plays a pivotal role in signaling change. Engaged supervisors who model the practices and principles in accordance with organizational policy and training standards. SPD supervision must recognize when officers are not in compliance and hold them accountable.

47 www.cityofsacramento.org/opsa

915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 • [email protected] • (916) 808-7200

Council Rules of Procedure

Resolution No. 2024-0241 Adopted on July 23, 2024

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 2 of 58 Table of Contents
Chapter 1 – Authority/Administration ........................................................................................................ 5 A. General Authorities and Applicability ......................................................................................... 5 B. General Administration .................................................................................................................. 5 C. Amendment ....................................................................................................................................... 5 D. Suspension ......................................................................................................................................... 5 E. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order .......................................................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 – Duties ........................................................................................................................................... 7 A. Duties of Members and Staff ......................................................................................................... 7 B. Duties of Mayor and Vice Mayor ................................................................................................. 7 Chapter 3 – Conduct of Members ............................................................................................................... 8 A. Norms and Expectations ................................................................................................................ 8 B. General Conduct ............................................................................................................................. 8 C. Conduct with Members .................................................................................................................. 9 D. Conduct with City Manager and Staff ...................................................................................... 10 E. Conduct with the Public .............................................................................................................. 11 F. Conduct with Other Agencies ................................................................................................... 11 G. Conduct with Boards and Commissions ................................................................................. 11 H. Conduct with the Media .............................................................................................................. 12 I. Ethical Conduct ............................................................................................................................. 12 Chapter 4 – Conduct of City Staff ............................................................................................................. 13 A. General Conduct .......................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 5 – Conduct of the Public ........................................................................................................... 14 A. General Conduct .......................................................................................................................... 14 B. Addressing the City Council ...................................................................................................... 16 C. Electronic Devices ........................................................................................................................ 18 D. Location of Speaker ...................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 6 – Meeting Types and Schedules .............................................................................................. 19 A. R
egular Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 19 B. Adjourned Meetings ..................................................................................................................... 19 C. Special Meetings ............................................................................................................................ 19 D. City Council Emergency Meetings ............................................................................................ 19 E. Closed Sessions ............................................................................................................................. 20 F. Public Hearings .............................................................................................................................. 21 G. Teleconference Meetings ............................................................................................................ 22 City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 3 of 58 H. Televised Meetings ........................................................................................................................ 22 Chapter 7 – Meeting Agendas .................................................................................................................... 23 A. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 23 B. Declaration of Policy .................................................................................................................... 23 C. Procedures for Submission of Reports .................................................................................... 24 D. Written Communications from the City and the Public ..................................................... 24 E. Preparation of the Agenda Packet ............................................................................................. 25 F. Distribution of the Packet ........................................................................................................... 25 G. Posting of Agenda ......................................................................................................................... 25 H. Failure to Meet Agenda Deadlines ............................................................................................ 26 I. Exceptions to the Agenda Requirement .................................................................................. 26 J. Order of Business and Types of Agenda Items ...................................................................... 26 K. Ordinances and Non-Binding Resolutions .............................................................................. 27 L. Ceremonial City Council Resolutions ...................................................................................... 29 Chapter 8 – Conduct of Meeting ............................................................................................................... 30 A. Call to Order – Presiding Officer ............................................................................................. 30 B. Roll Call/Attendance .................................................................................................................... 30 C. Order of Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 31 D. Quorum Call .................................................................................................................................. 33 E. Obtaining the Floor ...................................................................................................................... 33 F. Motions ........................................................................................................................................... 34 G. Voting ............................................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 9 – Council Vacancies .................................................................................................................. 37 A. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 10 - Facilities ................................................................................................................................... 38 A. Meeting Locations ......................................................................................................................... 38 B. Meeting Capacity ........................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 11 - City Council Committees and Regional Organizations ............................................... 39 A. General ............................................................................................................................................ 39 B. Council Standing Committees .................................................................................................... 39 C. Council Ad Hoc Committees .................................................................................................... 40 D. Regional Organizations ................................................................................................................ 41 Chapter 12 – Councilmember Proposal Requests ................................................................................ 42 A. General ............................................................................................................................................ 42 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 42 City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 4 of 58 C. Councilmember Proposal Request Flowchart (following page) ......................................... 43 Chapter 13 – Law and Legislation Committee ....................................................................................... 45 A. Authority; Purposes...................................................................................................................... 45 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 45 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 47 Chapter 14 – Personnel and Public Employees Committee ................................................................ 48 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 48 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 48 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 48 Chapter 15 – Budget and Audit Committee ........................................................................................... 49 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 49 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 49 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 50 Chapter 16 – Racial Equity Committee .................................................................................................... 51 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 51 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 51 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission ............................................................................ 51 Chapter 17 – City Advisory Bodies........................................................................................................... 52 A. Vacancies and Appointments ...................................................................................................... 52 B. Requests for Future Agenda Items ........................................................................................... 53 C. Advisory Body Reports................................................................................................................ 53 Chapter 18 – Annual Review of City Council Appointive Officers ................................................... 55 A. Purposes .......................................................................................................................................... 55 B. Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 55 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................... 57

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 5 of 58 Chapter 1 – Authority/Administration
A. General Authorities and Applicability

1. The Charter of the City of Sacramento provides that the city council shall determine its own rules and order of business (Sacramento City Charter, § 30). These Council Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) apply when not in conflict with the Charter of the City of Sacramento, Sacramento City Code, the Constitution, or laws of the State of California, including the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code, § 54950 et seq). (Brown Act). Until such time as they are amended or new rules are adopted by resolution, these Rules govern the order and conduct of business of the city council, legislative bodies that meet concurrently with the council, council committees, and council-established boards, commissions, and committees (collectively, “legislative bodies”).

2. These rules are applicable to council-established boards, commissions, and committees, as well as to the persons sitting on those boards, commissions, and committees. Those council-established boards, commissions, and committees that are authorized to adopt rules of procedure shall adopt rules that are consistent with these Rules and may not be in conflict with the Charter of the City of Sacramento, Sacramento City Code, the Constitution, or laws of the State of California.

3. In the absence of council-adopted administrative policies, council staff shall abide by the administrative policies approved by all charter officers.

B. General Administration

1. The council shall review and revise these Rules annually, or as needed.

2. During council discussions, deliberations, and proceedings, the presiding officer has the primary responsibility to ensure that the council, staff, and members of the public adhere to these Rules.

3. Any member who thinks the Rules are being violated may make a “point of order” to call for the presiding officer to enforce the Rules.

C. Amendment
Any rule may be adopted, altered, amended, or repealed by resolution at any time by a majority vote of the council, provided that at least a 120-hour notice of such proposed rule change is given to the councilmembers.

D. Suspension

1. Any rule may be temporarily suspended by a two-thirds vote of all councilmembers present, being not less than five votes.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 6 of 58 E. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order
To the extent these Rules do not address an issue of parliamentary procedure for legislative body meetings, Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century s hall apply.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 7 of 58 Chapter 2 – Duties
A. Duties of Members and Staff

1. Members and city staff shall conduct the business of the City of Sacramento:
a. Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest is of primary concern; b. Working for the common good of the people of Sacramento; and c. Assuring fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims, and transactions coming before the council, council committees, and council-established boards, commissions, and committees.

B. Duties of Mayor and Vice Mayor

1. The mayor is:
a. The presiding officer of the city and of all meetings of the council; b. The official head of the city for performance of duties lawfully delegated to the mayor by the charter;
c. Referred to as “chair” or “chairperson” when acting as presiding officer of legislative body meetings other than the council;
d. Considered a member of the council;
e. Entitled to make and second motions on matters before the council and vote on actions, but possesses no veto power over actions of the council; f. The primary, but not the only, person responsible for interpreting the policies, programs, and needs of city government to the people; and for informing the people of any major change in policies or programs; and g. Empowered, but not exclusively empowered, to make recommendations to the council on all policies and programs that require council decisions; and to perform such other duties as prescribed by the charter.

2. The vice mayor and mayor pro tem shall be elected annually from among the members of the council, other than the mayor, by a majority vote at the council’s first meeting in January.
a. In the absence of the mayor from the city or a council meeting, the vice mayor shall possess all powers of the office of the mayor and be subject to all prescribed duties for that office.
b. In the absence of the mayor and vice mayor from the city or a council meeting, the mayor pro tem shall possess all powers of the office of the mayor and be subject to all prescribed duties for that office.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 8 of 58 Chapter 3 – Conduct of Members
A. Norms and Expectations

1. Members shall:
a. Put constituents first at all times;
b. Treat each other, staff, and members of the public with dignity, courtesy, and respect;
c. Value all opinions, be tolerant of new and different ideas, and encourage creativity and innovation;
d. Follow through on commitments and be accountable to each other; e. Clarify when items are discussed in confidence and maintain appropriate confidentiality;
f. Be attentive to others, limiting interruptions and distractions; g. Encourage dissent in debate while being mindful not to prolong discourse or block consensus;
h. Be candid with each other about ideas and feelings, and resolve conflicts directly; i. Keep comments clear, concise, and on-topic to maximize opportunities for all to express themselves;
j. Continuously strive to improve how members work as a team; k. Place clear and realistic demands on staff resources and time when requesting action;
l. Start and end meetings on time, work from an agenda, and be present, attentive, and prepared;
m. Present problems in a way that promotes discussion and resolution; and n. Continually work to build trust in each other.

B. General Conduct

1. Members shall:
a. Treat each other and everyone with courtesy and refrain from inappropriate behavior and derogatory comments;
b. Be fair, impartial, and unbiased when voting on quasi-judicial actions; City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 9 of 58 c. Use the speaker sequencing system to inform the presiding officer of their wish to speak and wait to be acknowledged by the presiding officer before speaking, and abide the following for orderly and courteous discussion:
(i) Members should permit the majority to express itself and fashion a result, while permitting the minority to also express itself, but not dominate the discussion, while fully participating in the process; (ii) The presiding officer may give preferential speaking order to the councilmember who represents the district of the agenda item; (iii) In the interest of time, the presiding officer may limit the time allotted to speakers, including members of the body;
(iv) Members are encouraged to hear comments from other members prior to speaking a second time; and
(v) It is usual courtesy for the presiding officer to play a less active role in the debate and discussion and to make a summary or final comments on any item.
d. Move to require the presiding officer to enforce this chapter, and the presiding officer shall do so upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present; e. Preserve order and decorum during the meeting;
f. Not delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the council, nor disturb any member while speaking, by conversation or otherwise, nor disobey the orders of the council, or the presiding officer, except as otherwise herein provided;
g. Abide by the Confidential Information Policy (Resolution No. 2010-0108) prohibiting disclosure of confidential communications and authorizing public censure for failure to comply with the policy;
h. Support the laws established by the council; and
i. Abide by this chapter in conducting the business of the City of Sacramento.

C. Conduct with Members

1. Members shall:
a. Value each other’s time;
b. Attempt to build consensus on an item through an opportunity for dialogue; but when this is not possible, the majority vote shall prevail, and the majority shall show respect for the opinion of the minority;
City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 10 of 58 c. Have the right to dissent from, protest, or comment upon any action of the council;
d. Respect each other’s opportunity to speak and, if necessary, agree to disagree; e. Avoid offensive negative comments and practice civility and decorum during discussions and debate; and
f. Assist the presiding officer’s exercise of the affirmative duty to maintain order.

D. Conduct with City Manager and Staff

1. Members of the city council shall:
a. Speak to the city manager directly on issues and concerns; b. Direct the city manager to implement council’s policy decisions through the administrative functions of the city;
c. Treat staff professionally and refrain from publicly criticizing individual employees;
d. Avoid involvement in personnel issues except during council closed sessions regarding council-appointed staff, including but not limited to the city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, or director of the office of public safety accountability;
e. Discuss directly with the city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, or director of the office of public safety accountability as appropriate, any displeasure with their department or staff; and
f. Request answers to questions on council agenda items from the city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, or director of the office of public safety accountability, department directors, or division managers prior to the meeting whenever possible.

2. General Direction
a. Council requests that deal with policy issues and council requests that may be construed as direction must be directed to the city manager, except for general inquiries or questions, in which case the council may go to the department directors or key staff in the City Manager's Office. Members may also deal directly with the city attorney, city clerk, city treasurer, city auditor, or other staff appointed by the council.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 11 of 58 E. Conduct with the Public

1. Members shall:
a. Make the public feel welcome;
b. Be impartial, respectful, and without prejudice toward the public; c. Listen courteously and attentively to public comment; d. Not argue back and forth with members of the public; and e. Make no promises to the public on behalf of the legislative body.

F. Conduct with Other Agencies

1. Members shall:
a. Project a positive image of the city when dealing with other agencies; b. Show tolerance and respect for other agencies’ opinions and issues and, if necessary, agree to disagree;
c. Represent official policies or positions of the council when designated as delegates of a legislative body;
d. Explicitly state when their opinions and positions do not represent the legislative body when representing their individual opinions and positions, and not allow the inference that they do (see also Rule 13.A.1.c); and e. Have the ability to lobby or discuss issues that have been adopted by legislative bodies or are standing policies of the legislative bodies with other legislators, government officials, applicants, or other interested persons.

G. Conduct with Boards and Commissions

1. Councilmembers shall:
a. Treat all members of boards, commissions, and committees with appreciation and respect; and
b. Refrain from participation at board, commission, and committee meetings with the purpose of influencing the outcome of those meetings.

2. Rule 3.G.1.b does not apply to the Compensation Commission, Sacramento Ethics Commission, or Independent Redistricting Commission.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 12 of 58 H. Conduct with the Media

1. Members shall not discuss – or go "off the record" with the media to discuss – confidential or privileged information pertaining to closed sessions, or attorney- client privileged or attorney work product communications, including personnel, litigation, or real property negotiations.

2. Providing non-confidential, non-privileged background information is acceptable.

I. Ethical Conduct

1. Members shall conduct themselves in accordance with the Sacramento City Code of Ethics (Sacramento City Code § 4.02) including but not limited to:
a. Members shall comply with the citywide nepotism policy adopted or approved by city council resolution.
b. Members shall comply with the citywide whistleblower protection policy adopted or approved by city council resolution.
c. Members shall receive ethics training material, as required by Assembly Bill 1234 within 30 days of taking office and at least every two years. d. Members shall receive sexual harassment training material, as required by Assembly Bills 1825 and 1661 within 30 days of taking office and at least every two years.
e. Members shall follow the Political Reform Act and Fair Political Practices Commission regulations.
f. Members shall conduct themselves in accordance with such policies and training.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 13 of 58 Chapter 4 – Conduct of City Staff
A. General Conduct

1. Staff shall:
a. Prepare well-written staff reports and provide accompanying documents on all agenda items in accordance with the agenda format and preparation schedule; b. Be available for questions from members in accordance with the Brown Act prior to and during meetings;
c. Respond to questions from the public during meetings only when requested to do so by members or the city manager;
d. Refrain from arguing with the public or members; and e. Switch electronic equipment such as cellular telephones to silent or off mode during council meetings.

2. Staff shall remain objective on issues and not be advocates for issues unless so directed by the legislative body.

3. To the extent permitted by the Brown Act, the city manager and staff shall, as soon as possible, inform the mayor and members representing the districts affected of controversial, significant-impact issues that are coming before the legislative body.

4. The city manager shall advise management staff of potentially political or controversial issues coming before the legislative body and direct staff to be present and appropriately prepared.

5. The city manager shall make available an informational briefing for members’ staff for items affecting the city and items on, or potentially on, the council agenda. Briefings shall include necessary department staff and shall take place as soon as possible.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 14 of 58 Chapter 5 – Conduct of the Public
A. General Conduct

1. Decorum.
a. Members of the public attending council meetings shall observe the same rules and decorum applicable to the members and staff as noted in chapters 3 and 4 of these Rules.
b. No person shall engage in conduct that is intended to or is likely to provoke violent or riotous behavior, nor shall any person engage in conduct that disturbs the orderly conduct of the council meeting. Examples of disorderly conduct include:
(i) Feet-stamping.
(ii) Whistling or other abrupt noises.
(iii) Yelling or shouting or interrupting a speaker who is addressing the council.
(iv) Organized silent demonstrations and other demonstrations intended to disturb the progress of the meeting.
(v) Physically threatening conduct.
(vi) Verbal threats.
(vii) Banging, slamming, or throwing objects.
(viii) Interfering with other attendees’ ability to participate or address the council.
(ix) Entering areas of the chamber not intended for the public. (x) Incitement to commit unlawful or disturbing acts or disrupt proceedings.
(xi) Refusing to abide speaker time limits and leave the podium when directed.
(xii) Placing physical objects in a manner that creates a disturbance or disrupts proceedings.
(xiii) Interjection when not at the podium.
(xiv) Refusing to heed the presiding officer’s call for order.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 15 of 58 (xv) Approaching the podium or dais without permission of the presiding officer.
(xvi) Signs may not be mounted to any solid item that would facilitate holding or waving and may not impede the view of other attendees. c. Enforcement. In addition to the presiding officer, the decorum officer and the sergeant-at-arms shall have primary responsibility for enforcing council meeting decorum. Additionally, any member may at any time call for a point of order, to request the timely enforcement of these rules of decorum. (i) The presiding officer shall request that a person who is breaching the rules of decorum cease the conduct. If the person does not cease the conduct immediately, the presiding officer may order the person to leave the council meeting or order the sergeant-at-arms to remove the person.
(ii) The decorum officer, who shall be a council-selected person who sits on the dais, may also exercise the duties of the presiding officer in Rule 5.A.1.c.(i) above.
(iii) The sergeant-at-arms shall assist in enforcing the rules of decorum, including removing disorderly persons upon order of the presiding officer or decorum officer.
(iv) If decorum cannot be maintained in council chambers, the presiding officer may take a recess so that decorum can be established. a. If any meeting is willfully interrupted by any person or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such
meeting unfeasible and order cannot be maintained by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the members of the legislative body conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. (Government Code, § 54957.9
).

