POLICE OVERSIGHT
WORKSHOP
Veronica A.F . Nebb
City Attorney
Randy J. Risner
Chief Assistant City Attorney
Mike Malone
City Manager
Independent
Assessment
In 2019, the City hired the OIR
Group to conduct an
Independent Assessment of
the operations and culture of
the Vallejo Police Department.
OIR Group Report
Recommendation 45
In May 2020, the OIR Group completed its assessment of
VPD and issued its Independent Assessment of
Operations, Internal Review Systems, and Agency Culture.
This report contained 45 recommendations to improve
the VPD. Recommendation 45 provides that:
“VPD should work with City leadership to create a model of independent oversight specifically tailored to meet the needs of Vallejo.”
California Department of Justice
In July 2020, the City entered into a
Collaborative Agreement with the
California Department of Justice. One of
the matters DOJ is assisting with is
Recommendation 45.
Community Engagement Plan
In March 2022, the City Council
directed staff to implement a
community engagement plan to
receive input from Vallejo citizens
about police oversight
characteristics. City Staff
conducted nine community
engagement meetings including
one in each council district as well
as youth and business community
meetings and a meeting with the
Chief’s Advisory Board. Staff also
engaged with VPOA, CAMP and
police staff.
Community Engagement Process
In excess of 150 people participated in the
hands-on, community engagement meetings.
Participants were encouraged to join small
breakout groups and asked to rate a series of
statements about police oversight model
characteristics.
Community Engagement
Not a Scientific Survey
It is important to remember that the results of
the Community Engagement process are not
the same thing as a scientific survey.
Community Engagement was intended to hear
from the community and not to create a
scientific survey.
Community Engagement Overall Results - Characteristics
1. Oversight Form (Board vs Auditor)
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Citizen Board Appointed by Council. 32 (21%) 29 (19%) 47 (30%) 47 (30%) Citizen Board Appointed by Chief of Police. 93 (60%) 36 (23%) 15 (10%) 11 (7%) Citizen Board Appointed by City Manager. 70 (45%) 58 (38%) 18 (12%) 8 (5%) Citizen Board Appointed by Hybrid (a combination of Council and other). 25 (16%) 20 (12%) 55 (34%) 62 (38%) Independent Professional Auditor/Monitor only (paid professional). 49 (33%) 34 (23%) 39 (26%) 28 (18%)
2. Pubic Meetings
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Citizen Board holds public meetings. 6 (4%) 9 (5%) 27 (16%) 129 (75%) Auditor/Monitor (or Board) does not hold public meetings. 113 (72%) 29 (19%) 11 (7%) 3 (2%) Auditor/Monitor or Board produces a report to Council on a specific interval (such as quarterly).
19 (12%) 18 (12%) 38 (25%) 80 (51%)
3. Independent Auditor/Monitor Role
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Professional Auditor/Monitor without citizen board (reporting to Chief, City Manager and/or Council).
86 (56%) 29 (19%) 21 (13%) 18 (12%)
Professional auditor/monitor that reports to citizen board. 22 (14%) 11 (7%) 57 (36%) 69 (43%) No Auditor/Monitor. 87 (59%) 27 (19%) 15 (10%) 18 (12%)
4. Independent/Parallel Investigations
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Board (or Auditor) conducts own Independent Investigation with hired outside professional investigator to replace Internal Affairs.
25 (16%) 30 (20%) 47 (32%) 47 (32%)
Board (or Auditor) conducts own parallel investigation (in addition) to Internal Affairs with hired outside investigator.
12 (8%) 22 (15%) 55 (37%) 59 (40%)
Board Review of Report and Findings of Independent Investigator hired by City (not PD).
12 (6%) 19 (9%) 60 (29%) 114 (56%)
Investigations conducted by Independent Auditor/Monitor. 19 (13%) 27 (18%) 52 (35%) 51 (34%) Investigations reviewed by Independent Auditor/Monitor. 13 (9%) 17 (12%) 67 (47%) 46 (32%) Board Review of Report and Findings of Police Internal Affairs Investigators. 20 (14%) 15 (11%) 39 (27%) 69 (48%) Board has the power to issue subpoenas to obtain information. 9 (6%) 11 (7%) 26 (18%) 102 (69%)
5. Citizen Complaints
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Accepts citizen complaints directly. 3 (2%) 9 (5%) 27 (16%) 129 (77%) Refers citizen complaints to Chief of Police. 36 (23%) 34 (21%) 43 (27%) 46 (29%)
6. Action on Citizen Complaints
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Reviews all citizen complaints investigated by police department and makes recommendations.
9 (5%) 13 (8%) 40 (25%) 101 (62%)
Reviews only complaints related to officer-involved-shootings or use of force involving injury and makes recommendations.
50 (33%) 37 (25%) 37 (25%) 27 (17%)
Conducts its own investigation of citizen complaints and makes recommendations.
13 (8%) 18 (12%) 51 (33%) 73 (47%)
Conducts supplemental investigation to police department investigation. 12 (8%) 21 (14%) 51 (34%) 67 (44%)
7. Replaces Internal Affairs
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Replaces Internal Affairs Investigation with citizen review board managed investigation.
38 (25%) 40 (26%) 44 (28%) 32 (21%)
Replaces Internal Affairs Investigation with Auditor/Monitor managed investigation.
34 (23%) 43 (30%) 43 (30%) 25 (17%)
Doesn’t replace Internal Affairs but may conduct an independent investigation if needed and make recommendation.
13 (8%) 12 (7%) 49 (32%) 81 (53%)
8. Power to Discipline
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Imposes officer discipline replacing the Chief of Police. 47 (32%) 44 (30%) 34 (24%) 20 (14%) Makes a recommendation to the Chief of Police for discipline but Chief makes decision.
22 (15%) 34 (22%) 46 (30%) 51 (33%)
Power to overrule discipline proposed by the Chief of Police and impose different discipline.
26 (18%) 32 (23%) 40 (28%) 44 (31%)
Has the power to hire and fire the Chief of Police.
40 (27%) 30 (20%) 38 (26%) 40 (27%)
9. Full-Time Professional Staff
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Paid professional Executive Director responsible for managing operations of oversight model.
16 (10%) 20 (13%) 53 (35%) 64 (42%)
Professional full-time paid Auditor/Monitor (professional). 26 (18%) 23 (15%) 48 (33%) 49 (34%) Paid professional administrative staff. 17 (12%) 17 (12%) 56 (39%) 54 (37%)
10. Operates Separately from Police Department
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Completely independent from Police Department (no assistance from PD). 27 (18%) 27 (18%) 29 (20%) 63 (44%) Independent but has Police Department liaison. 6 (4%) 18 (11%) 71 (45%) 64 (40%) Dependent upon police department for staffing, records and information. 57 (39%) 29 (20%) 37 (26%) 22 (15%)
11. Review Completed Police Investigations
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Reviews all Internal Affairs investigations but does not replace. 21 (14%) 24 (16%) 53 (34%) 56 (36%) Reviews only Internal Affairs investigations involving officer-involved-shootings and use of force involving injury.
44 (29%) 38 (25%) 38 (25%) 31 (21%)
12. Make Recommendations to Chief of Police on Actions
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
After review, makes recommendations on action to Chief of Police related to all internal affairs investigations.
9 (6%) 8 (5%) 40 (27%) 94 (62%)
After review, makes recommendations on action to Chief of Police on internal affairs investigations involving officer-involved-shootings and use of force involving injury only.
30 (20%) 26 (17%) 40 (27%) 53 (36%)
13. Appeals of Citizen Complaints
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Hears Citizen appeals of findings in the investigation of Citizen Complaints. 6 (4%) 11 (7%) 41 (25%) 105 (64%) Does not hear Citizen appeals of Citizen Complaints. 97 (66%) 30 (20%) 13 (9%) 7 (5%)
14. Review/Approve Policies and Training
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Reviews police policies and makes recommendations. 7 (4%) 3 (2%) 40 (25%) 113 (69%) Must approve all new policies or policy revisions before implementation. 20 (13%) 18 (12%) 48 (31%) 68 (44%) Writes its own policies and recommends adoption. 28 (19%) 42 (29%) 43 (29%) 34 (23%) Reviews all police training and makes recommendations. 10 (6%) 11 (7%) 45 (29%) 89 (58%)
15. Reports on Issues of Public Concern
Disfavor
Greatly
Somewhat
Disfavor
Somewhat
Favor
Favor
Greatly
Reviews matters of public concern and provides a report and recommendation to the City Council/City Manager/Chief of Police.
