Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
November 3, 2020 — California General Election
Invest in unbiased information

With your support, we can reach and inform more voters.

Donate now to spread the word.

Local

City of Oakland
Measure S1 Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required

To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Shall Oakland's City Charter be amended to: (1) create an Office of Inspector General to review and report on the Police Department's and the Community Police Review Agency's ("CPRA's") practices regarding police misconduct, and allow the Police Commission ("Commission") to hire and remove the Inspector General; and (2) change the Commission's and the CPRA's powers and duties, and allow the Commission and the CPRA to hire their own attorneys independent of the City Attorney?

What is this proposal?

Measure Details — Official information about this measure

Summary

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 forcesexual misconduct, or untruthfulness.

 

 

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

Impartial analysis / Proposal

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 processreporting 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.

 

Financial effect

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.

 

Exhibit 1

                                                                                            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.

 

Published Arguments — Arguments for and against the ballot measure

Arguments FOR

Argument in Favor of Measure Amending Police Commission

 

Oakland residents want effective and independent oversight of the Oakland Police Department, which is essential to accountability, community safety and public trust. Serious police misconduct impedes effective community safety. We need improved oversight and handling of misconduct cases, and effective policy-making in order to better protect our

community for everyone.

 

OPD has been under federal oversight for way too long and needs to get its house in order and make more progress by enabling independent, effective oversight. A broad community coalition has worked together, with councilmembers and experts, to bring forward Measure S1 to help protect our community. It will ensure:

• Effective monitoring, analysis and implementation with an independent Inspector General;

• The ability to receive independent unbiased legal advice;

• A pathway away from federal oversight of the OPD, coupled with long-term authority to research and propose policies to ensure true constitutional policing;

• Necessary access to all relevant information related to misconduct.

 

The Police Commission has done important work, instituting vital policies regarding stops and searches and use of force; and thus, improving the safety and well-being of our community. And more is needed. The Inspector General cannot be effective if the position is put under the same chain of command as OPD. It is vital that the Commission have independent access to legal counsel and a well-respected civilian Inspector General.

 

For improvements and accountability at OPD, and effectiveness of the Police Commission, we respectfully ask for your YES vote on Measure S1.

 

When voting this year, please return your ballot early if mailing, and consider bringing it to an official ballot drop spot.

 

Reverend Dr. George Cummings

Director, Faith in Action East Bay

Rebecca Kaplan,

City Councilmember At-Large

Mariano Contreras

Latino Task Force

Dan Kalb

Oakland City Councilmember

Regina Jackson

Chair, Police Commission

Read the proposed legislation

Proposed legislation

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

Who gave money?

To see who is funding ballot measures in Oakland, visit Open Disclosure Oakland.

Use tabs to select your choice. Use return to create a choice. You can access your choices by navigating to 'My Choices'.

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION