Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page1 of 16

1 JOHN L. BURRIS, STATE BAR NO. 69888

Law Offices of John L. Burris
2 Airport Corporate Centre
3 7677 Oakport Road, Suite 1120
Oakland, California 94621
4 Telephone: 510.839.5200
Facsimile: 510.839.3882
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
7 JAMES B. CHANIN, STATE BAR NO. 76043
JULIE M. HOUK, STATE BAR NO. 114968
8 Law Offices of James B. Chanin
3050 Shattuck Avenue
9 Berkeley, California 94705
10 Telephone: 510.848.4752
Facsimile: 510.848.5819
11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

12 (Additional Counsel on Next Page)

13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
DELPHINE ALLEN; et al; MASTER CASE NO. C-00-4599 TEH
18
Plaintiff, JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
19
vs. STATEMENT RE NON-MONETARY
20 SETTLEMENT ISSUES
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
21 Date: March 17, 2011
Defendant. Time: 10:30 a.m.
22 Courtroom 2, 17TH FLOOR
23
Honorable Thelton E. Henderson
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page2 of 16

1 GREGORY M. FOX, STATE BAR NO. 070876

Bertrand, Fox & Elliot
2 The Waterfront Building - 2749 Hyde Street
San Francisco, California 94109
3 Telephone: 415.353.0999
Facsimile: 415.353.0990
4 Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND
5 JOHN A. RUSSO, CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 129729
RANDOLPH W. HALL, CHIEF ASSIST. CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 080142
6 ROCIO V. FIERRO, SENIOR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, STATE BAR NO. 139565
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
7 CITY OF OAKLAND
One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Sixth Floor
8 Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: 510.238.3601
9 Facsimile: 510.238.6500
Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF OAKLAND
10
ROCKNE A. LUCIA, STATE BAR NO. 109349
11 Rains Lucia Stern, PC
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
12 2300 Contra Costa Boulevard, Suite 230
13 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Tel: 925-609-1699
14 Fax: 925-609-1690
Attorneys for OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page3 of 16

1 PLAINTIFFS’ CURRENT POSITION

2 This is a further status conference concerning the progress of the non-monetary settlement in
3 the “Riders Litigation” which was approved by the Court on January 22, 2003.
4 Plaintiffs’ attorneys submitted a Case Management Conference Statement for the Case
5 Management Conference that was to be held on December 9, 2010. The December 9, 2010 CMC
6 was cancelled by a court order filed on December 8, 2010. Plaintiffs’ incorporate their comments in
7 their earlier CMC Statement by reference into this Statement.
8 The Defendants’ CMC statement in December 2010 had numerous promises and statements
9 to the effect that the OPD would be in compliance with critical tasks by the end of the first quarter of
10 2011. The Defendants even stated that the “City believes that OPD will have achieved or will be
11 close to achieving substantial compliance by December 31, 2010”. (8:11-13). The court subsequently
12 pointed out that:
13 As this Court has heard so many times before, Defendants believe that they will soon
be in full compliance with the reforms to which they long ago agreed and this Court
14 long ago ordered…Such rhetoric echoes that which has been repeatedly presented to
15 the Court, including the exact same statement—that compliance will be achieved by
December 31—five years ago
16
17 The Defendants’ empty rhetoric was verified when December 31, 2010 came and went (just

18 like December 31, 2005) with no substantial compliance having been achieved by the Defendants.

19 Subsequently, the Independent Monitoring Team (IMT) issued its Fourth Quarterly Report on

20 January 27, 2011. The IMT found that OPD was in compliance with 12 (55%) of the 22 active

21 Tasks, in partial compliance with eight Tasks (36%), and not in compliance with one task. The IMT

22 deferred a compliance determination with one additional Task.

23 The OPD has not attained full compliance in vital tasks including Task 3 (IAD Integrity

24 Tests); Task 5 (Complaint Procedures for IAD); Task 20 (Span of Control for Supervisors): Task

25 24 (Use of Force Reporting Policy); Task 33 Reporting Misconduct; Task 34 Vehicle Stops, Field

26 Investigation and Detentions); Task 40 (Personal Assessment System—Purpose) and Task 41 (Use of

27 the Personnel Assessment System).

