CITY OF SEATTLE
ORDINANCE __________________
COUNCIL BILL ___________________
title
AN ORDINANCE relating to civilian and community oversight of the police; adding a new Chapter 3.29 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); recodifying Subchapters VII, VIII, and IX of Chapter 3.28 of the SMC as Subchapters I, II, and III of Chapter 3.29; amending or repealing sections in Chapters 3.28, 4.08, and 14.12 of the SMC; and concerning Ordinance 118482.
body
WHEREAS, The City of Seattle has a long history of police reform, and the recommendations of blue ribbon panels dating back to the 1990s resulted in the creation of the current police oversight structure which includes the Office of Professional Accountability (OPA), the OPA Auditor, and the OPA Review Board; and
WHEREAS, The City of Seattle recognizes the need to have effective, constitutional policing and a police department that has the trust, respect, and support of the community; and
WHEREAS, having constitutional policing requires a strong oversight system that takes into account the voice and values of the community that is being policed; and
WHEREAS, an essential element of a strong oversight system is a disciplinary system that prevents misconduct by engaging in thorough and timely civilian-led investigations that engender public trust and confidence; and
WHEREAS, a disciplinary system, with the Chief as the final arbiter, that metes out fair, impartial, and swift discipline commensurate to the wrongdoing will reduce misconduct and ensure and maintain a culture of accountability and adherence to policy and constitutional law; and
WHEREAS, it is The City of Seattle’s intent to ensure by law a comprehensive and sustainable independent oversight system that guarantees a police department that has the trust and confidence of the community and respects the constitutional rights of the people of Seattle; and
WHEREAS, policing that aligns with Seattle community values, needs, and expectations has been an ongoing goal as highlighted by events involving allegations of unconstitutional use of force and biased policing, including the death of First Nations woodcarver John T. Williams and other episodes that led community groups in 2010 to call for the federal investigation that ensued into the policing practices of the Seattle Police Department (SPD); and
WHEREAS, The City of Seattle has been operating under a Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with the United States Department of Justice since 2012, but also separately recognizes the need to have effective, constitutional policing and a police department that retains the trust, respect, and support of the community; and
WHEREAS, beginning in January 2014, the Community Police Commission reviewed and endorsed recommendations for improvements to the accountability system previously issued by the OPA Auditor and issued additional recommendations for broadening the scope and strengthening the independence and sustainability of the civilian-led system, all of which served as the foundation of the current legislation; and
WHEREAS, Councilmember M. Lorena González as Chair of the Gender Equity, Safe Communities, and New Americans Committee in early 2017 led a series of study missions accompanied by Committee Vice-Chair Tim Burgess, the Community Police Commission, Mayor’s Office, and City Council staff to the cities of New York, Los Angeles, and New Orleans, to learn about their inspector general systems and community roles in and perspectives about police oversight systems; and
WHEREAS, The City of Seattle’s proposed accountability system with a civilian-led misconduct investigations unit, an independent police inspector general, and a strong community-based oversight commission, has many strengths other models of oversight do not, and addresses systemic weaknesses with which other systems have struggled; and
WHEREAS, Charter Amendment 19, providing for geographic representation based on seven neighborhood districts, was approved by nearly 66 percent of Seattle voters in the fall of 2013 to ensure that Seattle, as a growing major metropolitan area, has a governance structure that reflects a commitment to geographic inclusion and that all areas of the city have an identifiable representative; and
WHEREAS, district representation is a fundamental feature of representative democracy, and has been a basic building block of local, state and national governments throughout the United States including all 50 state legislatures and, including the U.S. House of Representatives for over 200 years; and
WHEREAS, most large U.S. cities like Seattle which is 143 square miles and home to over 680,000 residents are represented by districts to ensure geographic representation to recognize the right of all residents to have a voice in their governance; and
WHEREAS, the Community Police Commission was created by federal consent decree in 2012 with the intent to show geographic representation as a body that is “representative of the many and diverse communities in Seattle, including members from each precinct of the city…” (Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and The City of Seattle, dated July 27, 2012); and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of adequate, orderly, geographically-based representation to ensure the strength of our democracy including the most recent Evenwel et al v. Abbott, Governor of Texas, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), with the opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which upheld the one-person, one-vote principle ensuring jurisdictions must design districts based on total population and that all people regardless of current voting registration status are entitled to equal representation; and
WHEREAS, a Community Police Commission charged with significant oversight function and one that is intended to serve as a community voice for the entire City should include voices from all corners of the City selected in an orderly manner so that no geographic area is left out and that all parts of the City share responsibility for their governance; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council (“Council”) makes the following findings of fact and declarations:
A. The history of police reform efforts in Seattle dates back decades, including, for example, 1988 grant-funded work by the Seattle Police Department (SPD) to implement community policing that was held up as a model partnership between the community and police by the National Institute of Justice in 1992.
B. The City of Seattle began civilian police oversight in 1992 by providing for a civilian auditor with legal expertise to independently review police department internal investigations. Adopting the 1999 recommendations of the Citizens’ Review Panel, The City of Seattle extended civilian oversight in 2002 by creating a three-part civilian oversight system. SPD’s Internal Investigations Unit was replaced by a civilian-led OPA, the civilian auditor became the OPA Auditor, responsible for reviewing OPA investigations, and a three member OPA Review Board was created to review the quality of the complaint-handling process, advise The City of Seattle on police department policies and practices, and conduct public outreach.