The presiding officer shall direct the sergeant-at-arms to allow the following to attend the remaining session:
i. Once decorum is restored, allow all participants back into council chambers; or
ii. Once decorum is restored, allow all persons, with the exception of any individuals identified by the presiding officer or decorum officer who were willfully
interrupting the meeting or participating in the
disturbance, back into council chambers; or
City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 16 of 58 iii. Once decorum is restored, allow only credentialed
representatives of the press or other news media,
except those participating in the disturbance, back into council chambers.
(v) If it is unfeasible to continue the orderly conduct of the meeting in the council chambers the council will continue the meeting in another room at the City Hall Complex and only city staff, credentialed members of the press or other news media, except those
participating in the disturbance, will be allowed into the meeting.

2. Lobbyists shall identify themselves and the client(s), business, or organization they represent before speaking to the council (Sacramento City Code, § 2.15.160 ).

B. Addressing the City Council

1. Purpose of public comment. During regular meetings, the city provides opportunities for the public to address the council as a whole in order to listen to the public’s opinions regarding agendized items and unagendized matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. At all other (special) meetings, public comment is limited to agendized items.
a. Public comments should not be addressed to individual members nor to city officials, but rather to the council as a whole regarding city business. Comments should be directed to the council and not the audience. b. While members of the public may speak their opinions on city business, personal attacks on members and city officials, use of swear words, and signs or displays of disrespect for individuals are discouraged as they impede good communication with the council.
c. Consistent with the Brown Act
, the public comment periods on the agenda are
not intended to be “question and answer” periods or conversations with the council and city officials. The limited circumstances under which members may respond to public comments are set out in Rule 8.D.2.
d. Members of the public with questions concerning consent calendar items may contact the staff person or the member whose district is identified on the report prior to the meeting to reduce the need for discussion of consent calendar items and to better respond to the public’s questions.
e. The presiding officer may stop a member of the public whose comments are not confined to the agendized item being heard. During the public comment portion of the agenda, the presiding officer may stop a member of the public whose comments are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

2. Speaker time limits. In the interest of facilitating the council’s conduct of the city’s business, the following time limits apply to members of the public (speakers) who wish to address the council during the meeting.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 17 of 58 a. Matters not on the agenda: two minutes per speaker.
b. Consent calendar items. The consent calendar is considered a single item and speakers are therefore subject to the two-minute time limit for the entire consent calendar. Consent calendar items can be pulled at a member’s request and will be considered individually, with up to two minutes of public comment per speaker.
c. Discussion calendar items: two minutes per speaker.
d. Time limits per meeting. In addition to the above time limits per item, the total amount of time any one speaker may address the legislative body at a meeting is eight minutes.
(i) Each speaker shall limit their remarks to the specified time allotment. (ii) The presiding officer shall consistently utilize the timing system, which provides speakers with notice of their remaining time to complete their comments. A countdown display of the allotted time will appear on the screen behind the dais.
(iii) In the further interest of time, speakers may be asked to limit their comments to new materials and not repeat what a prior speaker said.

Organized groups may choose a single spokesperson who may speak for the group, but with no increase in time.
(iv) Speakers shall not concede any part of their allotted time to another speaker.
(v) The presiding officer may further limit, or expand, the time allotted for public comments per speaker or in total for the orderly conduct of the meeting; such limits shall be fairly applied.

2. Speaker slips. Members of the public in chambers wishing to speak to the legislative body must submit to the city clerk a completed speaker’s slip indicating the agenda item or matters not on the agenda item that they wish to address before the item is called.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 18 of 58 C. Electronic Devices

1. Members of the public shall turn their electronic devices that are capable of emitting sound – including cellular telephones, personal data devices, digital tablets, laptop computers, etc. – to the off- or silent-mode during council meetings.

2. Cameras. Cameras and recording equipment may be used during council meetings only if:
a. The devices are silent during use;
b. The devices are used in a manner and at locations that do not impede walkways or others views of the meeting or disrupt the conduct of the meeting; c. Continual lighting may not be used with video recording; and d. Flash photography is not allowed.

D. Speaker Location and Documents

1. Members of the public shall not approach the dais without the express consent of the presiding officer or city clerk.

2. Members of the public wishing to address the legislative body must approach the podium when recognized by the presiding officer or city clerk and speak only from the podium.

3. Members of the public may make oral communications but may not display any content on the overhead screens or otherwise. Members of the public wishing to provide documents to the council shall comply with Rule 7.D.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 19 of 58 Chapter 6 – Meeting Types and Schedules
A. Regular Meetings

1. The city council shall hold regular meetings and provide the time, place, and manner of holding its meetings by annual resolution. A majority of regular council meetings must be held after 5:00 p.m. All meetings of the council must be open to the public, except as permitted by state law (Sacramento City Charter, § 31 ).

2. The city council shall generally meet on Tuesdays at either 2:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 915 I Street, First Floor, Sacramento, California, except as otherwise stipulated in the adopted meeting schedule.

3. City council standing committees shall generally meet on Tuesdays at 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 915 I Street, First Floor, Sacramento, California, except as otherwise stipulated in the adopted meeting schedule.

4. City boards, commissions, and committees shall hold regular meetings and provide the time, place, and manner of holding its meetings, according to the council- adopted meeting schedule. All meetings of the city’s legislative bodies must be open to the public, except as permitted by state law. The city council shall annually, and as needed, adopt a meeting schedule for all city legislative bodies.

5. City boards, commission, and committees shall generally meet at either 11:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., or 5:30 p.m. at the City Hall Complex, 915 I Street, Sacramento, California, except as otherwise stipulated in the council-adopted meeting schedule.

B. Adjourned Meetings
As permitted by law, the legislative body may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the motion of adjournment.

C. Special Meetings

1. The mayor or a majority of the members of the City Council may direct the city clerk to call a special meeting by providing notice 24-hours in advance of the meeting to the mayor, to all members, and to all media outlets and persons having requested in writing notification of such meetings pursuant to state law.

2. Whenever practicable, special meetings must take place in the council chamber and be video streamed live and recorded for viewing later.

D. City Council Emergency Meetings

1. In the case of an emergency situation involving matters upon which prompt action is necessary due to the disruption or threatened disruption of public facilities or services, the City Council may hold an emergency meeting without complying with either the 120-hour (regular meeting) or 24-hour (special meeting) notice and City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 20 of 58 posting requirements but shall otherwise comply with the Sacramento City Code §

4.04 and Brown Act procedures generally stated below.

2. Each local newspaper of general circulation and radio or television station that has requested notice of emergency meetings pursuant to the Brown Act shall be notified by the City Clerk, or designee thereof, at least one hour prior to the emergency meeting, or in the case of a dire emergency, at or near the time that the presiding officer or designee notifies the members of the emergency meeting.

3. This notice shall be given by telephone call or text message to the numbers provided in the most recent request for notification.

4. In the event that telephone services are not functioning, the notice requirements of this section are deemed waived, and the legislative body, or designee of the legislative body, shall notify those newspapers, radio stations, or television stations of the emergency meeting, the purpose of the meeting, and any action taken at the meeting as soon after the meeting as possible.

5. During an emergency meeting, the legislative body may meet in closed session pursuant to the Brown Act
if agreed to by a two-thirds vote of the members
present, being not less than five votes of the council.

6. All special meeting requirements in the Brown Act are applicable to an emergency meeting, except for the 24-hour notice and posting requirement.

7. The minutes of an emergency meeting; a list of persons who the presiding officer of the legislative body, or designee of the council, notified or attempted to notify; a copy of the roll call vote; and any actions taken at the meeting, shall be posted for a minimum of ten days in a public place as soon after the meeting as possible.

E. Closed Sessions

1. Closed sessions generally shall be special meetings held immediately prior to regular meetings.

2. In accordance with the Brown Act
, the public may speak regarding any closed
session item prior to the closed session.

3. All closed session information, verbal or written, is privileged and confidential and shall not be shared with any person not at the closed session. Any member sharing information in violation of this rule may be subject to censure by the council consistent with the council’s confidentiality policy then in effect.

4. The city attorney shall report out in public session any reportable actions that were taken by council and the vote on such actions in accordance with the Brown Act .

5. For closed sessions related to appointive-officer performance evaluations and compensation, see Chapter 18.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 21 of 58 F. Public Hearings

1. The city clerk shall set council hearing dates and notify the council via the preliminary draft agenda on all matters that require a notice and public hearing before the council, such as matters received from the planning division and appeals to the council.

2. Public hearings will not be withdrawn or continued without the full knowledge and concurrence of the councilmembers within whose districts/jurisdiction the issue resides.

3. The council may refuse to grant a continuance of any hearing unless there is a valid legal reason why the hearing must be continued.