28 There were a number of developments in the first quarter of 2011 that impacted progress

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page4 of 16

1 regarding compliance issues. The Chief of Police appeared to be leaving for San Jose and then was
2 not chosen for the job there. He then indicated that he might not be committed to staying in Oakland.
3 Subsequently, he met with the Mayor and decided to continue being Chief of Police. He then
4 proposed dramatic changes in the IPAS system which would allow a “rebuttal and response” by
5 officers to comments by supervisors. Plaintiffs’ attorneys strongly disapproved of this change and
6 sent the Chief a letter which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. On March 7, 2011, the Chief rescinded
7 his order “until further notice”. Plaintiffs’ attorneys understand the Chief’s concern that OPD
8 supervisors communicate performance related observations to their personnel. However, we do not
9 believe that changes proposed by the Chief will accomplish this end and wish to be assured that the
10 proposed changes will not be implemented at a later date.
11 Defendants’ progress has been further complicated by efforts by the City Attorney to find
12 another job and by indications that the current City Manager will be replaced. On a more positive
13 note, the new Mayor appears to be willing to be more active in issues surrounding the MOU/NSA
14 and other issues related to the Oakland Police Department. It is too soon to say whether this
15 development will result in significant progress towards the OPD reaching substantial compliance.
16 It has also become apparent that there is tension between the OPD and the IMT. This became
17 evident when not a single member of the command staff (Deputy Chief and above) attended the
18 regularly scheduled exit interview of the IMT. This exit interview is held to inform the OPD of
19 significant developments that have occurred during the week when the entire IMT staff is in Oakland,
20 which only occurs on a quarterly basis.
21 The IMT has the full support of Plaintiffs’ attorneys. The current team is diligent, hard
22 working and dedicated to their task. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been surprised by the tension between
23 the OPD and the IMT given the fact that (1) the current IMT (unlike their predecessors) are all former
24 police officers with distinguished careers; (2) the OPD strongly preferred the current IMT team over
25 other candidates; and (3) the current IMT appears to enjoy good relations with the other police
26 departments with whom they are involved. Plaintiffs’ attorneys do not believe that the Oakland
27 Police Department is taking full advantage of the resources offered by the current IMT team and also
28 believe that their approach is prolonging the time when the OPD might achieve substantial

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page5 of 16

1 compliance with the MOU.

2 The OPD’s failure to achieve substantial compliance by January 24, 2011 means that
3 substantial compliance will not be attained during the period of the second extension which ends on
4 January 24, 2012 given the one year of substantial compliance required by the second extension.
5 Plaintiffs’ attorneys approached the City about a new extension in January 2011 and obtained a
6 commitment from the City that (1) the parties would use their best efforts to negotiate a new
7 agreement by the March 17, 2011 CMC, and (2) if no significant progress towards an agreement was
8 made by March 17, 2011, the parties would be prepared to set a date when any motions could be
9 brought by either Plaintiffs counsel, Defendants’ counsel, or the IMT pursuant to Paragraphs 23, 24,
10 25 and/or 35 of the current MOU. Plaintiffs’ counsel wanted this commitment so that all parties
11 would be afforded the opportunity to prepare and file such a motion while the court still had
12 jurisdiction under the current MOU.
13 While plaintiffs’ counsel have had some productive discussions with the City’s attorneys,
14 there is no agreement to extend the MOU at this time and no assurance that such an agreement will be
15 obtained. Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ proposal for a new MOU would give the Monitor more power to
16 order the OPD to redo investigations, integrity tests and other tasks until they are in compliance with
17 the MOU. The Monitor would also have a much greater presence in Oakland under the new MOU.
18 The defendants appear to be receptive to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ proposal in principle but have refused
19 to commit to any part of it. Instead, they proposed a last minute “action plan” that was received two
20 days before this Case Management Conference Statement was due. While laudable, this “plan”, like
21 any plan, will not put the OPD in compliance. Only the OPD’s actions, and not their words, can
22 accomplish these tasks.
23 Plaintiffs’ attorneys believe that only a new approach will put the OPD into compliance. The
24 Monitor needs power beyond that of issuing findings and giving advice. They need the power to
25 order compliance, not simply point out when it is not attained. If the Defendants will not agree to a
26 plan that incorporates this principle, and they continue to fail to attain compliance, Plaintiffs will be
27 forced to bring a motion pursuant to Paragraph 24 of the MOU. If this becomes necessary, plaintiffs’
28 attorneys’ motion will be based on the Defendants failure to comply with the NSA/MOU (an order of