C. In 2007, The City of Seattle convened two police accountability review panels and implemented many of their recommendations to further strengthen civilian police oversight by clarifying the roles of the OPA Director and the OPA Auditor, expanding the OPA Auditor’s roles, and increasing OPA Review Board membership to seven.
D. On December 2, 2010, 35 civil rights and community-based organizations requested that the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice investigate whether SPD had engaged in a pattern or practice of violations of civil rights by using unnecessary and excessive force against residents, citing a series of incidents over the previous 18 months, particularly against persons of color, including a death from a police shooting.
E. In 2011, the Department of Justice conducted an investigation of SPD and found a pattern and practice of excessive force warranting federal intervention. Based on its findings, DOJ initiated a lawsuit against The City of Seattle, United States of America v. City of Seattle, 12 Civ. 1282 (JLR), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (“federal court”).
F. The federal court found that The City of Seattle and SPD fully cooperated with the investigation (Document 5, Stipulation and Joint Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, filed August 17, 2012).
G. The City of Seattle entered into a Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (collectively, “consent decree”) with the Department of Justice which the federal court approved on September 21, 2012, that included federal court oversight to ensure The City of Seattle implemented required improvements and corrections to SPD policies, practices, training, and systems.
H. From 2014 to 2016, multiple police-involved deaths of African Americans and others across the nation received significant national attention and raised local community concerns to a new level. In a national climate of tense relations between the public and police, under the leadership of Mayor Edward B. Murray, the Seattle City Council, and stakeholders such as the City Attorney’s Office, CPC, and the OPA Auditor, the importance of building an effective police oversight system with a sustainable community role has taken on new urgency.
I. President Obama’s White House Task Force on 21st Century Policing released a comprehensive report in May 2015 that identified best practices and included recommendations on how policing practices can promote crime reduction while building public trust. In January, 2016, Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole joined First Lady Michelle Obama during President Obama’s final State of the Union address, chosen for what the White House described as The City of Seattle’s nationally recognized efforts to align SPD policies with current best practices and improve SPD ties with our community.
J. As stated in The City’s Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ, “effective and constitutional policing requires a partnership between the police department, its officers, community members, and public officials . . . [O]ngoing community input into the development of reforms, the establishment of police priorities, and mechanisms to promote confidence in SPD will strengthen SPD and facilitate police/community relationships necessary to promote public safety.”
K. The goals of this ordinance are to institute a comprehensive and lasting police oversight system that ensures that police services are delivered to the people of Seattle in a manner that fully complies with the Constitution and laws of the United States and State of Washington, effectively ensures public and officer safety, and promotes public confidence in SPD and the services that it delivers. To accomplish these goals, The City of Seattle has committed to strengthen elements of Seattle’s existing system including building a strong community-based entity with authority to review and weigh in on police policies and assess the responsiveness of SPD, The City of Seattle, and accountability system professionals to community concerns, which has been missing in previous reform efforts.
L. On April 6, 2017, the federal Monitor in his ninth systemic assessment on use of force, remarked that the department has “changed in fundamental ways” and that officers used force that was consistent with SPD policy 99.27 percent of the time from September 2015 through October 2016. In that report, the Monitor noted, “Chief Kathleen O’Toole, and her command staff, have worked tirelessly since she became chief in June 2014 to implement comprehensively the force related provisions of the Consent Decree.” The Monitor went on to state, “…the credit for this major milestone goes first and foremost to the men and women of the
Seattle Police Department. Their ability to meaningfully and effectively implement the use of force policies and apply the related use of force training on the streets of Seattle - while facing the unpredictable challenges that are part and parcel of law enforcement - is worthy of substantial praise….[P]olice officers in Seattle are frequently tasked with addressing individuals and situations that the rest of the social service fabric has failed, left out, or left behind. Their ability to innovate, change approaches, and change the course of the Department while addressing these fundamental duties is commended.”
M. The police have extraordinary enforcement powers to maintain the public peace, and the protective measures put into place to ensure that their actions remain constitutional and in the public interest must be correspondingly strong.
N. Having a collaborative relationship between all police oversight entities, with specific roles and responsibilities for each, strengthens police accountability in a manner that is not possible for each entity alone.
O. The provisions of this ordinance are necessary to institute a lasting police oversight system that ensures that police services are delivered to the people of Seattle in a manner that fully complies with the United States Constitution, the Washington State Constitution, and laws of the United States, State of Washington, and City of Seattle; effectively ensures public and officer safety; and promotes public confidence in SPD and the services that it delivers.
Section 2. Section 3.28.805 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is repealed:
((3.28.805 Definitions.
A. “OPA complaint” refers to a complaint assigned to the Office of Professional Accountability for investigation.
B. “OPA investigation” and “complaint investigation” refer to an investigation of an OPA complaint conducted by the Office of Professional Accountability.))
Section 3. Section 3.28.810 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is repealed:
((3.28.810 Office of Professional Accountability - Director.
The Director of the OPA is responsible for the investigative and administrative functions of the police disciplinary process and shall manage the overall investigative, training, and administrative functions of the OPA. The OPA Director shall:
A. Be a civilian with legal, investigative, or prosecutorial experience;
B. Be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council;
C. Be appointed for a three year term, with the possibility of being reappointed to a second or third three year term, for a maximum of nine years.
