The City of SAN Diego Council President Myrtle Cole Fourth District November 14, 2018 Judge Peter C. Deddeh Presiding

The CRB requires frequent replacement of members who leave in order to maintain a membership level necessary to accomplish its assigned tasks. Response: The Mayor and City Council agree with the Grand Jury’s finding.

The operation of the CRB has been negatively impacted by the failure of the San Diego City Government to implement Measure G. Response: The Mayor and City Council partially disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding. Measure G went into effect on December 12, 2016, and the City immediately implemented the portions of the measure that did not require City Council action. This included the change in name, the review of officer involved shooting cases and in-custody death cases. A significant change made by Measure G was shifting the exclusive authority to create and establish a community review board on police practices from the City Manager (Mayor) to the Mayor and City Council. Establishing the rules and regulations for a board that reviews confidential SDPD Internal Affairs (IA) cases and makes policy recommendations to the Mayor and City Council required extensive research and public participation. A total of eight public hearings were held including at CRB Rules Committee, CRB Board, City Council Rules Committee and City Council. The result was an implementing ordinance and a first of its kind City Council approved Standard Operating Procedures governing the way the Board conducts its business. During this process, which led to unanimous approval by the City Council, only one Closed Session meeting of the Board was cancelled due to lack of quorum. There was no appreciable change in the time it took to review cases and the Board issued two policy recommendation letters to the Mayor and/or Chief of Police. The process to fully implement Measure G lead to a positive result with minimal negative impact to the work of the Board. For this reason, the Mayor and City Council partially disagree with Finding 02.

The Mayor’s Office and the City Council can resume filling CRB member and prospective member vacancies immediately. Response: The Mayor and City Council partially disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding. City Response to San Diego County Grand Jury Report Entitled “San Diego Community Review Board on Police Practices” On May 10, 2018, the Mayor issued a memo soliciting input from the City Council on appointees to the CRB. The Measure G implementing ordinance and CRB Standard Operating Procedures went into effect in August 2018 which allowed the Mayor to appoint, and the Council to confirm, appointees to the Board. In August 2018 the City Council approved 21 board members. The implementing ordinance eliminated the category of “prospective member” to streamline the appointment process and has replaced the practice with a CRB Academy. The City partially disagrees because the implementing ordinance eliminated prospective members so no prospective member vacancies remain.

The CRB is hindered in carrying out its mission because it does not receive, categorize, and track all complaints that are submitted to the Police Department and to the CRB. Response: The Mayor and City Council partially disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding. The public has multiple avenues to file a complaint against a SDPD officer. This includes by telephone, in person at any police facility, via email, or in writing to the Chief of Police, IA or the Community Review Board on Police Practices. Prior to the implementation of Measure G, the CRB only reviewed Category One complaints, which involve allegations of arrest, criminal conduct, discrimination, force, detention, search and seizure, and/or slur. Category Two complaints, which involve allegations of procedure, courtesy, conduct, and/or service, were reviewed by CRB when associated with a Category One complaint. Following the implementation of Measure G, the CRB added an audit procedure for all Category Two complaints. The City has been working to improve the tracking system between SDPD and the CRB. The CRB has been able to accomplish its mission to review complaints against members of the SDPD and the SDPD’s administration of discipline. However, the implementation of an improved joint-tracking system will enhance the CRB’s ability to assess work flow and provide important continued civilian oversight of the process. For this reason, the City partially disagrees with Finding 04.