2 (1%) 2 (1%) 31 (20%) 125 (78%)
Community Engagement Overall Results - Considerations
1. Transparency/Accountability
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is it important that the model include community members on a board or panel?
3 (2%) 3 (2%) 23 (13%) 143 (83%)
State law strictly limits transparency concerning police officer records. Is it important that the model not create unrealistic expectations concerning public transparency?
9 (6%) 24 (15%) 52 (34%) 69 (45%)
2. Independence
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is it important that oversight be independent of the Police Department? 5 (3%) 12 (7%) 37 (23%) 108 (67%) Is it important to retain the Professional Standards Division/Internal Affairs of the Police Department to serve some role (Training, Policy Development, some investigations etc.)?
9 (5%) 21 (13%) 58 (35%) 77 (47%)
3. Sustainability
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is it important that the model be financially sustainable for the long term? 4 (2%) 8 (5%) 38 (22%) 123 (71%)
4. Professional Outcomes
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is it important that the oversight model include involvement in police officer discipline? 6 (4%) 19 (11%) 48 (29%) 92 (56%)
Is it important that the model include a full trained support staff separate from the City? 7 (4%) 29 (18%) 52 (31%) 77 (47%)
5. Policy Updates
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is it important that the oversight model include involvement in the development of police department policies and training? 11 (7%) 14 (8%) 51 (30%) 92 (55%)
6. Operational Effects
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is it important that the oversight model retain the decision-making authority of the Chief of Police? 23 (15%) 34 (22%) 51 (32%) 48 (31%) Is it important that the oversight model positively impact the police department’s abilityto respond to calls for service? 10 (6%) 17 (11%) 37 (24%) 93 (59%)
7. Cost
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is the cost of the oversight model important? 14 (8%) 33 (19%) 59 (35%) 64 (38%)
8. Secondary Effects
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Extremely
Important
Is it important that the oversight model reduce liability to the City? 7 (4%) 27 (17%) 40 (24%) 90 (55%) What Do Other Cities Do?
Staff interviewed officials from 17 cities in
California, Oregon, Colorado, and New York
that have some form of Police Oversight in
order to hear firsthand information about
other jurisdictions models and their
experiences.
Oakland, California
Population: 422,575
Sworn officers: 710
Oversight type: Hybrid Model - Police Commission with Inspector General and Citizen Review Board (Community Police Review Agency)
Existence: Police Commission historical; Federal oversight since 2003; Citizen Review Board since 2014
Board: Members appointed by mayor and council after application; Inspector General hired by mayor and council
Annual budget: $5,815,938 (Not including additional costs) Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Conduct parallel investigations with Internal Affairs; recommends discipline; fire police chief with mayor
participation
Board Members: 10
Number of staff:10 for police commission; 2 for Inspector General Discipline reversals: 50% overturned by arbitration. Large verdicts have increased overall costs of the model- which are currently not specifically known - but in the millions
Recruitment/
Retention: Is a factor in recruitment and retention
San Francisco, California
Population: 873,965
Sworn officers: 2,023
Oversight type: Hybrid–Police Commission and Department of Police Accountability which is City Department similar to Inspector General. PD and Department of Police Accountability both report to the Police Commission.
Existence: Police Commission since 1850, current form since 2004; and Department of Police Accountability since 1982
Board: The Director of Department of Police Accountability is a member of the Police Commission hired by mayor, then confirmed by Board of Supervisors
Annual budget: $9.4 million estimated
Annual Cost: $9.5 million estimated not including litigation General powers:Conducts fact-finding hearings; conducts parallel investigations with Internal Affairs; investigates public complaints of misconduct; recommend discipline to police chief and police commission Board Members: 7 for Police Commission; 13 for Department of Police Accountability Number of staff:Volunteer for Police Commission; 45 for Department of Police Accountability
Discipline reversals: Unknown number but stated as fairly uncommon Recruitment/
Retention: Struggling with recruitment and retention, but stated as not due to model
San Diego, California
Population: 1.39 million
Sworn officers: 2,800
Oversight type: Hybrid Model –Investigators, Auditor, and Policy Analyst Existence: Since 1980
Board: Nominated by mayor and confirmed by council
Annual budget: $2.5 million estimated
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Conduct investigations, (parallel with Internal Affairs), into internal and citizen complaints, use of force, and officer involved shootings; reports to chief with some commission involvement
Board Members: 25 –(Quorum issues and filling positions an issue) Number of staff:11-12
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Unknown
Berkeley, California
Population: 124,321
Sworn officers: 176
Oversight type: Hybrid Model –Police Auditor Citizen Review Board Existence: Since 2021
Board: Appointed by mayor and council
Annual budget: $1,113,102 (not including litigation costs) Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Conduct investigations into citizen complaints, use of force and officer involved shootings only if subject to citizen complaint; makes recommendations to chief
Board Members: 9
Number of staff:5
Discipline reversals: Historic unknown but currently being sued for alleged POBAR violations
Recruitment/
Retention: Yes, recruitment and retention have been heavily affected.
Albany, New York
Population: 99,224
Sworn officers: 230
Oversight type: Civilian Review Board Model
Existence: Since 1998 but recently overhauled
Board: Appointed by City Manager with consultation from Chief Annual budget: $570,000 estimated
Annual Cost: Most of budget
General powers:Conduct investigations into citizen complaints, use of force, and officer involved shootings; board can recommend and has power to discipline
Board Members: 7
Number of staff:1-5
Discipline reversals: Too early; system just changed
Recruitment/
Retention: Too early; system just changed.
Denver , Colorado
Population: 715,522
Sworn officers: 1,468
Oversight type: Hybrid Model –Independent Monitor and Oversight Board Existence: Since 2004, but Independent Monitor position vacant since 2021 Board: Appointed by mayor with approval of city council Annual budget: $2,125,983
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Independent Monitor conducts investigations into citizen complaints, use of force, and officer involved shootings; Internal Affairs conducts their investigation which Monitor reviews; Independent Monitor is overseen by oversight
board; board can recommend and discuss matters to chief and safety manager
Board Members: 9
Number of staff:1
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Unknown
Los Angeles, California
Population: 4.097 million
Sworn officers: 9,974
Oversight type: Hybrid Model –Inspector General appointed by Civilian Police Commission
Existence: Since 1995
Board: Appointed by mayor and confirmed by city council Annual budget: $8.5 million (estimated)
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Inspector General conducts investigations into use of force and officer involved shootings; IG oversees the internal disciplinary process; can recommend to chief; No final decision-making authority Board Members: 5
Number of staff:Unknown
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Unknown
San Jose, California
Population: 1.01 million
Sworn officers: 1,500
Oversight type: Independent Auditor Only
Existence: Since 1993
Board: N/A
Annual budget: $1,599,974
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Inspector General conducts investigations into use of force and officer involved shootings; IG oversees the internal disciplinary process; oversees and observes all IA investigations; can recommend and discuss matters with chief; chief has final say.
Board Members: Not applicable –no Board
Number of staff:6
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Unknown, but thought to be minimal
Eugene, Oregon
Population: 170,457
Sworn officers: 169
Oversight type: Hybrid Model –Independent Auditor, Citizen Review Board and Police Commission
Existence: Since 2005
Board: Appointed by city council
Annual budget: $920,865 estimated
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:PD conducts investigations into citizen complaints, use of force, and officer involved shootings; Independent Auditor reviews PD findings and shares responsibilities with Internal Affairs; can recommend to chief, Neither board nor Auditor has final decision making authority Board Members: 7
Number of staff:4
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Minimal impact
Fresno, California
Population: 542,107
Sworn officers: 776
Oversight type: Independent Auditor
Existence: Since 2009. Had a board in 2017 but it was discontinued by mayor
Board: Not applicable–Auditor is appointed by advisory panel consisting of mayor, city manager, council members, and community
stakeholders
Annual budget: Not available, not separated from City Manager budget Annual Cost: Not Available
General powers:Internal Affairs conducts investigations; Auditor performs investigation and compares with IA report; Auditor gives reports to city manager; auditor meets once a month with chief and police association for updates
Board Members: Not applicable –auditor only
Number of staff:Auditor and one coordinator
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Auditor has a great working relationship with mayor, city manager and chief
Fort Collins, Colorado
Population: 169,810
Sworn officers: 230
Oversight type: Civilian Review Board Model
Existence: Since 1998
Board: Appointed by city manager, with consultation from chief Annual budget: $4,000
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Conduct investigations into citizen complaints, use of force, and officer involved shootings; internal complaints by request of agency; internal affairs handles investigations; chief or manager can have board review; chief makes final decision
Board Members: 7
Number of staff:0 –General staffing provided on rotating basis by available staff.
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Unknown
Long Beach, California
Population: 466,742
Sworn officers: 800
Oversight type: Civilian Police Complaint Commission
Existence: Since 1990
Board: Appointed by mayor and confirmed by city council Annual budget: $321,143
Annual Cost: $321,143
General powers:Commission works with Internal Affairs to investigate excessive force, false arrest, and complaints with racial or sexual overtones; report and recommend to city manager; city manager has final say Board Members: 11
Number of staff:4
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: No noticeable effect.
Sacramento, California
Population: 524,943
Sworn officers: 562
Oversight type: Community Police Review Commission
Existence: Since 2016
Board: Appointed by mayor, city council, and the public employee committee
Annual budget: $941,703
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Office of Public Safety Accountability is the department the citizen review board is a part of; receive all police and fire complaints and conducts preliminary review; they report directly to the city council and mayor; board not final decision maker
Board Members: 10
Number of staff:3
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Unknown
BART
Sworn officers: 206
Oversight type: Hybrid Model –Independent Auditor (OIPA) and Citizen Review Board Existence: Since 2010
Board: Appointed by BART Board of Directors
Annual budget: $1.2 million estimated
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Board works with OIPA in making findings/recommendations concerning citizen complaints, internal affairs investigations, critical incidents (such as officer involved shooting), use of force, and internal complaints; no final decision-making authority Board Members: 9
Number of staff:5
Discipline reversals: OIPA does not administer police discipline but recommends police discipline. The police chief or, in the event the police chief appeals OIPA’s findings, the general manager has the final authority in administering police discipline
Recruitment/
Retention: No impact on recruitment or retention
Richmond, California
Population: 110,146
Sworn officers: 145
Oversight type: Hybrid Model - Community Police Review Commission and Office of Professional Accountability
Existence: Community Police Review Commission since 1984; Office of Professional Accountability since 2016
Board: Appointed by mayor
Annual budget: $277,371 (salary only) plus $47,006 of costs Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers: Investigates citizen complaints involving UOF , discrimination, sexual assault/harassment, OIS, and death/GBI that are filed directly to the Commission; can forward report or findings/recommendations to chief Board Members: 9
Number of staff: 1
Discipline reversals: Commission does not impose discipline, however, there have been recommendations that diverge from those provided by OPA. Unknown impact on reversals
Recruitment/
Retention: No negative impact
Riverside, California
Population: 314,998
Sworn officers: 450
Oversight type: Civilian Review Board
Existence: Since 2000
Board: 7 appointed by city council, and 2 at large
Annual budget: $175,000 (cost of consultant) remaining cost absorbed by City Manager
Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Review board only with direct access to peace officer disciplinary records. Meets with community groups to explain purpose. Provides community workshops. Has access to all IA reports. Has expert to review IA reports. Discuss and develop own findings without knowing outcome of IA in advance.