D. Report directly to the Chief of Police;
E. Be paid at a salary consistent with the level of responsibility established in this section and as provided by ordinance;
F. Direct the OPA investigative process, classify all complaints, certify in writing the completion and recommended findings of all OPA cases, and convey these recommendations to the Chief of Police, who is the final Police Department decision maker in disciplinary actions;
G. Attend employee due process hearings with the Chief of Police concerning possible employee discipline resulting from OPA recommendations;
H. Provide analysis and recommendations to the Chief of Police regarding disciplinary action in order to promote consistency of discipline;
I. Provide recommendations to the Chief of Police, Mayor and City Council regarding the resources of the OPA, including but not limited to budget and staffing; and
J. Provide recommendations to the Chief of Police, Major and City Council regarding Police Department policies and practices related to police accountability and professional conduct.))
Section 4. Section 3.28.815 of the Seattle Municipal Code, enacted by Ordinance 120728, is repealed:
((3.28.815 OPA Deputy Director.
The Chief of Police shall, with a recommendation from the OPA Director, appoint the OPA Deputy Director from among the sworn Captain ranks of the Seattle Police Department. The OPA Deputy Director, as overseen by the Director, shall oversee the day-to-day management of the OPA investigative process, employing the best and most effective OPA investigations practices.))
Section 5. Section 3.28.820 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 120728, is repealed:
((3.28.820 OPA procedures manual.
The Police Department shall produce an OPA procedures manual, which shall include instructions for filing a complaint with OPA, and which shall be made available to members of the public, as well as Police Department personnel.))
Section 6. Section 3.28.905 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is repealed:
((3.28.905 Appointment of the OPA Review Board.
A. The City Council shall appoint the seven members of the OPA Review Board. The first term of any member shall be no longer than two years. Members may be reappointed to up to three subsequent two year terms; no individual may serve more than four terms. Members shall serve staggered terms such that no more than four members’ terms shall expire in any year. Should any member take office at any time after commencement of a regular term, the expiration of that term shall remain unaffected. The City Council may remove a member from office for cause by filing a statement of reasons for removal. Members shall be compensated as provided by ordinance. The compensation of members and other resources necessary for the OPA Review Board shall be appropriated in the budget of the Legislative Department.
B. Each OPA Review Board member shall at the time of appointment and throughout his or her term:
1. Have a reputation for integrity and professionalism, as well as the ability to maintain a high standard of integrity in the office;
2. Have a commitment to and knowledge of the need for and responsibilities of law enforcement, as well as the need to protect constitutional rights of all affected parties;
3. Have a commitment to the statement of purpose and policies in this chapter;
4. Have a history of demonstrated leadership experience and ability;
5. Have the potential for gaining the respect of complainants, departmental personnel, and the citizens of this City;
6. Be able to work effectively with the City Council, departmental personnel, public agencies, private organizations, and citizens;
7. Be able to work with diverse groups and individuals, as shown by previous experience;
8. Be able to maintain fairness and objectivity in an environment where controversy is common.
9. Be a high school graduate or recipient of a general equivalency diploma;
10. Be a United States citizen or lawfully authorized for employment in the United States;
11. Be at least 21 years of age;
12. Not have been convicted of or plead guilty to a felony, crime of violence, or offense involving moral turpitude, or any plea thereto; and
13. Be able to comply with the appearance of fairness doctrine.
In addition, at any given time, at least one member of the OPA Review Board shall be a graduate of an accredited law school and a member in good standing of the Washington State Bar Association; at least one other member shall have significant experience in community involvement, organizing and outreach; at least one other member shall have at least five years experience as a sworn law enforcement officer; and at least one other member shall have at least five years experience in a field or fields related to law enforcement or criminal justice.
C. The Chief of Police shall cause a thorough background check of nominees for OPA Review Board identified by the Council and shall report the results to the Council.
D. The OPA Review Board shall annually elect one of its members to be the Chair of the OPA Review Board. In the event that all members of the Review Board are newly appointed, the City Council may appoint an interim Chair until the Review Board can conduct the election.))
Section 7. Section 3.28.910 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is repealed:
((3.28.910 OPA Review Board Responsibility.
A. The OPA Review Board shall review the OPA’s complaint handling process. Based on its review of OPA complaint forms and files on closed OPA complaints, and on the Review Board’s public outreach and research on best practices, the Review Board shall assess the apparent fairness, thoroughness and timeliness of the OPA complaint handling process as a whole. The Review Board shall not comment on the discipline of any officer or lack thereof, or on the liability of anyone involved in a specific complaint. The Review Board shall present its assessments of the OPA’s complaint handling process in semiannual reports to the City. These reports shall include a general description of the OPA files and records reviewed.
B. The OPA Review Board shall organize and conduct public outreach on behalf of itself, the OPA and the OPA Auditor. The Review Board shall solicit public comments on the fairness, thoroughness and timeliness of the OPA complaint handling process and on the professional conduct of Seattle police officers. The Review Board shall invite the OPA, OPA Auditor and Police Department to participate in its outreach efforts.
C. The OPA Review Board shall advise the City on Police Department policies and practices related to police accountability and professional conduct. The Review Board shall base its recommendations on its review of the OPA complaint handling process and of the OPA Director’s and OPA Auditor’s reports, on any public comments it has received, and on its own research on national trends and best practices in police accountability and civilian oversight of law enforcement. The Review Board shall present its recommendations in its semiannual reports.
D. The OPA Review Board shall recommend to the OPA Auditor topics for the Auditor’s review of Police Department policies and practices related to police accountability and professional conduct.
E. The OPA Review Board shall submit its semiannual reports to the City Council, Mayor, Chief of Police, City Attorney and City Clerk.))
Section 8. Section 3.28.920 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122126, is renumbered, recodified in Subchapter III of Chapter 3.29, and amended as follows:
((3.28.920))3.29.380 Community Police Commission - Access to and confidentiality of files and records((.))
A. For the purpose of reviewing ((the OPA complaint handling process, the OPA Review Board)) closed OPA investigations to identify opportunities for systemic improvements, CPC and the Office of the CPC shall have access to unredacted complaint forms of all OPA complaints and unredacted files of all closed OPA investigations, except for information(( the)) OPA would be required to withhold from persons not members of criminal justice agencies pursuant to the Criminal Records Privacy Act, (((Chapter))) chapter 10.97 RCW(())), as it now exists and may hereafter be amended. ((The OPA Review Board shall have access to summary information necessary for its reporting obligations as set forth in Section 3.28.910 of this chapter.))
B. ((In discharging their responsibilities, OPA Review Board members))
1. Consistent with federal and state law, including the Criminal Records Privacy Act, chapter 10.97 RCW, as well as relevant collective bargaining agreements, CPC Commissioners and staff shall protect ((the confidentiality of Department))from disclosure confidential, non-public OPA and SPD files and records to which ((they have))CPC has been provided access. ((OPA Review Board members))
2. CPC Commissioners and staff shall not disclose information contained in ((these Department files and records))closed OPA files that would not be available to the public, except in the reports required by ordinance. ((OPA Review Board))CPC reports shall not contain identifying information about anyone involved in an OPA complaint or OPA investigation other than ((the)) OPA ((Director))investigative personnel. “Identifying information” is defined as name, badge number, physical description, address, telephone number, email address, photographs or drawings, or any other unique identifying numbers such as driver’s license, employee, vehicle or social security numbers.
3. In the event of a public disclosure request pursuant to the Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17.250 et seq.), ((the OPA Review Board))CPC shall not disclose any information contained in OPA complaint forms or in files on closed OPA investigations, and shall transmit all such requests to the OPA Director for response.
((C.))4. Indemnification and defense of ((OPA Review Board members))CPC is governed by Chapter 4.64(( SMC)). It is outside the scope of ((OPA Review Board members’ assignments))CPC’s duties and authority to publicly disclose ((information in Department))any confidential, non-public SPD files and records(( other than as allowed in subsection B of this section)) to which CPC has access.
C. CPC shall make every reasonable effort to maintain the security of files belonging to other City departments and offices while in CPC’s possession.
D. Upon completion of review, CPC shall return to the City department or office all original files, reports, and records to which CPC has been provided access.
Section 9. A new Chapter 3.29 is added to the Seattle Municipal Code as follows:
Chapter 3.29 CIVILIAN AND COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT OF POLICE
3.29.010 Purpose - Enhancing and sustaining effective police oversight
A. The police are granted extraordinary power to maintain the public peace, including the power of arrest and statutory authority under RCW 9A.16.040 to use deadly force in the performance of their duties under specific circumstances. Public trust in the appropriate use of those powers is bolstered by having a police oversight system that reflects community input and values.
It is The City of Seattle’s intent to ensure by law a comprehensive and sustainable approach to independent oversight of the Seattle Police Department (SPD) that enhances the trust and confidence of the community, and that builds an effective police department that respects the civil and constitutional rights of the people of Seattle. The purpose of this Chapter 3.29 is to provide the authority necessary for that oversight to be as effective as possible.
B. Oversight of SPD shall be comprised of an Office of Police Accountability (OPA) to help ensure the actions of SPD employees are constitutional and in compliance with federal, state, local laws, and with City and SPD policies, and to promote respectful and effective policing, by initiating, receiving, classifying, investigating, and making findings related to complaints of misconduct; an Office of Inspector General for Public Safety (OIG) to help ensure the fairness and integrity of the police system as a whole in its delivery of law enforcement services by providing civilian auditing of the management, practices, and policies of SPD and OPA and oversee ongoing fidelity to organizational reforms implemented pursuant to the goals of the 2012 federal Consent Decree in United States of America v. City of Seattle, 12 Civ. 1282 (JLR); and a Community Police Commission (CPC) to help ensure public confidence in the effectiveness and professionalism of SPD and the responsiveness of the police accountability system to public concerns by engaging the community to develop recommendations on the police accountability system and provide a community-based perspective on law enforcement-related policies, practices, and services affecting public trust; all for the purpose of ensuring constitutional, accountable, effective, and respectful policing.
C. An accountability system requires a strong, effective Chief to implement oversight recommendations and to create the culture change from within the police department that is necessary to support lasting reform. The Chief by City Charter is “the chief peace officer of the City, and…shall maintain the peace and quiet of the City.” The City Charter also dictates that the Chief manages SPD and prescribes the Department’s rules and regulations, consistent with law. In performing those duties, the Chief is responsible and accountable to the Mayor and City Council for the administration and management of SPD and is the final decision-maker, subject to appeal rights, in all matters related to misconduct, including discipline. Nothing in this Chapter 3.29 shall be interpreted or applied so as to limit or restrict the responsibilities of the Chief under the City Charter.
3.29.020 Definitions
As used in this Chapter 3.29:
“Budget Control Level” means the level at which expenditures are controlled to meet state and City budget law provisions.
“Chief” means the Chief of Police.
“Council” means the City Council.
“CPC” means the Community Police Commission.
“Inconclusive” means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
“Lawful and Proper” means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
“Management Action” means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
“Misconduct” means a violation of law or SPD policy.
“Not Sustained” means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
“OIG” means the Office of Inspector General for Public Safety.
“OPA” means the Office of Police Accountability.
“OPA Manual” means the Office of Police Accountability Internal Operations and Training Manual.
“Public safety committee” means the City Council committee responsible for public safety matters.
“Rapid Adjudication” means a complaint resolution for certain types of alleged misconduct whereby the employee self-reports or immediately acknowledges a policy violation occurred, waives the right to an investigation, and signs an agreement acknowledging the violation and accepting the imposition of pre-determined discipline or other resolution.
“SPD” means the Seattle Police Department.
“Supervisor Action” means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
“Sustained” finding means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
“Training Referral” means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
“Unfounded” means the term as it is defined in the OPA Manual.
3.29.030 Independent and collaborative oversight
A. OPA, OIG, and CPC have an obligation to exercise independent judgment and offer critical analysis in the performance of their duties under this Chapter 3.29. These oversight entities shall exercise their responsibilities under this Chapter 3.29 without interference from any person, group, or organization, including the Chief, other SPD employees, or other City officials. City employees and agents who violate these provisions may be subject to dismissal, discipline, or censure consistent with City and state laws.
B. OPA, OIG, CPC, and the Chief shall each advise the Council, Mayor, City Attorney, and each other on issues related to the purposes of this Chapter 3.29, and recommend and promote to policymakers changes to policies and practices, collective bargaining agreements, City ordinances, and state laws in order to support systemic improvements and other enhancements to SPD performance and in furtherance of community trust.
C. OPA, OIG, CPC, and SPD shall engage in collaborative conversations with each other on a quarterly basis and as otherwise reasonably requested by each other in order to effectuate coordinated oversight, including meeting collectively to review the extent to which the purposes and requirements of this Chapter 3.29 are being met.
Section 10. Subchapter VII of Chapter 3.28 of the Seattle Municipal Code is recodified as Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 and amended as follows:
Subchapter ((VII)) I Office of ((Professional)) Police Accountability
Section 11. Section 3.28.800 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is renumbered, recodified in Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29, and amended as follows:
((3.28.800)) 3.29.100 Office of ((Professional)) Police Accountability established ((created-)) - Functions and authority ((.))
A. There is ((created within the Seattle Police Department)) established an independent Office of ((Professional)) Police Accountability (((hereinafter “OPA”) to receive and investigate complaints of misconduct by Seattle Police Department personnel)) to fulfill the purposes set forth in Section 3.29.010. ((The responsibilities of the OPA include the following areas: regularly advising the Chief, as well as the Mayor and City Council, on all matters involving the Police Department’s investigatory and disciplinary functions and on Police Department policies and practices related to police accountability and professional conduct; evaluating the internal investigation process; and, making recommendations on strategies and policies to improve complaint gathering and investigative procedures.))
B. There shall be a civilian OPA Director responsible for carrying out the duties set forth in this Subchapter I. There shall be a civilian OPA Deputy Director to perform such duties and have such powers as the OPA Director may prescribe and delegate to implement and efficiently and effectively manage the duties set forth in this Subchapter I.
C. OPA shall establish and manage processes to initiate, receive, classify, and investigate allegations of police misconduct.
D. OPA policies and practices shall be applied uniformly regardless of rank or position.
E. OPA complaint processes shall: be fair, impartial, consistent, thorough, timely, understandable, and accessible for the public, employees, and complainants; provide effective solutions; improve SPD standards; help reduce misconduct or policy violations; and enhance employee conduct.
F. OPA shall have the authority to address complaints of police misconduct through investigation, Supervisor Action referral, mediation, Rapid Adjudication, or other alternative resolution processes, as well as through Management Action findings and Training Referrals. Management Action findings may be made for either Sustained or Not Sustained complaints of misconduct.
G. OPA’s jurisdiction shall include all types of possible misconduct. In complaints alleging criminal misconduct, OPA shall have the responsibility to coordinate investigations with criminal investigators external to OPA and prosecutors on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the most effective, thorough, and rigorous criminal and administrative investigations are conducted.
H. OPA shall have the authority to identify systemic problems in SPD policies, training, supervision, and management identified in the course of OPA’s investigation of possible misconduct or policy violations, or in the course of OPA’s other obligations under this Chapter 3.29.
I. OPA shall enhance an SPD culture of police accountability through means including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Supporting SPD supervisors and strengthening supervisors’ involvement in the accountability system, including supervisors’ responsibilities to mentor employees and to investigate, document, and address minor policy violations, performance, and customer service concerns at the precinct and unit level;
2. Assisting SPD in the development and delivery of SPD in-service training related to the accountability system and helping ensure that this training is part of the curriculum for all new employees; and
3. Collaborating with SPD to make disciplinary processes as fair, impartial, objective, certain, timely, consistent, understandable, transparent, and effective as possible.
J. OPA shall be responsive to community needs and concerns through means including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Maintaining frequent and regular communications with complainants and named employees about the status of their investigations, including information to complainants about disciplinary appeal and grievance processes and any outcomes that result in the modification of final findings and discipline determinations;
2. Using OPA complaint navigators, community-based organizations, and other approaches that reflect or take into account the diversity of Seattle’s communities in order to provide additional channels for filing complaints and support understanding of the system and how to access it;
3. Obtaining information about community perspectives and concerns germane to OPA access and OPA’s oversight responsibilities, including using the expertise of CPC;
4. Conducting community outreach to inform the public about the police accountability system and how to access it, in consultation with CPC, and receiving feedback from CPC on issues that surface as a result of the community outreach activities; and
5. Providing technical assistance on OPA matters to CPC, as reasonably requested and consistent with the purposes of this Chapter 3.29.
