OAKLAND'S POLICE OVERSIGHT UNDER ATTACK

Pueblo has been working to strengthen the Citizens' Police Review Board since 1995, and now that it is working better than ever to provide police accountability to the community, the Oakland Police Officers' Association is once again trying to limit its powers and effectiveness.

The OPOA, with the backing of Larry Reid and Ignacio de la Fuente, wants to prevent anyone who has filed a claim with the City about police abuse from having their case heard by the CPRB. That would mean that only very minor cases would be heard by this body, and the more serious cases involving officer misconduct (excessive force, unlawful arrest, illegal search, etc.) would be denied a hearing!!

This matter is being voted on by the full Council on May 17th. Please call your City Council person to insist that the CPRB remain strong and viable, and that the Amendment to limit the CPRB's jurisdiction be REJECTED by the Council.

Particularly important are members
Jean Quan (510 238 7004) and
Jane Brunner (510 238 7001).

____________________________________________
For contact information for the full council see the City of Oakland's:
http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/council/city-officials.html

____________________________________________
Below is a copy of PUEBLO's statement sent to the full city council and a link to a earlier analysis of the issue authored by Rashidah Grinage


To: Public Safety Committee of the Oakland City Council
Re: Agenda Item #9: ACLU/PUEBLO and the OPOA Tort Claim Grievance re: CPRB
Date: April 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fundamental Issues:

l. Both the City Attorney and the CPRB Counsel have opined that the filing of a tort claim should not be construed as ëpending litigation.í Therefore, the provision of the ordinance that precludes the CPRB from hearing cases which are the subject of law suits should not be interpreted to include those where tort claims have been filed. (The fact that the CPRB has since avoided putting on complaints that are the subject of tort claims has regrettably, in effect, validated the OPOAís erroneous legal claim, and invalidated the opinion of the City Attorney and its own Counsel Anthony Lawson.)

2. The Personnel Manager/City Administrator's disagreement with the City Attorney about whether the OPOA grievance is eligible for ëimmediate dispute resolutioní creates further legal ambiguity. What does this division mean for the governance of the City? Whose legal opinion should prevail, and who should ultimately decide between the opinion of the CAO and the CA/Personnel Department?

3. If it is determined that the City Administrator/Dept of Personnel decision to allow arbitration overrides the opinion of the City Attorney that would deny eligibility for arbitration in this grievance, the arbitration MUST BE subject to the PUEBLO/ACLU/City of Oakland settlement provisions outlined in Mr. Russoís report: specifically, the arbitration must be noticed under the Brown Act provisions, and must be open to the public (including the press.)

4. The OPOA disobeyed Chief Wordís direct order (General Order M-3) to appear and participate in the CPRB hearings. Were those officers disciplined for insubordination?

Recommendations:

l. The City Attorneyís opinion must be upheld by the City Council. Nobody is more qualified to render a legal opinion than the person elected by the residents of Oakland to serve in that capacity. Are we saying that the Administratorís Office should be regarded as having more legal expertise than the City Attorney? The Council (his Client) should abide by his legal advice.

Therefore:

The OPOAís assertion that the filing of a tort claim constitutes ëpending litigationí should be rejected; and
The OPOAís petition for immediate dispute resolution should be denied.
Council should direct the CPRB to resume the practice of scheduling cases that are the subject of tort claims, just as they have done since 1996, without challenge.

Should the Council vote to do otherwise --- ie, to amend the Ordinance to preclude complaints which are the subject of tort claims from being heard by the CPRB ----PUEBLO will have no option but to insist on a further revision of the Ordinance, as follows:

The CPRB Staff will investigate thoroughly complaints that are the subject of litigation and/or tort claims, and reach findings on the allegations ; and
If any of the allegations are sustained by the investigative staff,recommendations for discipline, along with the findings will be forwarded to the City Administrator.

In effect, every aspect of the investigative process will continue as though it were to be heard by the Board, the difference being that the Staff replaces the Board in reaching findings and recommending discipline to the City Administrator, when appropriate.


Rationale:

Without such an accompanying amendment, the CPRB hearing process will have been restricted to hearing the most minor complaints, whose allegations are least likely to be sustained for lack of corroborating evidence and or harm to the complainant. Holding public hearings on unsustainable complaints will render the hearing practice meaningless, and thus the OPOA will be able to achieve the same objective as its law suit which seeks to close the public hearings, without spending a dime! It is no secret that the OPOA has long sought to abolish the CPRB; this tort claim grievance is nothing but a red herring, and a strategic step toward that end.*

So, the question is:

Will the Council sacrifice this vital mechanism of police accountability and transparency, undermining the foundations of both community policing and open government? Will you cave into the demands of the OPOA, putting ëspecial interestí above sound public policy?

Conclusion:

The City Council must not disavow the rulings of its own Attorney, uphold the contrary view of the Personnel Department, and grant the OPOA their wish to undercut the viability of the CPRB. The Council must defend and protect the professionalism and unquestionable value of the Citizensí Police Review Board which is clearly the only viable mechanism for police accountability in Oakland.**

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In a letter written to the Council on March 5, 2003, (arguing against the three-person panel, which, in fact, has worked superbly, Bob Valladon wrote:

ìGiven the costs implicit in the (Settlement)Agreement, the comprehensive set of reforms, the presence of an unbiased and independent monitor and the involvement of the community, the CPRBís role in City government has lost all meaningÖQuite simply, there is no need for the CPRB during the ëreform eraí of the Oakland Police Department.î

** This statement is supported by the scathing 3rd-4th Quarterly report written by the IMT which found the Internal Affairs investigations of complaints woefully deficient and sub-standard.
______________________________________________
See also, an analysis of this issue by Rashidah Grinage posted at:
http://www.peopleunited.org/PUEBLO/press_articles/opoalaw.html