Number of staff:1
Discipline reversals: Does not administer discipline. Agrees with proposed discipline majority of the time
Recruitment/
Retention: Minimal impact
Santa Rosa, California
Population: 178,127
Sworn officers: 181
Oversight type: Independent Auditor hired as outside consultant Existence: Since 2015
Board: Not applicable
Annual budget: Unknown, no line item. Three-year contract not to exceed $270,000 Annual Cost: Unknown
General powers:Independent Auditor reviews citizen complaints, officer involved shootings, use of force if death or bodily injury, internal complaints.
Board Members: Not applicable
Number of staff:None
Discipline reversals: Unknown
Recruitment/
Retention: Minimal
Police Oversight Model Characteristics
The following slides
discuss the major
characteristics of
different oversight
models, as well as
information that our
research has provided
relating to the
options available for
each of the most
important
characteristics.
Form of the Oversight Body/Individual
OPTIONS:
1. Citizen Board appointed by Council.
2. Citizen Board appointed by the City Manager, Chief or other.
3. Citizen Board with an Auditor/Inspector General.
4. No Board – Individual Auditor/Inspector General only.
Citizen Board Appointed by Council
(No Auditor/Inspector General)
Citizen Board (powers differ) appointed by Council favored by most (60%). Overall support for Citizen Board of some type (96%). Citizen involvement tends to help establish community trust.
Depending on powers can present some challenges (discussed later).
Cost varies depending on powers, staffing, training, etc. Form of greatest community accountability since elected body appoints members.
Citizen Board Appointed by City Manager/Chief
or Other- (No Auditor/Inspector General)
Citizen Board appointed by City Manager disfavored by most (93%). Citizen Board appointed by Chief of Police disfavored by most (83%). Overall support for Citizen Board of some type (96%). Citizen involvement tends to help establish community trust.
Depending on powers can present some challenges (discussed later).
Cost varies depending on powers, staffing, training, etc. Less accountability than Council appointed option since members are appointed by a single individual who is not elected by the community.
Citizen Board with an Auditor/Inspector
General
Citizen Board with Auditor/Inspector General (powers differ) favored by most (79%). Overall support for Citizen Board of some type (96%). Citizen involvement tends to help establish community trust.
Depending on powers can present some challenges (discussed later).
Cost substantially increased over citizen board only but still varies depending on powers, staffing, training, etc.
Auditor/Inspector involvement can add level of professionalism and reduce some challenges depending on powers. Can provide balance where Auditor hired by and reports to Council.
No Board – Individual Auditor/Inspector
General Only
Auditor only disfavored by most (75%).
Auditor only dependent solely on the skill and performance of the Auditor.
Cost increased over citizen board but less than a Board with Auditor - again depends on powers of the Auditor and staffing (some staffing required).
Accountability is likely perceived as less than with a Citizen Board. Auditor/Inspector involvement can add level of
professionalism but is dependent on the individual chosen.
Public Meetings
OPTIONS:
1. Citizen Board public meetings.
2. Auditor/Inspector General public meetings.
Citizen Board Public Meetings
Citizen Board appointed by the City Council must hold public meetings except when closed session permitted/required by law. Citizen Board meetings where board appointed by others would not be REQUIRED to be public but, could be added to ordinance. Expectations can be a challenge given state law requiring peace officer personal records remain confidential unless specific state laws apply (SB1421 and SB2).
Public meetings valuable for transparency and could include information on statistics, policies, training, etc.
Citizen Board holding public meetings favored by most (91%).
Auditor/Inspector General Only Public
Meetings
Auditor/Inspector General only would not be REQUIRED
to hold public meeting by state law, but some public
meeting aspects could be added to ordinance.
Expectations can be a challenge given state law requiring peace officer personal records remain confidential unless specific statute(s) permitting disclosure applies.
Auditor/Inspector General without public meetings
disfavored by most (91%).
Powers of the Oversight Board/Auditor
relating to investigations
Options:
1. Citizen Board and/or Auditor/Inspector General conducts independent investigations with outside professional investigator – replaces Internal Affairs.
2. Citizen Board and/or Auditor/Inspector General conducts independent parallel investigation with outside professional investigator – does not replace Internal Affairs.