The CRB does not adequately fulfill its responsibility to advise the Mayor and the City Council under the current reporting practices. Response: The Mayor and City Council disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding. The CRB regularly advises the Mayor and City Council through individual City Councilmember briefings, policy recommendation letters, semi-annual reports, and through the Executive Director and newly formed Office of Boards and Commissions. The CRB is also one of the few boards that keeps track of community outreach time with volunteers logging over 3000 hours in FY 2018. The volunteers on this board should be commended for their service and the thoughtful approach to representing the community City Response to San Diego County Grand Jury Report Entitled “San Diego Community Review Board on Police Practices” in the disposition of their oversight duties. The CRB’s provision of community oversight of law enforcement is always a work in progress and the CRB strives to develop and follow best practices. When appropriate, the CRB makes policy and procedural recommendations to the SDPD resulting from case review. In fiscal year 2018, several process improvements have been implemented and/or will be implemented that are inclusive of some of the initiatives identified by the CRB. They are as follows: • Place SDPD Policy and Procedures online to create more transparency for the community (completed earlier this year) • Continue to work with IA on flexibility with regard to case review and the development of a more defined complaint intake process • Continue recruitment & retention efforts in Council Districts • Explore providing additional case information, other than statistics, to the public • Continue to retain and utilize outside legal counsel • Formalize Category II Complaint Audit Process • Finalize policy and procedures regarding case review • Update bylaws to be consistent with Measure G • Develop and implement the New Citizen Training Academy for newly appointed members and existing members • Review unlawful detention and search & seizure cases For these reasons we disagree with Finding 05.

SDPD presence in closed meetings may inhibit free and open discussion by CRB members. Response: The Mayor and City Council disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding. The presence of SDPD in closed session meetings of the CRB is intended to provide a resource to the Board as they deliberate on cases. The review model that the CRB uses affords the Board all information regarding an IA case and ensures civilian oversight through the entire IA process. This constant interaction between the CRB and IA allows for the Board to advise, question, consult, criticize, or commend IA during an investigation, with the aim of producing a better investigatory process from beginning to end. Additionally, the Board has a procedure in their bylaws that allows for an “Executive Session” that the Board can call during a Closed Session meeting which does not include members of the SDPD. For these reasons the City disagrees that the presence of the SDPD may inhibit free and open discussion by CRB members. City Response to San Diego County Grand Jury Report Entitled “San Diego Community Review Board on Police Practices”

The CRB should have the authority to control attendance at closed sessions. Response: The Mayor and City Council agree with the Grand Jury’s finding. The CRB has the authority to control attendance at its closed session meetings. Per the CRB bylaws, the CRB has the authority to convene an Executive Session which is solely attended by the members of the CRB.

Many members of the community do not consider the CRB to be independent from the SDPD. Response: The Mayor and City Council disagree with the Grand Jury’s finding. Although there have been members of the community who have expressed that they do not consider the CRB to be independent from the SDPD, the Grand Jury report does not provide sufficient evidence as to the pervasiveness of this viewpoint. The function of the CRB is to provide civilian oversight over IA investigations. This civilian oversight occurs at every step of the process, from intake of complaints to investigation oversight, to findings and communication of those findings. The SDPD does not have the authority or power to intervene in the activities of the CRB as the CRB is a Charter-mandated board created by the authority of the voters. The rules and regulations necessary to the operation of the Board are enacted by the Mayor and City Council. There is therefore no authority that the SDPD wields over the CRB. It is, by its nature as a Charter created Board, independent from the SDPD and responsible only to the Mayor and City Council who appoint its members and govern its work. The CRB-IA relationship is indeed collaborative, but it is also one of real accountability. The CRB exists to ensure that the IA investigation is thorough and fair. During a team’s review of a case, the team may notice that a case needs further investigation, and/or the team may suggest a change to IA regarding a case. Changes that can be made to a case may include: • Allegations – allegations added, deleted, or wording changed • Findings – findings changed from one finding to another • Interviews – additional questions are asked of previously interviewed officers, complainants, witnesses, and experts or new interviews are conducted • Evidence – additional evidence requested and sought in a case Transparency, collaboration, and accountability are critical in citizen oversight of law enforcement. The CRB strives to be transparent while complying with federal, state, and local law. Due to its collaborative working relationship with SDPD, the CRB has been able to reach milestones that have improved the relationship between the community and law City Response to San Diego County Grand Jury Report Entitled “San Diego Community Review Board on Police Practices” enforcement, such as the agreement to transparently post policies and procedures online. The City of San Diego has an effective oversight entity which continues to be a model for citizens’ review of law enforcement. The CRB will continue to improve the process to ensure transparency, accountability and fairness.