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page6 of 16

1 this court) over an eight year period, their unwillingness to work with the current Monitoring Team,
2 and their failure to commit to a plan to attain compliance in the foreseeable future.
3 DEFENDANT CITY OF OAKLAND’S POSITION
4 Mayor Jean Quan, City Administrator Dan Lindheim and Police Chief Anthony Batts are both
5 personally committed to a plan of action that will bring OPD into full and final compliance with the
6 NSA/MOU. Based on that commitment by its policy leaders OPD has reviewed its status of
7 compliance and non-compliance and prepared the following report to the Court. There continues to
8 be progress but the pace of compliance must be accelerated. This can only be achieved if
9 compliance is the number one priority for OPD in 2011. The Mayor and Chief of Police have made
10 it the number one priority.
11 It is clear that prior efforts have not been fully successful and thus a new approach is
12 necessary by the City and OPD. In this status report the City presents a new Action Plan that has the
13 approval of Mayor Quan, City Administrator Lindheim and Chief Batts. The City has presented this
14 Action Plan to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and Chief Warshaw for review and comment. The response
15 has been approval in concept but final judgment by the Monitor will be based on the actual
16 performance of OPD implementing the Plan. Given the personal commitments of the City of
17 Oakland’s officials the City has every incentive to achieve compliance this year.
18 This Action Plan sets forth the criteria for compliance by OPD. Assuming OPD acts in
19 accordance with this Action Plan the City believes all outstanding Tasks will be in compliance by the
20 fourth quarter of 2011.The City fully understands that failure presents the risk of sanctions and the
21 possible appointment of a receiver. More important, the City also understands that its failure to date
22 has been a personal disappointment to this Court. That is reason enough for the City to now act and
23 recharge its efforts to perform as promised under past Mayors and Chiefs of Police.
24 The Fourth Quarterly Report of the Independent Monitor dated January 27, 2011, states the
25 Department is in full compliance with all Phase I requirements of the MOU. With regards to the
26 Phase 2 requirements for full compliance with the MOU, OPD is now in compliance with 12 of the
27 remaining 22 Tasks, partial compliance with 8 of the Tasks, and not in compliance with 1 Task. The
28 Monitor deferred a compliance assessment for 1 Task.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page7 of 16

1 Given the findings of the Monitor in his Fourth Quarterly Report dated January 27, 2011, the
2 City agrees with the plaintiffs’ attorneys that additional time is necessary for OPD to complete the
3 reform work it started under the NSA and the MOU.
4 The parties have been discussing an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding
5 (Amended MOU). The Amended MOU would provide for the Court to continue to exercise full
6 jurisdiction of this action for all purposes, consistent with the goal of completing full institutional
7 reform. The Amended MOU would require that the City and OPD continue the work necessary to
8 achieving full and sustained compliance with the Reform Tasks not completed under the NSA or the
9 Initial MOU. The City and OPD believe it’s now time to focus the compliance work and identify
10 those Tasks that require special attention. A number of other Tasks should be removed from active
11 monitoring so economic and human resources may be concentrated on a targeted plan of compliance.
12 For example, the Department has achieved substantial compliance for at least one year in the
13 following Tasks based on the Monitor’s Fourth Quarterly Report and the OIG’s internal audits and
14 inspections. The City and OPD have recommended to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel that these
15 Tasks be therefore removed from the list of actively monitored Tasks effective immediately.
16 Task Task Description Date Found in Date Achieved One-Year
17 Compliance Sustained Compliance
18 2 Timeliness Standards Jun 2009 (First IMT) 1st Quarterly Report – Apr 2010
19 for IAD investigations (based on Aug-Oct 2008 (based on Oct-Dec 2009 data)
20 data)
21 4.7 Complaints are May 2009 (First IMT) 1st Quarterly Report - Apr 2010
22 4.10 reported to IAD on (based on Jul 2006-Apr (based on Oct-Dec 2009 data)
23 day of receipt. 2008 data)
24 Complaints are closed
25 according to policy.
26 5.1 Complaint procedures 1st Quarterly Report - Apr 4th Quarterly Report
27 5.2 for IAD 2010 (based on July-Sep 2010 data)
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page8 of 16

1 Task Task Description Date Found in Date Achieved One-Year

2 Compliance Sustained Compliance
3 5.3 (based on Oct-Dec 2009
4 5.6 data)
5 5.12
6 5.19
7 5.20
8 5.21
9 6 Refusal to accept a 1st Quarterly Report - Apr 4th Quarterly Report
10 citizen complaint 2010 (based on July-Sep 2010 data)
11 results in discipline (based on Oct-Dec 2009
12 data)
13 18.2. Supervisors ensure 1st Quarterly Report - Apr 4th Quarterly Report
14 2 witnesses are 2010 (based on July-Sep 2010 data)
15 identified during arrest (based on Oct-Dec 2009
16 approval data)
17 20.3 Span of Control for 1st Quarterly Report - Apr 4th Quarterly Report
18 20.4 Supervisors 2010 (based on July-Sep 2010 data)
19 20.5 (based on Oct-Dec 2009
20 20.6 data)
21 24.2 Use of Force reporting Jan 2010 (First IMT) 4th Quarterly Report
22 24.3 (based on Data Nov 2007- (based on July-Sep 2010 data)
23 24.4 April 2009)
24 24.5
25 24.6
26 24.7
27 24.8
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page9 of 16

1 Task Task Description Date Found in Date Achieved One-Year

2 Compliance Sustained Compliance
3 30.2 Executive Force 1st Quarterly Report - April 4th Quarterly Report
4 30.3 Review Boards (Level 2010 (based on July-Sep 2010 data)
5 1 Force) (based on Oct-Dec 2009
6 data)
7 35 Use of Force Reports Jan 2010 (First IMT) 2nd Quarterly Report – Aug 2010
8 – Witness (based on Nov 2007 – (based on Jan-Mar 2010 data)
9 Identification April 2009 data)
10 37 Internal Investigations 1st Quarterly Report - April 4th Quarterly Report
11 – Retaliation Against 2010 (based on July-Sep 2010 data)
12 Witnesses (based on Oct-Dec 2009
13 data)
14 43.1. Academy and In- Jul 2009 (First IMT) – 3rd Quarterly Report – Oct 2010
15 1 Service Training Conditional Compliance (based on Apr-Jun 2010 data)
16
17
18 The following Tasks are now in-compliance based on the Monitor’s Quarterly Reports and the
19 OIG audits and inspections. OPD expects these tasks will show sustained practice compliance for the
20 necessary one year by December 31, 2011, and thus it has informed plaintiffs’ counsel that at that
21 time these tasks should be removed from the list of tasks subject to active monitoring under the MOU
22 or any amended MOU.
23 Task Task Description Date Found in Date One-Year Sustained
24 Compliance Compliance Will Be Achieved
25 5.4 Complaint information 4th Quarterly Report 7th Quarterly Report
26 is documented and (based on July-Sep 2010 (based on Apr-Jun 2011 data)
27 provided to IAD data)
28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page10 of 16

1 Task Task Description Date Found in Date One-Year Sustained

2 Compliance Compliance Will Be Achieved
3 5.5 Commander notified This Task was consistently (July – September 2011 data)
4 of complaint in compliance until 4th Qtr.
5 OPD has implemented
6 corrective measures and
7 anticipates compliance in
8 the 8th Report
9 5.17 Investigative notes are 4th Quarterly Report 7th Quarterly Report
10 permanently (based on July-Sep 2010 (based on Apr-Jun 2011 data)
11 maintained in IAD data)
12 case files
13 7.3 OPD accepts and 2nd Quarterly Report – Aug 5th Quarterly Report
14 investigates 2010 (based on Oct-Dec 2010 data)
15 anonymous (based on Jan-Mar 2010
16 complaints data)
17 16 Supporting the IAD 2nd Quarterly Report – Aug 5th Quarterly Report
18 process 2010 (based on Oct-Dec 2010 data)
19 (based on Jan-Mar 2010
20 data)
21 20.1 Sufficient sergeants 3rd Quarterly Report – Oct 6th Quarterly Report
22 assigned to patrol to 2010 (based on Jan-Mar 2011 data)
23 allow for 1:8 ratio (based on Apr-Jun 2010
24 data)
25 24.1 Notification of 2nd Quarterly Report – Aug 5th Quarterly Report
26 supervisor as soon as 2010 (based on Oct-Dec 2010 data)
27 possible when force (based on Jan-Mar 2010
28

10

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page11 of 16

1 Task Task Description Date Found in Date One-Year Sustained

2 Compliance Compliance Will Be Achieved
3 used data)
4 25 Use of Force 3rd Quarterly Report – Oct 6th Quarterly Report
5 investigations and 2010 (based on Jan-Mar 2011 data)
6 report responsibilities (based on Apr-Jun 2010
7 data)
8 26.1 Force Review Board 4th Quarterly Report 7th Quarterly Report
9 Timelines (based on July-Sep 2010 (based on Apr-Jun 2011 data)
10 data)
11 26.2 Force Review Boards 3rd Quarterly Report – Oct 6th Quarterly Report
12 26.3 (Level 2 Force) 2010 (based on Jan-Mar 2011 data)
13 26.4 (based on Apr-Jun 2010
14 26.5 data)
15 26.6
16 30.1 Executive Force 4th Quarterly Report 7th Quarterly Report
17 Review Board (based on July-Sep 2010 (based on Apr-Jun 2011 data)
18 Timelines data)
19 33.3 Confidentially 4th Quarterly Report 7th Quarterly Report
20 reported misconduct (based on July-Sep 2010 (based on Apr-Jun 2011 data)
21 data)
22 45.4 Consistency of 2nd Quarterly Report – Aug 5th Quarterly Report
23 Discipline 2010 (based on Oct-Dec 2010 data)
24 (based on Jan-Mar 2010
25 data)
26
27 The City has informed plaintiffs’ counsel that it agrees that the City needs more time to meet
28 the substantive requirements on certain reform tasks and to demonstrate a one year compliance period
11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page12 of 16

1 on others (hereinafter, “Remaining Reform Tasks”). Accordingly, the City agrees an extension of
2 the MOU is necessary to continue the work not completed under the NSA or Initial MOU on these
3 Remaining Reform Tasks:
4 • Task 3 – Integrity Testing
• Tasks 5.15, 5.16 and 5.18 – Quality of IA Investigations
5 • Task 20.2 – Consistency of Supervision
• Task 33.1 and 33.2 – Reporting Misconduct
6 • Task 34 – Stop Data
• Task 40 (and 24.9) and 41 – Personnel Assessment System
7 • Task 45 – Consistency of Discipline
• Task 42 – Field Training Program
8
9 Note: With regards to Task 42 the Monitor has rendered a finding of “Deferred” for the last
10 four quarterly reports. All Field Training Officers are decertified and there are no immediate
11 plans to employ new officers due to the City’s budget deficit. The status of this task should
12 therefore be inactive and removed from the MOU or any Amended MOU.
13 With the recent mayoral election has come new leadership for the City of Oakland. Mayor
14 Jean Quan is personally committed to OPD achieving full compliance on all MOU Tasks. See
15 Exhibit A Letter dated March 8, 2011 from Mayor Jean Quan to the Judge Henderson.
16 Consistent with the Mayor’s policy on compliance, Chief Anthony Batts has personally
17 directed his executive team that compliance is now the number one priority for OPD. See Exhibit B,
18 Letter dated March 10, 2011 from Chief of Police Anthony Batts to Judge Henderson and Attachment
19 thereto (Action Plan.). Pursuant to his direction, OIG, in consultation with the executive team, has
20 prepared a specific Action Plan for attaining compliance on the Remaining Reform Tasks. The
21 Chief of Police has approved the Action Plan. The City Administrator has approved the Action Plan.
22 The Mayor has approved the Action Plan. The Action Plan has been submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel
23 and the Monitor for review, comment, and approval as to form. It is the City’s expectation that the
24 Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel will approve as to form the Action Plan so the City and OPD may
25 begin implementation.
26 Approval of the Action Plan by all Parties and the Monitor is critical because the Action Plan
27 will require a significant allocation of new resources and the re-allocation of existing resources
28 within OPD for implementation at a time when the City is facing budget deficits and staff reductions.
12

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page13 of 16

1 Implementation of the Action Plan will divert resources from other law enforcement work OPD is
2 currently performing. Thus the City and OPD need clear agreement now by all concerned on the
3 Action Plan to avoid future misunderstandings, changes in criteria and delays. The roadmap to
4 success must be clear and definite; there is no longer time to leave any element of the Action Plan
5 uncertain or unclear.
6 If the Monitor disagrees with some of the elements of the Action Plan; or has additional
7 suggestions on how compliance must be achieved, then the City requests that the Monitor state in
8 writing what specific or general actions are necessary for compliance for the Remaining Reform
9 Tasks. The City and OPD will review the Monitor’s compliance recommendations and will adopt
10 them assuming they comport with the economic and human resources available to OPD. If the City
11 and OPD disagree with a recommendation then it will meet and confer with the Monitor and
12 plaintiffs’ counsel on a reasonable resolution. If the parties and the Monitor are unable to agree on a
13 reasonable resolution then either party and/or the Monitor may motion the court for a decision
14 resolving the dispute so the Action Plan may be approved and implemented forthwith.
15 The initial meet and confer between the parties and the Monitor has been promising.
16 However the parties and the Monitor have not had a face to face meeting to reach agreement on the
17 Action Plan.. The parties and the Monitor have therefore agreed to meet in person after the status
18 conference on March 17 in court to complete the meet and confer on the Action Plan and get a
19 consensus agreement that same day. If the parties need the guidance of the Court they will ask for it
20 since we will all be present in court. The City is optimistic that this meeting will lead to an approved
21 Action Plan so that it can begin to implement it without further delay.
22 Once the Action Plan has been approved and implemented the City and OPD request that the
23 Monitor review each Task for compliance. OPD will also meet and confer with the plaintiffs’
24 counsel and the Monitor on revising the current schedule of weekly reports by OPD executive staff to
25 the Monitor on compliance. OPD believes the reports serve a useful purpose but the purpose of the
26 reports would be better served if they were done on a monthly basis to better show progress and the
27 identification and resolution of identified problems. If deficiencies are observed by the Monitor
28 regarding OPD’s actions then it’s further requested that the Monitor give OPD specific

13

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page14 of 16

1 recommendations and reasonable time to fix the deficiencies before issuing a formal finding of non-
2 compliance or partial compliance. If OPD is unable to resolve the problem the Monitor may then
3 proceed to issue a finding of non-compliance. If a dispute continues regarding the finding then either
4 party or the Monitor may motion the Court for a decision resolving the dispute.
5 Given the leadership and commitment of the Mayor and Chief of Police the City believes its
6 new Action Plan, once modified and/or approved by the Monitor, will lead to full substantial
7 compliance and one year practice compliance within the year of 2012. The City has agreed with
8 plaintiffs’ attorneys that if the meet and confer process on an extension does not result in a stipulated
9 application for an Amended Memorandum of Understanding by June 1, 2011 than either party may
10 motion the court for a hearing to resolve the matter with a hearing date of Monday September 12,
11 2011.
12 POSITION OF INTERVENOR: OAKLAND POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
13 The Oakland Police Officers’ Association (“OPOA,” “intervener”) continues to engage all
14 parties in an effort to fully implement the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (“NSA”). To that end,
15 since the last CMC, the OPOA has attended numerous formal and informal meetings with the IMT,
16 Department representatives, and City personnel in order to facilitate NSA compliance.
17 There have been a number of issues which have surfaced since the last CMC which have
18 generated discussion and debate. Aside from the OPOA’s stated concern over “civilianization” of the
19 Internal Affairs function at OPD, which is specifically set forth in correspondence from this office to
20 City Administrator Dan Lindheim dated February 16, 2011, none have appeared to be major
21 obstacles for further NSA compliance. The OPOA has had a number of discussions with the mayor
22 concerning civilianization. At this point in time, the OPOA is not aware of any formal proposals or
23 efforts to civilianize Internal Affairs. The OPOA’s stated concerns rest in part on the fact that a
24 major restructuring and overhaul of the Internal Affairs process will no doubt lead to further delays in
25 NSA implementation and compliance.
26 As of the writing of this Case Management Conference Statement, the OPOA has not been
27 advised by any of the parties, the IMT, or any City representatives that the OPOA has been a
28 hindrance or impediment to NSA compliance. The OPOA has actively sought to be engaged in the

14

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page15 of 16

1 process of compliance and will continue to do so.

2 Finally, the OPOA is aware of the fact that other issues have been debated over the last
3 several months, and it is unclear as to whether any of those issues will cause a delay in the
4 implementation of the NSA.
5
6 Dated: March 10, 2011
7 /s/
JOHN L. BURRIS
8
Attorney for Plaintiffs
9
10 Dated: March 10, 2011

11 /s/
JAMES B. CHANIN
12 Attorney for Plaintiffs
13
14 Dated: March 10, 2011
15 /s/
16 GREGORY M. FOX
Attorney for the Defendant
17
18
Dated: March 10, 2011
19
/s/
20
Rocio V. Fierro
21 Attorney for the Defendant
22 Dated: March 10, 2011

23 /s/
Rockne A. Lucia Jr.
24 Attorney for the OPOA
25
26
27
28

15

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

 Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593 Filed03/10/11 Page16 of 16

1 ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
2
I hereby attest that I have received telephonic or email authorization for any signatures
3
indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) within this E-filed document.
4
5
Dated: March 10, 2011 /s/
6 GREGORY M. FOX

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

16

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page1 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page2 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page3 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page4 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page5 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page6 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page7 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page8 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page9 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page10 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page11 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page12 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page13 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page14 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page15 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page16 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page17 of 18
Case3:00-cv-04599-TEH Document593-1 Filed03/10/11 Page18 of 18