3. Citizen Board and/or Auditor /Inspector General reviews findings of Internal Affairs.
4. Citizen Board has subpoena power.
5. Citizen Board and/or Auditor/Inspector General has access to police disciplinary/personnel records during investigations.
Independent investigations with outside or staff
professional investigator – replaces Internal Affairs
Improves public trust, especially on serious matters (including use of force, bias or discrimination, sexual abuse or dishonesty) and is favored by most (64%).
Provides a fact-based result in most cases.
Likely seen as providing greater accountability than Internal Affairs alone. Removes the perception that Internal Affairs protects police officers. Additional cost for outside investigator which may or may not be higher than Internal Affairs (mostly already being incurred).
Higher cost may not be desirable by the City for cases not involving serious matters. (Currently serious matters are investigated outside internal affairs).
Independent investigations with outside professional or internal investigator – Internal Affairs parallel
or replaced for serious matters.
Currently independent investigations (replacing internal affairs) happening in serious matters (use of force, bias or discrimination, sexual abuse or dishonesty). Favored by most (77%). Investigation may run parallel or replace (for serious matters), Internal Affairs investigation. Provides alternative viewpoint to Internal Affairs.
If parallel, both investigations typically presented to Chief of Police. May provide greater public trust in the disciplinary process especially on serious matters. May provide greater accountability than Internal Affairs alone. Removes the perception that Internal Affairs protects police officers. Additional cost for outside investigator which may duplicate the cost of Internal Affairs. Higher cost may not be desirable by the City for cases not involving serious matters.
Citizen Board and/or Auditor/Inspector General reviews
findings of Internal Affairs or Independent Investigator. Eliminates possibility of two different investigations with two different factual findings. Favored by most (75%).
Least costly due to only one investigation and fewer training costs.
Less likely to result in issues relating to training of investigator and board.
Citizen Board and/or Auditor/Inspector
General has subpoena power
Subpoena power allows access to all relevant records. Favored by most (87%).
Overcomes resistance to provide documents.
Violation of subpoena can be enforced by court.
Violation may carry civil sanctions.
May result in confusion regarding when subpoena
appropriate.
May increase risk regarding breach of state law
confidentiality requirements.
Access to police disciplinary/personnel records
during investigations/reviews
Access to disciplinary/personnel records may or may not be necessary or helpful at the investigatory stage depending on the type of investigation.
Accessing police officer disciplinary/personnel records requires training.
Because disclosing police officer disciplinary/personnel records can result in criminal prosecution, overturn of discipline, and civil liability, could result in substantial increased costs and could have effect on citizen willingness to serve on Board
.
Powers of the Oversight Board/Auditor
-- discipline
Options:
1. Imposes discipline replacing the decisions of Chief of Police.
2. Makes recommendation concerning discipline but
Chief of Police final decision.
3. Has the power to overrule discipline imposed by Chief of Police.
4. Has the power to hire and/or fire the Chief of Police.
Board/Auditor imposes discipline replacing
the final decision of the Chief of Police
All or some disciplinary decisions may be made by Citizen Board or by the Auditor/Inspector General instead of the Chief of Police. Disfavored by most (62%).
May create department management issues if Chief of Police does not participate in discipline decisions and have a decision-making authority. Likely to result in recruitment and retention issues for both Chief and officers. High overturn of discipline where this model is in place resulting in high costs. May create increased liability related to violations of privacy and release of confidential information.
Eliminates the check and balance of City Manager – Council form of government.
Results in significant delay in implementation.
May be perceived by some as furthering oversight independence.
Board/ Auditor makes recommendation concerning
discipline, but Chief of Police makes final decision
Creates some concern with untrained Citizen Board
because of access to confidential peace officer
personnel records but can be offset by penalties.
Favored by most (63%).
Chief is not bound to follow recommendation and may
make own decision. Decision usually reportable to the
Board/Auditor.
Can include appeal by Board/Auditor to City Manager
who is accountable to Council.
Board/Auditor has power to overrule
discipline imposed by Chief of Police
Same issues as those applicable to Board/Auditor making initial decision.