4. Continuances.
a. Any person (applicant, appellant, or designated representative) scheduled for a public hearing before the legislative body:
(i) May obtain one continuance for a period not to exceed the second regular meeting after the original scheduled hearing date, as a matter of right, without personally appearing on the scheduled hearing date, provided a written request for the continuance must be delivered to the city clerk by noon on the day prior to the scheduled public hearing. Any person who has once obtained a continuance by any procedure may not obtain a subsequent continuance under this Rule

6.F.4.a(i).
(ii) Who wants to obtain a continuance of the hearing beyond the second regular meeting after the original scheduled hearing date, or who has not notified the city clerk as provided in Rule 6.F.4.a(i), may obtain a continuance only by appearing before the legislative body at the time the original hearing is scheduled and requesting a continuance. This continuance is not a matter of right and will not be granted unless the legislative body is satisfied that good cause exists for the continuance and that a substantial number of people will not be inconvenienced by such continuance.
(iii) Who has once obtained a continuance of a hearing either by notice to the city clerk under Rule 6.F.4.a(i) or by personal appearance under Rule 6.F.4.a(ii) may obtain a further continuance only by appearing before the legislative body at the scheduled hearing and satisfying the legislative body that extraordinary circumstances exist that would justify this second continuance.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 22 of 58 (iv) Who has twice obtained a continuance of a hearing may obtain an additional continuance only by appearing before the legislative body at the scheduled hearing and satisfying the legislative body that a miscarriage of justice would result from the refusal of the legislative body to grant a continuance.
b. City staff may obtain a continuance based on the need of the originating department or on behalf of a member. Department staff may request, via the city clerk, as many continuances as needed to complete and ready the project or appeal for the hearing process; however, staff may not serve as a requestor on behalf of an applicant or appellant.
c. Any organized group of residents or neighborhood associations not recognized as an applicant or appellant may contact their councilmember and request a continuance as needed to complete and ready the project or appeal for the hearing process. The member, in their sole discretion, may request the legislative body approve the continuance for good cause.
d. At the meeting when the hearing is scheduled, but before the hearing starts, any member may request the council approve a continuance.
e. Disputes regarding the length of a continuance will be decided by the council at the scheduled hearing if city staff or the city clerk cannot obtain mutual agreement between the parties beforehand.

G. Teleconference Meetings
a. Members of the City Council may participate via a teleconference platform only in accordance with the Brown Act
.

H. Televised Meetings
a. City Council meetings held in the council chambers are generally telecast via local television and available live via video streaming on the city’s official website and recorded for viewing later.
b. Standing committee and city established board, committee, and commission meetings held in the council chambers or historic hearing room are available live via video streaming on the city’s official website
and recorded for viewing later.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 23 of 58 Chapter 7 – Meeting Agendas
A. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for council meetings in consultation with the mayor and/or vice mayor, with the exception of agenda items involving the compensation of charter officers or any personnel that report to the council, which may only be brought forward with the initial approval of the mayor, or recommendation by a majority of the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee.

2. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

3. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports, including oral reports, to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

4. Outside agencies and advisory bodies, and city boards, committees, and commissions may submit agenda items in accordance with the following:
a. Items must be sponsored for agenda placement by the mayor, charter officers, or department staff; and
a. All agenda items must be submitted in accordance with the agenda packet submission and preparation requirements.

5. Prior to an agenda item being brought to the city council, it should be brought to any relevant city board, committee, or commission and the staff report should include the board, committee, or commission recommendation.

B. Declaration of Policy

1. No ordinance, resolution, motion, or item of business may be introduced or acted upon at a meeting of a legislative body of the city without it appearing on a duly noticed and posted agenda in accordance with Sacramento City Code § 4.04 and the
Brown Act. Exceptions to this rule are limited to those provided by state law.

2. No ordinance, resolution, motion, or item of business will be considered that:
a. Does not affect the conduct of the business of the City of Sacramento or its powers or duties as a municipal corporation, or
b. Supports or disapproves of any legislation or action (i) Of the State of California;
(ii) Of the President or Congress of the United States; or City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 24 of 58 (iii) Before any officer or agency of the state or nation, unless the proposed legislation or action, if adopted, will affect the conduct of the municipal business or the powers or duties of the City of Sacramento or its officers or employees.
c. Rule 7.B.2 may be invoked only before public comment or council deliberation on the matter and by five affirmative votes on the question: “Shall the council consider this matter?”
C. Procedures for Submission of Reports

1. A written staff report should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the agenda review procedure and reviewed by the relevant departments including but not limited to finance, city manager, and city attorney.

2. Continued items do not require a new report if there are no changes other than the agenda date. If there is any other change, a new report meeting all applicable requirements must be submitted.

3. Staff reports should include sufficient information for members of the council and the public to understand the action being considered, including any board, commission, or committee recommendation, and the appropriate legislative history.

D. Written Communications from the City and the Public

1. The city clerk shall manage communications to members regarding meeting topics to ensure compliance with the Brown Act
.
a. Except for records exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Government Code, § 54957.5, subd. (b)) and otherwise by law, agendas and any other writings distributed to all or a majority of the members of a legislative body for discussion or consideration at a public meeting are disclosable to the public and shall be made available upon request without delay. b. Materials distributed to the members during the meeting shall be available for viewing by the public during the meeting if the materials were prepared by the city or a member, or at the conclusion of the meeting if prepared by another person (Government Code, § 54957.5
, subd. (b)).

2. Interested parties or their authorized representatives may address the council by written communications regarding agenda items.
a. Written communications received by the city clerk will be delivered to members as soon as possible or at the city council meeting if related to an item on that meeting agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 25 of 58 b. Members of the public may submit comments via the agenda “e-comment” function on the city’s website. E-comments can be submitted and viewed on the city’s website agenda page once an agenda is posted and until adjournment of that meeting. The full e-comment package will be available in the city’s online records library after the conclusion of a meeting.
c. Documents (20 copies recommended) that members of the public submit to the legislative body at the meeting shall be given directly to the city clerk for distribution and shall not be given directly to the members. The documents will be made available to the public.

E. Preparation of the Agenda Packet

1. No later than 120-hours prior to each regularly scheduled meeting, the city clerk shall finalize the agenda packet.

2. Agenda Packet Contents.
a. The agenda packet will include the agenda, the staff reports, draft resolutions and ordinances, contracts, and other attachments. Items noted as “To Be Delivered” on the agenda will be delivered and published to the city’s website upon receipt
by the city clerk. No item is required to be considered by the legislative body if the applicable written material is not delivered to the members before the meeting and made available to the public at the same time. b. Corrections or supplements to a staff report or other written materials already included in the agenda packet may be delivered separately. c. All agreements on the agenda must be available for review by the council and the public prior to the meeting, or at the meeting location during the meeting, unless determined otherwise by the city attorney.
d. Unless waived by a two-thirds vote of council, all city labor agreements and all agreements greater than $1,000,000 must be posted on the city’s website and be made available to the public at least ten days prior to council action as required by Sacramento City Code section 4.04.020
.

F. Distribution of the Packet

1. The city clerk shall make available the agenda packet to the councilmembers and post it to the website no later than 120 hours prior to a regularly scheduled meeting.

G. Posting of Agenda

1. The city clerk shall post the agenda of each regular meeting of the legislative body at least 120-hours in advance of the meeting in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public, as required by the Brown Act.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 26 of 58

2. The city clerk shall maintain an affidavit indicating the location, date, and time of posting each agenda.

3. If technical difficulties occur, the agenda and reports will be published on the city’s website
as soon as those difficulties are resolved.

H. Failure to Meet Agenda Deadlines

1. The city clerk shall not, without the concurrence of the city manager and city attorney, accept any agenda item or revised agenda item after the deadlines established and noted in these Rules.

2. Any agenda items or revised agenda items will be reviewed by relevant departments as identified by the agenda workflow approval process.

I. Exceptions to the Agenda Requirement

1. Matters not included on the published agenda may be discussed and acted upon by the legislative body only in the following situations:
a. At a meeting during which a majority of the members determine in open session that the matter in question constitutes an “emergency" ( Government Code, §
54956.5); or
b. Upon a determination by two-thirds of the members, or if less than two-thirds are present by unanimous vote of the members present, that:
(i) There is a need to take immediate action; and
(ii) The need for action came to the attention of the city after the agenda had been posted.

J. Order of Business and Types of Agenda Items
The order of business should be carried out as listed on the agenda in the order as set out below; however, the presiding officer may reorder the items at the meeting, unless members object. Members may request items be reordered by motion.

1. Closed Session: confidential discussions with the legislative body as permitted by the Brown Act.

2. Special Presentations/General Communications: the presentation and receipt of ceremonial resolutions and recognitions not requiring formal legislative body action.

Special presentations are limited to two per meeting and no more than five minutes each.

3. Consent Calendar: considered one item, consisting of matters routine in nature and not likely to be subject to debate or inquiry by the members or the public; typically adopted in one motion.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 27 of 58

4. Public Hearings: duly noticed hearings as mandated by local, state, or federal law, providing an opportunity for public review and comment of a proposed action by the council.