Section 12. A new Section 3.29.105 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.105 Office of Police Accountability - Independence
A. OPA shall be physically housed outside any SPD facility and be operationally independent of SPD in all respects. OPA’s location and communications shall reflect its independence and impartiality, except that OPA shall be organizationally in SPD in order to ensure complete and immediate access to all SPD-controlled data, evidence, and personnel necessary for thorough and timely investigations and complaint handling.
B. The City shall provide staff and resources that it deems sufficient to enable OPA to perform all of its responsibilities specified in this Chapter 3.29. The OPA Director shall submit an annual budget request to the Mayor. The OPA Director may advocate for resources directly to Councilmembers or the Council during the budget process and throughout the year.
C. Only the OPA Director or the OPA Director’s designee shall comment publicly on the specifics of any ongoing OPA investigation.
Section 13. A new Section 3.29.110 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.110 Office of Police Accountability Director - Qualifications
The OPA Director shall be a civilian with significant legal, investigative, human resources, law enforcement oversight, or prosecutorial experience; shall not have been formerly employed by SPD as a sworn officer; and should also have the following additional qualifications and characteristics:
A. A reputation for integrity and professionalism, and the ability to maintain a high standard of integrity and professionalism in the office;
B. A commitment to the need for and responsibilities of law enforcement, including enforcement, community care-taking, and the need to protect the constitutional rights of all affected parties;
C. A commitment to the statements of purpose and policies in this Chapter 3.29;
D. A history of leadership experience;
E. The ability to relate, communicate, and engage effectively with all who have a stake in policing, including, but not limited to, the general public, complainants, disenfranchised communities, SPD employees, and relevant City and other officials including the Mayor, Council, City Attorney, Chief, Inspector General, and CPC;
F. An understanding of the City’s ethnic and socio-economic diversity and proven experience working with and valuing the perspectives of diverse groups and individuals; and
G. The ability to carry out the duties of the OPA Director in a manner that reflects sound judgment, independence, fairness, and objectivity in an environment where controversy is common.
Section 14. A new Section 3.29.115 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.115 Office of Police Accountability Director - Appointment and removal
A. The OPA Director shall be appointed and reappointed in accordance with the process described in this Section 3.29.115. All appointments and reappointments shall be confirmed by a majority vote of the full Council. If the Council does not act within 30 days of notice of an appointment or reappointment, the appointment or reappointment shall be deemed confirmed.
B. For appointments, the Mayor shall select from up to three qualified finalists identified by a search committee through a national process using merit-based criteria. CPC Commissioners shall constitute at least 25 percent of the search committee, one of whom shall serve as one of the search committee co-chairs. The Mayor shall either appoint from among the finalists or initiate a new search. The Mayor shall receive input from CPC and the Inspector General prior to reappointments.
C. The OPA Director may be appointed and reappointed for up to three four-year terms for a total of 12 years. Each term shall commence on January 1, except that the first OPA Director appointed pursuant to this Chapter 3.29 shall serve an interim term that commences immediately following Council confirmation; the interim term shall not count as a full term for the purposes of calculating term limits under this Section 3.29.115. The first full term shall begin in the first year after the commencement of the Mayor’s term of office, to ensure that these terms do not run concurrently. If the OPA Director assumes office mid-term due to a prior vacancy, the OPA Director may complete that term and then be reappointed for up to three four-year subsequent terms.
D. Each appointment and reappointment shall be made whenever possible sufficiently prior to the expiration of the incumbent’s term of office, or the effective date of an incumbent’s resignation, to permit Council action on the appointment or reappointment at least 45 days before the expiration of the present term or the effective date of the resignation, so as to increase the likelihood of a seamless transition without a gap in oversight. If the Mayor does not make an appointment or reappointment within 90 days of the first day of the expiration of a term, of a vacancy, or of a rejection by the Council, the public safety committee shall appoint the OPA Director.
E. In the event of a vacancy, the Mayor shall designate an interim OPA Director within ten days after the first day of the vacancy to serve until a new OPA Director is appointed. If the Mayor does not designate an interim OPA Director within ten days of the first day of the vacancy, the City Attorney’s Office shall provide notice to the Council President and the interim OPA Director shall be designated by the Council President. The interim OPA Director may be either an OPA employee or an individual from outside OPA, but must substantially meet the qualifications of Section 3.29.110. An OPA Director whose term is ending may continue on an interim basis until a successor has been confirmed by a majority vote of the full Council. An interim term shall not count as a full term for the purposes of calculating term limits under this Section 3.29.115.
F. To strengthen the independence of the OPA Director, the Mayor may remove the OPA Director from office only for cause, and in accordance with the following provisions:
1. The Mayor shall give written notice, specifying the basis for the intended removal, to the OPA Director, the Council President, the Chair of the public safety committee, the Inspector General, the Chief, and the CPC Executive Director.
2. Within ten days after receipt of the notice, the OPA Director may file with the Council President and the Chair of the public safety committee a request for a hearing on the cause for removal. The OPA Director’s request for a hearing shall be delivered at the same time to the Mayor, the Inspector General, the Chief, and the CPC Executive Director. If such request is made, the Council shall convene a de novo hearing on the cause for removal in the public safety committee not sooner than 30 days and not more than 60 days following the OPA Director’s request for a hearing, at which the OPA Director may appear and be heard. The Council shall vote to approve or reject the removal within 30 days of the hearing.
