City of Oakland

Measure S1 Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required

Office of Inspector General

The Police Department ("OPD") currently has an inspector general who provides the Chief of Police ("Chief') with analysis of the OPD's policies and procedures. The Chief and the City Administrator supervise and oversee this inspector general.

This measure would establish a new Office of Inspector General ("OIG") outside of the OPD to investigate and review the City's handling of police misconduct. The Police Commission ("Commission") would hire the Inspector General and could remove the Inspector General for cause. The OIG would have the authority to review police misconduct-related claims, lawsuits, settlements, complaints, and investigations involving the OPD and the Community Police Review Agency ("CPRA"). Subject to limitations, this measure would allow the OIG to request

and review OPD and CPRA records, including personnel and investigative records.

Under this measure, the OIG would also audit the OPD's compliance with the tasks described in the settlement agreement in Delphine Allen, et al. , v. City of Oakland, et al., also known as the Riders case. This audit would address improvements in policing standards, the public's access to the complaint process, reporting and investigations of police misconduct, training and supervision, and identifying at-risk behaviors by police officers.

The OIG would provide written reports regarding its reviews and audits to the Commission and the City Council.

Police Commission

Currently, the Commission reviews OPD policies and practices and oversees the CPRA investigations into police misconduct. The City Attorney currently selects and oversees the Commission's attorneys.

This measure would allow the Commission to:

• require the Chief to respond to requests for information; and

• hire its own attorneys independent of the City Attorney's Office.

This measure would also allow the City Council to suspend Commission members for cause.

Community Police Review Agency

The CPRA currently receives and reviews complaints of police misconduct. It must make reasonable efforts to complete its investigations within 180 days. The City Attorney currently

selects and oversees the CPRA' s attorneys.

This measure would require the CPRA to complete its investigations within 250 days unless the CPRA Director finds that there .are exceptional circumstances requiring more time. This measure would allow the CPRA Director to inform the Commission about OPD employees who have interfered with the CPRA' s investigations.

This measure would also require the CPRA Director to issue written findings and proposed discipline within 48 hours of the CPRA' s completion of investigations into severe uses of force, sexual misconduct, or untruthfulness.

This measure would provide the CPRA with a budget to hire its own attorneys independent of the City Attorney's Office.

Currently, the Chief of Police ("Chief') is responsible for the Police Department's ("OPD' s") day-to-day operations, including investigations of police misconduct and potential discipline. The Police Commission ("Commission") reviews OPD policies and practices and oversees the Community Police Review Agency's ("CPRA's") investigations into police misconduct. In addition to the Chief, the CPRA receives and reviews complaints of police misconduct. After it completes its investigations, the CPRA submits its findings and proposed discipline to the Chief and the Commission. The City Attorney currently selects and oversees the Commission's and the CPRA.' s attorneys.

This measure would establish an Office oflnspector General ("OIG") outside of the OPD to investigate and review the City's handling of police misconduct. This measure would also change the Commission's and CPRA's powers, duties and staffing, and allow them to hire their own attorneys independent of the City Attorney. 

Office of Inspector General

The OPD currently has an inspector general who provides the Chief with analysis of OPD's policies and procedures. The Chief and the City Administrator supervise and oversee this inspector general.

This measure would establish a new OIG outside of the OPD to review police rnisconductrelated claims, lawsuits, settlements, complaints, and investigations involving the OPD and CPRA. The Commission would hire the Inspector General and could remove the Inspector General for cause. Subject to limitations, this measure would allow the OIG to request and eview OPD and CPRA records, including personnel and investigative records.

The OIG would also audit the OPD's compliance with tasks described in the settlement agreement in Allen, et al. , v. City of Oakland, et al. , also known as the Riders case. This audit would address improvements in policing standards, the public's access to the complaint process, reporting and investigations of police misconduct, training and supervision, and identifying atrisk behaviors by police officers.

The OIG would also provide written reports regarding its reviews and audits to the Commission and the City Council.

Police Commission

This measure would allow the Commission to require the Chief to requests for  information.

This measure would allow the Commission to hire its own attorneys independent of the City Attorney's Office.

This measure would allow the City Council to suspend Commission members for cause.

Community Police Review Agency

The CPRA must currently make reasonable efforts to complete its investigations within 180 days. This measure would require the CPRA to complete its investigations within 250 days unless the CPRA Director finds that there are exceptional circumstances requiring more time. This measure would allow the CPRA Director to inform the Commission about OPD employees who have interfered with the CPRA' s investigations.

This measure would require the CPRA Director to issue written findings and proposed discipline within 48 hours after the CPRA completes investigations involving severe uses of force, sexual

misconduct, or untruthfulness.

This measure would provide the CPRA with a budget to hire its own attorneys independent of the City Attorney's Office.

Summary

This Measure, if passed by more than 50 percent of the voters, amends Section 604 of the City Charter, which established the Police Commission (Commission) and the Community Police Review Agency (Agency).  The Measure will strengthen the independence of the Commission by modifying the powers, duties, and staffing of the Commission and the Agency. The Measure also amends the Charter to establish the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which will be overseen by the Commission.

Fiscal Impact

The Measure requires the City to budget two attorneys and one administrative position for the Agency. It adds the OIG to the Charter and authorizes the Commission to hire legal counsel. The Measure also requires an audit of the Commission and the Agency, every three years.

Many of these costs are currently budgeted by the City as Exhibit 1 below shows, and some additional costs will be incurred.

One Agency attorney position has been budgeted at $216,000 annually. We estimate a second attorney position will cost an additional $216,000 annually.  The City Council may suspend the budget for one attorney position in a fiscal year or a two-year budget cycle, in the event of a fiscal emergency.

The Measure also requires one administrative position to support the Commission. This position is currently budgeted at $176,000 annually.  Although the job description for this position has not been developed, we estimate the cost to remain consistent with the current budget.

The enabling ordinance, enacted in 2018, requires staffing the OIG with an Inspector General, an auditor, and a policy analyst. The City has budgeted $927,000 for these positions, but the Inspector General and auditor positions have remained vacant since the enabling ordinance was passed.

The Measure authorizes the Commission to hire or contract for legal counsel. Although these costs are not budgeted, we estimate the Commission will incur $50,000 to $100,000 annually in legal costs.

The Measure requires an audit of the Commission and the Agency every three years, at an estimated cost of $100,000 to $150,000.

Exhibit 1 identifies the cost items, the estimated annual cost of each item, the budgeted costs, the additional annual costs associated with the Measure, and cost of the triennial audit.

                                                                                            Fiscal Impact of the Measure

Cost Item                                Total Annual Cost               Current Budgeted Cost     Additional Annual Costs         Other Costs

Agency Attorney                      $432,000                            $216,000                           $216,000

Commission Attorney              $50,000 -$100,000              -0-                                    $50,000 -$100,000    

OIG                                          $927,000                            $927,000                           -0-    

Agency Administrative Staff    $176,000                           $176,000                            -0-    

Audit (triennial)                        -                                          -                                     -                                           $100,000 - $150,000

Total                                         $1,585,000 -$1,635,000      $1,319,000                        $266,000 - $316,000              $100,000 - $150,000

We estimate the Measure will add $266,000 to $316,000 in annual costs and an additional $100,000 to $150,000 every three years.

The OIG will require office space, but we are unable to estimate this cost because it is project-specific.

Future personnel costs may increase due to cost of living adjustments and future union negotiations. 

Our analysis is based on the information available at the time our analysis was developed.

Find the full text of this measure in the provided link to the City of Oakland's website on pages 7-15.