5. Discussion Calendar: non-routine items requiring an oral presentation and discussion before action is taken.

6. Information Items: items when staff is required by federal or state law or city code to inform council of an issue when authority has been delegated to a person, position, board, or commission.

7. Council Comments – Ideas, Questions, and AB1234 Reports:
a. Brief oral or written reports summarizing meeting or conference attendance at city expense, as required by Assembly Bill 1234 (Government Code, § 53232.3 );
b. Requests for the city manager or staff to report on various issues; c. Requests to place items on a future council meeting agenda; d. Requests to refer preparation or review of non-binding resolutions or ordinances to the Law and Legislation Committee; and
e. Reports on district and citywide activities or news.

8. City Manager’s Report
a. Brief oral report from the City Manager or designee.

9. Public Comment-Matters Not on the Agenda: oral communications from the audience regarding matters not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

K. Ordinances and Non-Binding Resolutions

1. Ordinance and non-binding resolution preparation must be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee (L&L) before coming to council, as described in Rule 13.

However, ceremonial city council resolutions (see Rule 7.L, below) need not be referred to the Law and Legislation Committee.

2. Ordinances on the agenda may be passed for publication or adopted in accordance with the procedures in Sacramento City Charter § 32
.

3. Ordinance changes during the review and adoption process. a. The text of an ordinance as approved by the L&L Committee, receiving the necessary votes to bring the matter to council under Rule 13, must be the text that is included in the published agenda as pass-for-publication.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 28 of 58 b. If an ordinance is brought to council under Rule 13, the text of the ordinance brought to council must be the same text as was submitted to the L&L Committee.
c. The text of an ordinance passed for publication must be the text that is included in the published agenda for the meeting at which the adoption of the ordinance is discussed.
d. Notwithstanding subsections a, b, and c, typographical and clerical errors may be corrected at any time during the ordinance review and adoption process. e. If a member intends to make a substantive (i.e., anything not typographical or clerical) change to an ordinance after it is included in a published agenda, at or before the time the ordinance adoption item is called on the agenda, the member shall distribute sufficient written copies of the proposed change so that all other members, the charter officers, relevant city staff, and the public audience have copies.
f. If the legislative body’s motion to adopt a resolution or ordinance includes a change to the resolution or ordinance text from that published in the agenda, prior to the vote the city clerk shall repeat verbatim the proposed change or otherwise indicate the change is reflected in the circulated written copy of the change.
g. Ordinances bypassing the pass-for-publication requirement under Sacramento City Charter § 32 are subject to this Rule 7.K.3, as applicable.

4. Except as set forth in section (a) below, council can consider adoption of non- binding resolutions. Non-binding resolutions are those within which the council declares its position and opinions on an issue, policy, or other matter that falls outside of the jurisdiction of the city and the council lacks legal authority to establish or regulate. The council may act on such a non-binding resolution if it determines that the matter is of such importance that the council should make the symbolic gesture of adopting a resolution declarative of council’s position. a. The city council shall not act or take a position on matters concerning foreign policy, except upon a 2/3 vote of the Council determining that those matters directly affect the City of Sacramento.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 29 of 58 L. Ceremonial City Council Resolutions

1. A ceremonial city council resolution is non-binding and has no authority. a. The city council may recognize and celebrate community members, organizations, and events for their contributions to the City of Sacramento and raise awareness surrounding important issues that affect the greater community. b. Ceremonial city council resolutions are not intended for political, commercial, or narrow individual purposes, and should be consistent with the overall policies of the city council. These resolutions shall not inhibit, benefit, or promote religious activities, shall be non-discriminatory, and may not promote political advocacy activities.

2. Requests for ceremonial city council resolutions should be directed to the city clerk, who will work in collaboration with the mayor to finalize language and schedule for presentation at an upcoming city council meeting.

(i) A ceremonial city council resolution is the highest council honor reserved for individuals and organizations who have made extraordinary, lasting, or significant contributions to the City of Sacramento and its residents and who should be held in high esteem.

(ii) This type of recognition should be awarded to City of Sacramento residents, organizations, businesses, dignitaries, and other similar entities who have made significant contributions to the community; non-profit corporations, sports teams, or individuals who have won state, regional, or national titles; acts of heroism, including those as defined by police, fire, and other public safety departments; and individuals deserving exceptional commendation for their contribution to the City as a whole and its residents.

(iii) An Obituary Resolution may be issued to the family in honor of a deceased community member in memoriam of an individual who has made a significant contribution to the City of Sacramento and is generally presented in the community and not at a city council meeting.

3. Individual councilmembers may also create and present ceremonial council-district recognitions in their specific community. An individual councilmember recognition may be issued to individuals, organizations, or groups who have made significant contributions within a specific council district or districts or in support of programs or organizations of interest to the residents of the district.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 30 of 58 Chapter 8 – Conduct of Meeting
A. Call to Order – Presiding Officer

1. The mayor, or in the mayor’s absence the vice mayor, shall take the chair at the hour appointed for the meeting and shall immediately call the meeting of the council to order.

2. In the absence of the mayor and vice mayor, the mayor pro tem shall preside over the meeting.

3. Upon the arrival of the mayor, the vice mayor shall immediately relinquish the chair at the conclusion of the business then before the council.

4. For council standing committees the chair shall call to order and preside over the meeting. In the absence of the chair, the vice chair shall perform the duties and obligations of the chair.

5. For all other city established legislative bodies the chair shall call to order and preside over the meeting. In the absence of the chair, the vice chair shall perform the duties and obligations of the chair. In the absence of chair and vice chair, the city clerk shall call the meeting to order, and a temporary chairperson shall be elected from among the members present. Upon arrival of the chair or vice chair, the temporary chairperson shall relinquish the position upon conclusion of the item then before the legislative body.

B. Roll Call/Attendance

1. A majority of the members of the council then in office constitutes a quorum (Sacramento City Charter § 30
).

2. A majority of members of the council established legislative body constitutes a quorum.

3. Before the legislative body proceeds with the business before it, the city clerk shall note the members present for the minutes. The late arrival and early departure of members will be entered into the action minutes.

4. A councilmember is considered present at a meeting if the member is either physically in the council chamber or is participating in the meeting through teleconference in accordance with the Brown Act
. Meeting attendance of the mayor
or councilmembers through teleconference is permitted only in extraordinary circumstances.

5. Members must be physically present at the council chamber dais or teleconference location to vote. Proxy or absentee voting is not permitted.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 31 of 58 C. Order of Discussion
The order of business must be carried out as listed on the agenda as set out below; however, the presiding officer may reorder the items at the meeting, unless members object. Members may request items be reordered by motion.

1. Consent calendar, and any items removed for discussion. a. Mayor, members, or charter officers may request that any matter be removed from the consent calendar and a separate vote taken.
b. All matters remaining on the consent calendar shall be approved by a single action, such single action to have the legal effect of individual action on each matter.
c. If consent calendar items are removed, they shall be discussed immediately after adoption of the balance of the consent calendar.

2. Public Hearings
a. The order of public hearings will generally be as follows:
(i) Open the public hearing.
(ii) Member report of ex parte communications.
(iii) Staff comments, information, and reports, followed by member questions.
(iv) Proponent, if applicable, speaks, followed by member questions. (v) Opponent, if applicable, speaks, followed by member questions. (vi) If the public hearing is on an appeal that does not require council de novo review, then the appellant (opponent) speaks before the applicant (proponent) in accordance with the allotted time. (vii) Public comments.
(viii) If the public hearing is a de novo review appeal, the applicant speaks in rebuttal, but if not a de novo review appeal, the appellant speaks in rebuttal.
(ix) Closure of public comment period.
(x) Further member discussion.
(xi) Motion to close public hearing and take action.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 32 of 58 b. The presiding officer may direct speakers to avoid repetition in order to permit maximum information to be provided the legislative body within the time allotted for the hearing.
c. The appellant and applicant shall be allocated sufficient time to address the legislative body. However, reasonable time limits on persons addressing the legislative body, including applicants, proponents, and opponents may be imposed if necessary for the orderly conduct of the hearing and the limits are fairly applied.

3. Discussion Calendar
a. The order of discussion after introduction of an item will generally be as follows:
(i) Staff comments, information, and reports, followed by questions from the members.
(ii) Public comments and information, followed by questions from the members.
(iii) Member discussion, motion, and action.
b. Once the item is placed before the council for discussion, motion, or action, no member of staff or the public is allowed to address the council without the consent of the mayor or members.

4. Council Comments – Ideas, Questions, and AB1234 Reports a. Brief oral or written reports summarizing meeting or conference attendance at city expense, as required by Assembly Bill 1234 (Government Code, § 53232.3 );
b. Requests for the city manager or staff to report on various issues; c. Requests to place items on a future council meeting agenda; or d. Reports on district and citywide activities or news.