3. If no request for a hearing is made, the Council shall vote to approve or reject the removal within 30 days of receiving the Mayor’s notice of the intended removal, following input from the Inspector General and CPC.
4. A majority vote of the full Council is required to approve removal.
G. The Seattle Department of Human Resources shall obtain from an outside law enforcement agency a thorough background check of the Mayor’s nominees for OPA Director, including records of arrest, charges, or allegations of criminal conduct or other nonconviction data for the purpose of determining the individual’s fitness to perform the duties of OPA Director, and report the results to the Mayor, prior to submittal of the nomination to the Council for confirmation.
H. The Mayor shall be responsible for the performance evaluation of the OPA Director, and shall seek the input of the public, Council, City Attorney, OIG, Chief, SPD employees, and CPC. CPC shall provide input in accordance with subsection 3.29.360.M.
Section 15. A new Section 3.29.120 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.120 Office of Police Accountability Director - Authority and responsibility
The OPA Director shall have the authority and responsibility to:
A. Manage all functions and responsibilities of OPA.
B. Hire, supervise, and discharge OPA civilian staff, and supervise and transfer out of OPA any sworn staff assigned to OPA. OPA staff shall collectively have the requisite credentials, skills, and abilities to fulfill the duties and obligations of OPA set forth in this Chapter 3.29.
C. Manage the complaint process so that all complaints of police misconduct or policy violations are initiated, received, referred, classified, investigated, and appropriately resolved.
D. Oversee and strengthen the effectiveness of OPA investigations, Supervisor Action referrals, mediation, Rapid Adjudication, and other alternative resolution processes, as well as Management Actions and Training Referrals. The OPA Director shall, in consultation with CPC and OIG, make and maintain a fair and effective mediation program and a fair and effective Rapid Adjudication process.
E. Ensure OPA policies and practices are detailed in, and in compliance with, the OPA Manual, which shall be updated at least annually. Such updates shall be done in accordance with a process established by the OPA Director that provides for consultation and input by OIG and CPC prior to final adoption of any updates.
F. Classify complaints; direct OPA investigative processes; address any additional investigative work requested or directed by OIG; certify in writing the completion and recommended findings of all OPA investigations and convey these recommendations to the Chief; participate in meetings related to recommended findings and discipline and in due process hearings; testify as needed in disciplinary appeals; and where requested, advise the Chief as to discipline and the Chief and City Attorney with regard to disciplinary appeals.
G. Comply with all OPA deadlines, including investigation deadlines.
H. Work with OIG, SPD, CPC, and the City Attorney’s Office to help reduce or prevent misconduct through identification of patterns or trends arising through complaints, investigations, and lawsuits.
I. Be present at the scene of all SPD officer-involved shootings and other serious use of force incidents pursuant to its duties set forth in Section 3.29.125 or designate OPA staff members to do so.
J. Conduct administrative investigations in compliance with the OPA Manual and the purposes of this Chapter 3.29. Ensure that investigators and investigative supervisors receive orientation and training when they begin working at OPA, including on administrative investigations, commensurate with their duties.
K. Consult with CPC regularly to ensure that OPA materials are readily understandable and that informational materials are culturally and linguistically appropriate and widely available to Seattle’s diverse residents both in English and in translation.
L. Collaborate with the Chief, other SPD leadership, and OIG to strengthen the involvement of supervisory personnel in the accountability system to enhance a culture of accountability throughout SPD.
M. Provide input to the Council on the performance of the Inspector General in advance of the Council’s performance evaluation of the Inspector General.
Section 16. A new Section 3.29.125 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.125 Office of Police Accountability - Classifications and investigations
A. Allegations of unnecessary or excessive force, biased policing, and violations of law shall not be classified as Supervisor Action.
B. It shall be a condition of employment for all SPD employees to fully and timely participate in an investigation whenever requested by OPA and failure to do so may result in discipline by the Chief, up to and including termination. Complainants may remain anonymous and must be given the choice of an in-person interview. Unless the OPA Director determines exigent circumstances require otherwise, all SPD employee interviews shall be conducted in-person. All interviews shall be audio-recorded and transcribed, except any interviews conducted before a Rapid Adjudication disposition. If an interview is transcribed both the recording and the transcription shall be retained in the OPA case file.
C. OPA shall have the authority to observe and review all administrative investigation processes at SPD to ensure they are not in conflict with OPA’s authority and are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter 3.29.
D. OPA representatives shall have access to any incident scene as necessary to ascertain and assess whether possible violations of SPD policies may have occurred. Following such incidents, OPA representatives may attend and participate in any SPD administrative investigation unit interviews or meetings held to review Force Investigation Team information or discuss the incident, and may at that time identify any areas of concern related to possible violations of SPD policies. OPA may participate in SPD administrative investigation unit interviews or meetings of any other incident, at the OPA Director’s discretion.
E. When necessary, the OPA Director may issue a subpoena at any stage in an investigation if evidence or testimony material to the investigation is not provided to OPA voluntarily, in order to compel witnesses to produce such evidence or testimony. If the subpoenaed individual or entity does not respond to the request in a timely manner, the OPA Director may ask for the assistance of the City Attorney to pursue enforcement of the subpoena through a court of competent jurisdiction.