Board/Auditor has power to hire and/or fire
the Chief of Police
Of the 17 cities reviewed by staff, only Oakland has this authority. About half favored (53%) and half disfavored (47%). Firing a police chief may result in additional liability as it recently did for Oakland ($1.5 million payout to fired Chief).
May present significant issues in recruiting and retaining Police Chief.
May present difficulties in Chief’s ability to supervise. Limits accountability to the City Manager and City Council for performance.
Powers of the Oversight Board/Auditor –
Citizen Complaints
Options:
1. Accepts citizen complaints directly and investigates directly.
2. Accepts citizen complaints directly but refers to the Chief of Police or others for investigation.
3. Does not accept citizen complaints at all merely refers to the Chief of Police or others for investigation and disposition.
4. Hears appeals of citizen complaints and makes
recommendations.
Accepts citizen complaints directly and
investigates
Citizens submitting written complaints directly to Citizen Board or to the Auditor/Inspector General for direct investigation may increase citizen comfort to submit a complaint. Favored by most (80%). Accepting citizen complaints directly in one form or another favored by most (93%). Citizen Board or Auditor/Inspector General initiating an investigation into the complaint may result in parallel investigations and differing outcomes. Investigation may be parallel or supplemental to police department investigation.
Costs increased due to outside investigator. May be mitigated somewhat if only used for serious complaints.
Accepts citizen complaints directly but refers to
the Chief of Police or City Manager/HR for
investigation
Board/Auditor review of recommendations and investigation increases public trust. Favored by most (87%).
May result in not meeting expectations since outcome resulting in discipline may not be discloseable in most circumstances due to state law.
Reviews could be limited to certain types of complaints.
Board/Auditor does not accept citizen complaints
at all but refers to Chief of Police or others
Least likely to increase public trust in the
complaint process.
Least likely to result in cost increase.
Board/Auditor hears appeals of citizen complaints
after investigation and makes recommendations
When citizen complaints go directly to Chief of Police, may hear citizen appeals after investigation and review thereof but before imposition of discipline, if any.
Providing an avenue for appeal of findings may increase public trust.
Powers of the Oversight Board/Auditor –
policies and training
Options:
1. Reviews and makes recommendations on new or
revised police department policies.
2. Approves all new policies before implementation.
3. Reviews/suggests new police training and makes
recommendations.
Board/Auditor reviews and makes recommendations
on new or revised police department policies
94% support Board or auditor having a role in new or revised policies. Involvement or Board/Auditor increases transparency and builds community trust.
Modest increase in costs.
Likely to result in some delay in the implementation of new and revised policies.
Citizen Board may require continual training to understand the legal implications of new or revised policies with increased costs associated therewith.
Can result in increase of standards beyond the minimum required by law.
Board/Auditor approves all new policies before
implementation
Chief of Police must submit all new or revised policies to Citizen Board or Auditor/Inspector General for approval which will likely slow down timely implementation of new or revised policies and decreasing timely accountability. Favored by most (75%).
The Citizen Board will require extensive training in order to understand the legal requirements of police policies.
Approval requirement may result in failure to comply with mandatory requirements or adding requirements directly contrary to existing law thereby increasing liability.
Can result in increase of standards beyond the minimum required by law.
Reviews police training and makes
recommendations
Adds community input into training process which helps to build community trust and opens discussion to new training ideas. Favored by most (87%). Helps to ensure that training is current and applicable to the City and the community.
Minimal additional cost.
May result in some training delay.
Powers of the Oversight Board/Auditor review of
issues of public concern and statistical reporting
Reviews matters of public concern and provides a report and recommendation to the City Council/City Manager/Chief of Police increasing public trust and transparency. Favored by most (98%).
Reviews and provides a public forum for police reporting on matters of public concern such as use of force and crime statistics increasing public trust and transparency and providing a public forum for discussion of these important issue.
Costs not significant.
Questions?
CONTACTS
Veronica A.F . Nebb
City Attorney
[email protected]
Randy J. Risner
Chief Assistant City Attorney
[email protected]
Mike Malone
City Manager
[email protected]