5. City Manager’s Report
a. Brief oral report from the City Manager or their designee.

6. Public Comment for Matters Not on the Agenda
a. As required by the Brown Act, a portion of each council meeting agenda will provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on any agendized item, including closed session and consent calendar items. Regular meeting agendas also will provide for public comment on any unagendized matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 33 of 58 b. In response to public comment on unagendized items, the members may individually:
(i) Briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by members of the public;
(ii) Ask questions for clarification;
(iii) Provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information or response;
(iv) Request staff to report to the council at a subsequent meeting; or (v) Request staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda as needed.

D. Quorum Call

1. During the course of the meeting, should the presiding officer note a quorum is lacking, the presiding officer shall call this fact to the attention of the city clerk.

2. The presiding officer then shall issue a quorum call. If a quorum has not been restored within two minutes of a quorum call, the presiding officer may declare a recess for a reasonable period of time in order to reestablish a quorum.

3. If no quorum is reestablished within a reasonable time, the presiding officer shall adjourn the meeting.

4. Continuation of a council meeting extending past 9:30 p.m. requires a majority vote of the councilmembers present.

5. Continuation of a Planning and Design Commission or Preservation Commission meeting extending past 9:30 p.m. requires a majority vote of the commissioners present.

6. A meeting of any other city established legislative body shall automatically adjourn after two hours, unless extended by a 2/3 vote of the members present; but in no case shall an advisory body meeting exceed three hours.

E. Obtaining the Floor

1. Any member wishing to speak must first obtain the floor by being recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer shall recognize any member who seeks the floor when appropriately entitled to do so.

2. With the concurrence of the presiding officer, a member holding the floor may address a question to another member and that member may respond while the floor is still held by the member asking the question. A member may opt not to answer a question while another member has the floor.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 34 of 58 F. Motions

1. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century governs the management of motions.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 35 of 58 G. Voting

1. Requirements for Action.
a. Unless a higher vote is required by the city charter, the city code, or otherwise by law, the affirmative votes of at least five members of the council shall be required:
(i) For the council to take action on an item of business; (ii) To pass any ordinance, resolution, or motion; or
(iii) To make or approve any order for the payment of money requiring council approval.
b. Any ordinance declared by the council to be necessary as an emergency measure and containing a statement of the facts constituting such emergency as provided in the city charter may be introduced and adopted at the same meeting if passed by at least six affirmative votes (Sacramento City Charter, § 32 ).

2. Voting Disqualification.
a. A member shall not vote upon a matter if the member is disqualified from voting on that matter due to a conflict of interest. Nor shall any member vote on a quasi-judicial matter if the member is biased regarding that matter. b. A member shall openly state an abstention due to a conflict of interest or bias. A member shall only abstain when there is an actual (or reasonably perceived) financial conflict of interest or bias, and the member is prohibited from voting on the item.
c. A member who is abstaining due to a financial conflict of interest shall publicly identify the financial interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public, except that disclosure of the exact street address of a residence is not required. d. Under SB 1439, an officer who is abstaining (Government Code, § 84308, the “Levine Act”) shall disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding. Under SB 1439, an officer of an agency shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the officer’s official position to influence the decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use pending before the agency if the officer has willfully or knowingly received a contribution in an amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) within the preceding 12 months from a party or a party’s agent, or from any participant or a participant’s agent if the officer knows or has reason to know that the participant has a financial interest in the decision.
e. As to any other conflict of interest, the member's determination may be accompanied by an oral or written disclosure of the conflict of interest.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 36 of 58 f. A member who is disqualified by a conflict of interest in any matter shall not remain on the dais during the discussion and shall not vote on that matter.

However, the member may remain on the dais for Consent Calendar items if the member states the abstention from the vote due to the described conflict of interest before the Consent Calendar is voted on in one motion.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 37 of 58 Chapter 9 – Council Vacancies
A. Procedures

1. As provided in the Sacramento City Charter, absence from five consecutive regular meetings of the council, unless excused by resolution of the council, operates to vacate the seat of the mayor or councilmember so absent. (Sacramento City Charter, §§ 28 and 46.)

2. A vacancy in the office of councilmember or mayor shall be filled by special election called by the council as provided in Sacramento City Charter § 154, unless the vacancy occurs within one year of the next general election at which that office would normally be filled, in which case the vacancy shall be filled by appointment.

The city clerk shall take the necessary actions to accomplish the recruitment and appointment of candidates as provided in
Sacramento City Code § 1.14.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 38 of 58 Chapter 10 - Facilities
A. Meeting Locations

1. Whenever practical, legislative body meetings shall be held at the City Hall Complex, located at 915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 to facilitate video streaming to the city’s website and archiving for future access.

B. Meeting Capacity

1. Council chamber and historic hearing room attendance is limited to the posted seating capacity. The maximum occupancy of council chambers is 230 and historic hearing room is 70. The city manager shall appropriately regulate entrance to the council chamber when the council chamber capacity is likely to be exceeded. When legislative bodies are in session, members of the public shall not remain standing in the seating area or aisles of the council chamber. Sitting on the floor is not permitted. The sergeant-at-arms shall enforce this chapter.

2. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, meeting locations are accessible to the public. If a member of the public needs special assistance, a disability-related modification or accommodation, agenda materials in an alternative format, or auxiliary aids to participate in this meeting, they should contact the Office of the City Clerk at 916-808-7200 or [email protected] as soon as possible. Providing at least 72 hours' notice will help ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 39 of 58 Chapter 11 - City Council Committees and Regional Organizations A. General

1. The mayor shall make all appointments to council standing committees, subject to the approval of the council. The mayor shall make all appointments to council ad hoc committees.

2. A standing committee is a permanent committee of the council established to consider subjects of a particular class, with regularly scheduled meeting dates and times.

3. An ad hoc committee is a temporary committee of the council established for a special purpose and of limited duration.

4. Standing and ad hoc committees have fact-finding, informative, and recommendatory powers only, and such other powers delegated by the council.

5. The council intends that council committees, to the extent possible, conduct a full hearing on any matter referred to that committee before the committee refers the matter back to the council.

6. The city clerk shall maintain and keep on file a list of the standing committees, ad hoc committees, regional organizations, and joint powers agencies to which councilmembers are appointed.

B. Council Standing Committees

1. General Guidelines
a. Standing committee appointments shall be made by the mayor each at the beginning of each calendar year or as necessary.
b. Standing committees shall meet at the city hall complex. c. Standing committees are subject to the Brown Act
and the Sacramento Sunshine
Ordinance (Sacramento City Code § 4.04). Standing committee agendas shall be prepared, posted, and distributed in accordance with the Brown Act and the Sacramento Sunshine Ordinance (Sacramento City Code Chapter 4.04), stating the time and place of the meeting and the subject matters to be discussed. d. A councilmember who is not a member of the standing committee may attend a standing committee meeting, provided the member attends only as an observer, does not testify or otherwise participate in any discussion, and sits amongst the public.
e. Except as provided in subsection f, all items on a standing committee’s agenda must first be referred to the committee by the council for review, with a recommendation returned to the council within 120 days, subject to the exceptions set forth below or as otherwise modified by the council.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 40 of 58 f. With approval of the city clerk, city manager, or committee chair, an item may be sent directly to a standing committee without council referral. If a matter is so referred to a standing committee, the committee agenda must note that fact on the face of the agenda and the committee chair shall notify the council. Such referrals are not required to be forwarded to the council unless council action is recommended by the standing committee.
g. The city clerk shall assign staff to assist the committee chair with the operation of the committee.

C. Council Ad Hoc Committees

1. Establishment.
a. The mayor or a majority of the council may request the creation of an ad hoc committee.
b. The city manager or a department director, together with the city attorney, shall work with the appropriate supporting department(s) and determine the scope and approximate duration the ad hoc committee.
c. The department director shall submit a request to the mayor, with a copy to the city clerk, requesting the creation of and appointment of up to four members to an ad hoc committee.

2. Scheduling Ad Hoc Committee Meetings.
a. Once an ad hoc committee has been established, the city clerk shall schedule the first meeting. Once confirmed, the city clerk shall notify the members, mayor’s office, city manager (or designee), and the city attorney (or designee) of the meeting details. A regular meeting calendar will be established and adopted by the ad hoc committee.
b. A councilmember who is not a member of the ad hoc committee may attend an ad hoc committee meeting, provided the member attends only as an observer, does not testify or otherwise participate in any discussion, and sits amongst the public.
c. Ad hoc committees are subject to the Brown Act
and the Sacramento Sunshine
Ordinance (Sacramento City Code § 4.04).

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 41 of 58

3. Dissolution
a. Once an ad hoc committee has completed its task, the supporting department shall submit a report to the mayor, with a copy to the city clerk, stating completion of the ad hoc committee tasks and request the dissolution of the ad hoc committee.
b. An ad hoc committee is automatically dissolved one year after its first meeting, unless it is dissolved earlier under Rule 12.C.3.a.
c. The city clerk will provide a periodic report to council announcing the dissolution of ad hoc committees.

D. Regional Organizations
The mayor shall appoint council representatives to regional organizations and joint powers agencies listed in the documents maintained by the city clerk, subject to council approval. Appointments shall be made at the beginning of each calendar year or as necessary.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 42 of 58 Chapter 12 – Councilmember Proposal Requests
A. General

1. This chapter outlines the process for councilmembers to propose an idea for council action. It modulates the agenda requests of individual councilmembers by referring those requests to the relevant city council standing committee for review, as appropriate, and in so doing provides clear guidance to the council appointees that their work demands are serving the council as a whole. It also ensures councilmember requests are duly tracked and assigned, thus promoting transparency and accountability.

B. Procedures

1. Councilmember proposal requests must be submitted in writing to the city clerk.

The proposal must include a brief summary and background, identify the applicable strategic plan/priority, estimate any budget adjustment or impact, and include additional information sufficient for committee deliberation.

2. The mayor, in consultation with the city manager, city attorney, and city clerk, shall review all requests and will assign each proposal to a committee based on committee jurisdiction, unless an exception applies.
a. Exceptions:
i. Urgent matter that requires quick council action;
ii. A matter related to a pending council matter;
iii. A matter that on its face falls fully outside the jurisdiction of the City;
iv. A matter within the City Manager’s executive function that does not need council authorization; or
v. A matter that should receive a city-established board, commission, or committee input before going to a city council standing committee.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 43 of 58

3. Standing committees shall review each proposal and vote whether to approve staff work.
a. If the proposal receives threshold committee support to work on the proposal (i.e., a vote of 4/0, 3/1, or 2/1), staff work commences. b. If the proposal receives a 2/2 vote, within 30 days thereafter the city councilmember who initiated the proposal may ask that the city council vote on a non-debatable motion to reconsider, which motion will be placed on the next available city council agenda. If the motion receives five or more “aye” votes, the item will be resubmitted to the committee.

If the motion fails, the proposal concludes. The non-debatable motion to consider may only be considered once. Once a proposal concludes, it cannot be reconsidered sooner than 12 months.
c. If the proposal does not receive sufficient committee support (i.e., a 0/4, 1/3, or 1/2 vote) for further work on the proposal, the proposal concludes.

4. If directed by the standing committee to commence work, staff will bring back to the committee a report for its consideration.
a. If the proposal receives a vote of 4/0, 3/1, or 2/1, the proposal advances to the city council with a committee recommendation.
b. If the proposal receives a 2/2 vote, within 30 days thereafter the city councilmember who initiated the proposal may ask that the city council vote on a non-debatable motion to reconsider, which motion will be placed on the next available city council agenda. If the motion receives five or more “aye” votes, the item will be resubmitted to the committee.

If the motion fails, the proposal concludes. The non-debatable motion to consider may only be considered once. Once a proposal concludes, it cannot be reconsidered sooner than 12 months.
c. If the proposal does not receive sufficient committee support (i.e., a 0/4, 1/3, or 1/2 vote) to advance to the city council, the proposal concludes and cannot be reconsidered sooner than 12 months.

C. Councilmember Proposal Request Flowchart (following page)

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 44 of 58

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 45 of 58 Chapter 13 – Law and Legislation Committee
A. Authority; Purposes

1. Authority to Represent City Positions.
a. The Law and Legislation (L&L) Committee has the authority to take positions on behalf of the city on state and federal legislation as outlined in the city’s legislative platform.
b. The mayor or the chair of the L&L Committee has the authority to take positions, consistent with the adopted legislative platform, on behalf of the city when the need to react quickly does not allow for a matter to be considered by the L&L Committee.
c. Except as provided in subsections a and b, no person or committee has authority to represent the council on policy matters, unless that authority has been granted by the council or the information is limited to a factually accurate statement of the council’s publicly-adopted position.

2. Purposes. The purposes of the L&L Committee are to consider, evaluate, conduct fact-finding, and recommend to council positions on proposed city ordinances and non-binding resolutions.

B. Procedures

1. Ordinances and Non-Binding Resolutions.
a. Origination.
(i) Requests to prepare, amend, draft, or process ordinances and non- binding resolutions shall be made in one of the following ways:
(A) In writing to the city clerk; or
(B) By the city manager or other city staff.
(ii) All non-binding resolution requests must be referred to the L&L Committee. Except as provided in subsection b below, all ordinance requests must be referred to the L&L Committee.
(iii) The requesting member(s), city manager, or staff is considered the sponsor. City staff shall work directly with the sponsor in developing the proposed ordinance language.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 46 of 58 b. Ordinances not requiring L&L Committee review prior to council review and adoption are those that are:
(i) Deemed urgent by the mayor or city manager;
(ii) Voted on by the majority of council to bypass the L&L Committee; (iii) Voted on by the majority of the L&L Committee to go to council without full L&L Committee review;
(iv) Zoning code amendments for specific development projects; (v) Listings on, or deletions from, the Sacramento register under Sacramento City Code chapter 17.604, article II;
(vi) Adopting property-related fees or fee increases that require public notice before the Utilities Rate Advisory Commission;
(vii) Authorizing the execution of a development agreement; (viii) Establishing or adjusting parking meter rates
(ix) The biennial update for campaign contribution limits, as required by Sacramento City Code section 2.13.120; or
(x) Levying a special tax on land within a community facilities district. (xi) Those reviewed by the P&PE Committee related to a city advisory body’s creating authority.
c. After passing the threshold vote required by the councilmember proposal request flowchart in Chapter 12, ordinances and non-binding resolutions referred to the L&L Committee shall be placed on the legislation log, with new items placed at the end of the log, to establish a priority order; provided, the L&L Committee or council may reorder the priority.
d. The log will be scheduled for the consent agenda at every L&L Committee meeting. Any committee member may pull an item from consent for discussion. e. Items on the log may be removed at the request of the sponsor. Staff shall note the removal request on the log and remove the item after the log has been approved by the committee.
f. The process for advancing an item to the city council is outlined in Chapter 12.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 47 of 58 C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the L&L Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 48 of 58 Chapter 14 – Personnel and Public Employees Committee
A. Purposes
The purposes of the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee are to:

1. Review applications received for membership to various city boards, commissions, and committees;

2. Conduct interviews for such membership appointment;

3. Make recommendations to the mayor concerning such appointments;

4. Review advisory body reports and recommendations, as provided in Rule 17.C;

5. Review ordinances related to an advisory body’s creating authority prior to council review and adoption;

6. Lead the recruitment process for council-appointed officers; and

7. Develop and lead annual performance metrics and evaluations for council-appointed officers, as provided in Rule 18.

B. Procedures

1. Applications for seats on city boards, commissions, and committees will be reviewed by the P&PE Committee.

2. The P&PE Committee shall conduct interviews of qualified applicants.

3. Recommendations by the P&PE Committee shall be submitted to the city clerk for distribution to the mayor to consider appointment.

4. After the mayor’s appointment, the city clerk shall submit a report for a council agenda requesting confirmation of the mayor’s appointment.

C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the P&PE Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 49 of 58 Chapter 15 – Budget and Audit Committee
A. Purposes
The purposes of the Budget and Audit Committee (B&A) are to:

1. Assist the council in overseeing and supervising the city auditor;

2. Assist the council in evaluating the proposed budget, including a mid-year report, and any amendments thereto;

3. Assist the council in understanding the budget impacts resulting from council’s actions; and

4. Assist the council in reviewing and evaluating the Innovation and Growth Fund.

5. Assist the council in enhancing the city’s ability to:
a. Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of city operations; b. Improve the city’s fiscal operations;
c. Adopt and adhere to a balanced budget; and
d. Comply with city policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements.

6. Review councilmember proposals for funding allocations that fall outside of the budget process.

B. Procedures

1. The B&A Committee shall receive, review, and forward to the council as appropriate, reports, recommendations, and updates from the city auditor.

2. The B&A Committee shall receive and review the proposed budget and any material amendments thereto.

3. The B&A Committee shall receive and review any key budget policy issues, including but not limited to, Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) results, use of any year-end surplus, the mid-year report, budget priorities, use of unanticipated revenue, or proposed budget issues such as fee increases, prior to bringing forward to council.

4. The B&A Committee may:
a. Receive, review, and forward to the council, when relevant to city audits, any reports from the city treasurer, the department of finance, other city offices, or external auditors;
City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 50 of 58 b. Receive, review, and forward to the city council any reports and recommendations from the economic development department or city manager regarding the Innovation and Growth Fund; and
c. Propose that the council adopt ordinances, resolutions, or take other actions, provided that such ordinances, resolutions, or actions are within the jurisdiction of the B&A Committee.

5. The process for advancing an item to the city council is outlined in Chapter 12.

C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager, city auditor, and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the B&A Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 51 of 58 Chapter 16 – Racial Equity Committee
A. Purposes
The purposes of the Racial Equity Committee are to:

1. Help the council align its advancement of racial equity in city decision-making with the impacts resulting from city policy, budget, and service-delivery decisions;

2. Provide a space to help coordinate the various city racial equity initiatives, efforts, metrics, and best practices into a holistic citywide informed approach (rather than a case-by-case approach); and

3. Increase engagement, transparency, and accountability for the City’s ongoing racial equity work.

B. Procedures

1. The Racial Equity Committee shall receive, review, and forward to the council as appropriate, reports, recommendations, policy proposals, and updates regarding racial equity issues. Review and approval of ordinances and adoption of positions on state and federal legislation shall be undertaken by the Law and Legislation Committee, unless an ordinance or legislation is referred directly to the Racial Equity Committee by the council.

2. The process for advancing an item to the city council is outlined in Chapter 12.

C. Requirements for Agenda Item Submission

1. The city manager and city clerk shall develop the agenda for the Racial Equity Committee meetings in consultation with the chair of the committee. a. The chair shall have the right to make recommendations to the committee on matters of policy and programs that require committee decisions. b. Charter officers, the director of the office of public safety accountability, and the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency executive director may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.
c. Department directors, subject to the discretion of the city manager, may submit staff reports or descriptions of oral reports to the city clerk for placement on the agenda.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 52 of 58 Chapter 17 – City Advisory Bodies
A. Vacancies and Appointments

1. When any vacancy occurs on a board, commission, or committee (advisory body) the city clerk shall announce that vacancy pursuant to the standard outreach procedures. The city clerk’s office maintains the board and commission files and performs all clerical and administrative support tasks related to the application process.

2. At the close of the application period, all applications received for the vacancy are referred by the city clerk to the appropriate nominating body or person for review and recommendation.

3. If the recommending body is the Personnel and Public Employees Committee (P&PE) the applicant will be invited to interview in person before P&PE at the next available meeting. Following review and recommendation by P&PE, the city clerk shall forward to the mayor for review.

4. If the recommending body is a councilmember, following review, the member shall send the board and commission recommendation(s) to the city clerk who will forward to the mayor for review.

5. After reviewing the submitted recommendation(s) made by P&PE or a member, the mayor shall direct the city clerk to prepare a staff report with the mayor’s appointment to fill the vacancy at the next council meeting. Concurrence in an appointment for a seat on a city board, commission or committee shall be by vote of the city council.

6. If the council does not approve the appointment, then the mayor shall make another appointment, and at the soonest regular meeting following the meeting at which the subsequent appointment was made, the council shall vote whether to confirm the new appointment.

7. This procedure shall be followed until an appointment has been approved by the council. No request by a member to delay the appointment or approval will be allowed unless approved by a majority vote of the council.

8. At the direction of the council, all vacancies, application periods, and close of application periods for boards and commissions shall be monitored and maintained by the city clerk.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 53 of 58

9. In making nominations and appointments to city boards and commissions, the mayor, P&PE Committee, and members should consider persons of various ethnicities, ages, genders, education, and occupational experience as reflected in the general population of the city; and should, as appropriate for the vacancy, consider persons from all districts of the city.

B. Requests for Future Agenda Items

1. Members may submit items under the purview of the advisory body for inclusion on a future agenda by orally making the request under Ideas, Comments, and Questions.
a. The department staff shall add a member’s requests to a chronologically-ordered log that contains all pending requests, i.e., those not having been heard as an agenda item or not otherwise having been removed from the log. b. The log shall appear on the Consent Calendar of each regular meeting and include estimated agenda date or disposition.

C. Advisory Body Reports

1. Advisory body recommendations and reports to the city council shall follow the procedure set forth in this Rule 17.C.

2. Annual report preparation.
a. Each advisory body shall provide an annual report for review by the Personnel and Public Employees (P&PE) Committee.
b. The annual report shall be provided in a format established by the city clerk and should include highlights and accomplishments from the prior year’s work; proposed projects, priorities, and recommendations for the upcoming year; and any other information required of the advisory body according to the Sacramento City Code.
c. The city clerk shall manage an advisory body annual report calendar so that city staff can gather input to prepare a proposed report to the advisory body in a timely manner.
d. Each advisory body must approve its annual report before presentation to the P&PE Committee. When presenting proposed reports to advisory bodies, staff should include information on the feasibility of any recommendations therein.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 54 of 58

3. Review by P&PE Committee.
a. Annual reports approved by advisory bodies shall be placed on an upcoming P&PE Committee meeting agenda.
a. The city clerk shall act as a liaison and collaborate with city staff to collect any additional information that may be helpful to the committee’s evaluation of advisory body annual reports.
b. The P&PE Committee shall review advisory body annual reports and give staff direction on those reports’ stated projects, priorities, and recommendations.

Before forwarding the report to the city council, the committee may request supplemental information from staff or the advisory body.

4. Other recommendations. If an advisory body has recommendations outside the annual review process, the city clerk shall coordinate with the advisory body to have those recommendations brought before the P&PE Committee, which may consider and act on those recommendations in the same way it does advisory body annual reports.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 55 of 58 Chapter 18 – Annual Review of City Council Appointive Officers A. Purposes

1. The city council is committed to performing regular annual reviews of its appointive officers, which include the following positions: city attorney, city auditor, city clerk, city manager, city treasurer, director of the office of public safety accountability, and executive director of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. These positions report directly to the city council.

2. Clear communication and performance metrics are at the core of the work of the council and the city. To evaluate council appointive officers on a consistent basis, the P&PE Committee will assume the role and responsibility of developing and leading annual performance metrics and evaluations.

B. Procedures

1. With direction from the P&PE Committee, the city clerk shall coordinate and schedule appointive officer annual reviews.

2. Annually, appointive officers shall present their annual report, including past year accomplishments and strategic goals and objectives for the upcoming year, to the P&PE Committee. Once approved by the P&PE Committee the report will be forwarded to the city council for approval.

3. Performance Evaluations: The city council shall meet in closed session to conduct a performance evaluation of an appointive officer.
a. T he city council may hold closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of an appointive officer or to hear complaints or charges brought against the appointive officer by another person or employee unless the appointive officer requests a public session (Government Code § 54957 (b)).
b. As a condition to holding a closed session on specific complaints or charges brought against an appointive officer by another person or employee, the appointive officer shall be given written notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in an open session rather than a closed session, which notice shall be delivered to the appointive officer personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time for holding the session. c. The city council also may exclude from the public or closed meeting, during the examination of a witness, any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the city council.
d. Closed sessions held pursuant to this rule shall not include discussion or action on proposed compensation except for a reduction of compensation that results from the imposition of discipline.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 56 of 58

4. Salary and Benefit Negotiations: The city council may meet in closed session with the city’s designated representative to discuss salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of an appointive officer. (Government Code § 54957.6)
a. The agenda for a closed session under this rule must identify the city’s designated representatives. Unless specifically directed otherwise by the mayor, the designated representatives shall be personnel from the Human Resources Department.
b. Closed sessions of the city council under this rule shall be for the purpose of reviewing its position and instructing the designated representatives. c. Closed sessions held pursuant to this rule shall not include final action on the proposed compensation or benefits.

5. Final approval of compensation adjustments, by resolution or contract, shall be made at an open meeting of the city council. See Rule 7.A.1 for agendizing such an item.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 57 of 58 Glossary
Decorum Officer
The decorum officer is a council-selected person who sits on the dais and has responsibility for enforcing council meeting decorum.
et seq
et seq means “and the following one or ones”.

Ex Parte Communications
An ex parte communication is a written or oral communication between a decisionmaker and an interested person concerning any issue in a formal proceeding, other than procedural matters that does not occur in a public forum established in the proceeding or on the record of the proceeding.

Members shall disclose the substance of all ex parte communications at the beginning of a public hearing for any item brought before the legislative body for hearing, consideration, or action.

Non-Binding Resolution
A non-binding resolution is a resolution in which the council declares its position and opinions on an issue, policy, or other matter that the council lacks legal authority to establish or regulate, but that the council determines is of such importance that the council should make the symbolic gesture of adopting a resolution declarative of council’s position.

Presiding Officer
The Presiding Officer is the person who presides over a meeting and is charged with maintaining order and decorum, recognizing members to speak, and interpreting the rules, practices, and precedents. In the city council the presiding officer is the Mayor. In advisory bodies established by the city council the presiding officer is the Chair. In the absence of Mayor or Chair, the Vice Mayor or Vice Chair shall preside.

Quasi-judicial
Quasi-judicial action means any council action that implicates constitutionally protected property or liberty interests, such as issuance or denial of discretionary land use permits, subdivision maps, business licenses, and other similar action in which a property interest is at stake and the council is charged with applying legal standards to a specific factual situation.

Sergeant-at-Arms
The sergeant-at-arms is the principal law enforcement official of the legislative body and is charged with maintaining security within the chamber (meeting location) and surrounding areas. The sergeant-at-arms also enforces protocol and ensures public decorum is followed as noted in the body’s rules of procedure.

City of Sacramento Council Rules of Procedure Page 58 of 58 Teleconference
A meeting conducted among participants in different locations via telecommunications equipment such as telephones, computers, or other devices.