F. Every OPA investigation shall have an investigation plan approved by the OPA Director or the OPA Director’s designee prior to the initiation of an investigation. OPA investigation plans shall include the prioritization of the investigation within OPA’s ongoing body of work, the witnesses to be interviewed, the perishable evidence to be prioritized, other material evidence to be obtained, and the approach to addressing each allegation of possible policy violation or misconduct. If OPA is unable to investigate an allegation in the manner the OPA Director believes appropriate due to resource constraints in light of other investigation priorities, the investigation plan and case file should indicate that this intentional decision is being made regarding allocation of investigative resources.
G. In cases where a Sustained finding has been recommended by the OPA Director and hearing from the complainant would help the Chief better understand the significance of the concern or weigh issues of credibility, the OPA Director may recommend that the Chief meet with the complainant prior to the Chief making final findings and disciplinary decisions.
H. Consistent with subsection 3.29.240.D, the OPA Director shall establish in the OPA Manual a protocol for referral to OIG for classification and appropriate complaint-handling, such as Supervisor Action, investigation, or alternative resolution, any complaints involving OPA staff that cannot be handled within OPA due to a potential conflict of interest.
I. OPA shall have discretion to investigate any specific SPD policy violation it chooses, but with SPD supervisors generally handling minor performance issues and OPA prioritizing its investigative resources on allegations that concern public trust and maintaining systemic oversight of all SPD accountability systems.
Section 17. A new Section 3.29.130 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.130 Office of Police Accountability - Classification and investigation timelines
A. OPA shall notify named employees, the Captain or equivalent of the named employees, and the bargaining unit of the named employees within 30 days of receiving directly or by referral a complaint of possible misconduct or policy violation. The notice shall by default not include the name and address of the complainant, unless the complainant gives OPA written consent for disclosure after OPA communicates to the complainant a full explanation of the potential consequences of disclosure. The notice shall confirm the complaint and enumerate allegations that allow the named employees to begin to prepare for the OPA investigation; however, if OPA subsequently identifies additional allegations not listed in the 30-day notice, these may also be addressed in the investigation.
B. The time period in which investigations must be completed by OPA is 180 days. The time period begins on the date OPA initiates or receives a complaint. The time period ends on the date the OPA Director issues proposed findings.
C. SPD employees shall timely refer incidents involving possible policy violations and misconduct to OPA. Members of any SPD unit or board with authority to conduct administrative investigations or review compliance with policy also have a responsibility for ensuring complete and timely referral to OPA of any incident they review that involves such potential misconduct or policy violation.
D. If an SPD employee fails to timely refer a complaint to OPA the failure to refer shall also constitute misconduct subject to complaint and investigation, and discipline under this Chapter 3.29 and the authority of the Chief. OPA shall initiate a complaint and investigation of such failure to timely refer.
E. If an OPA interview of a named or witness employee must be postponed due to the unavailability of the interviewee or the interviewee’s labor representative, the additional number of days needed to accommodate the schedule of the employee or the employee’s bargaining representative shall not be counted as part of the 180-day investigation period.
F. If the OPA Director position becomes vacant due to unforeseen exigent circumstances, the 180-day period shall be extended by 60 days to permit the designation of an interim OPA Director and the initiation of the appointment process for a permanent OPA Director.
G. In cases involving possible criminal actions, if an OPA administrative investigation is not commenced or is paused due to a criminal investigation, that time shall not be counted as part of the 180-day investigation period, and shall be documented in an administrative intake or investigation follow-up log in the investigation file. The OPA administrative investigation shall be paused as long as is necessary so that neither the OPA administrative nor the criminal investigation of the same incident is compromised. The 180-day clock shall resume whenever any administrative investigation steps are taken by OPA.
H. Investigations required by OIG for review and certification shall be provided to OIG as soon as possible after the investigator submits them, to afford sufficient time for OPA to conduct additional investigation if requested or directed by OIG, or to investigate new material evidence appropriately raised by the named employee during a due process hearing. Any further investigation shall be re-submitted to OIG for review in a timely manner, so as not to lessen the quality of the investigation due to the passage of time and to meet all contractual deadlines so that additional investigation does not foreclose the possibility of discipline being imposed.
I. To ensure the integrity and thoroughness of investigations, and the appropriateness of disciplinary decisions, if at any point during an OPA investigation the named employee or the named employee’s bargaining representative becomes aware of any witness or evidence that the named employee or the employee’s bargaining representative believes to be material, they shall disclose it as soon as is practicable to OPA, or shall otherwise be foreclosed from raising it later in a due process hearing, grievance, or appeal. Information not disclosed prior to a due process hearing, grievance, or appeal shall not be allowed into the record after the OPA investigation has concluded if it was known to the named employee or the named employee’s bargaining representative during the OPA investigation, and if OPA offered the employee an opportunity to discuss any additional information and suggest any additional witnesses during the course of the employee’s OPA interview.
J. If further investigation is initiated because new information is brought forward during an OPA interview or a due process hearing, or because of any additional investigation directed by OIG, the 180-day investigation time period shall be extended by 60 days.
Section 18. Section 3.28.812 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is renumbered, recodified in Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29, and amended as follows:
((3.28.812)) 3.29.135 Office of ((Professional)) Police Accountability-Explanations of ((Certain Complaint Dispositions)) certain complaint dispositions
A. If there is disagreement between the Chief and the OPA Director as to the OPA Director’s recommendations on findings, the Chief and the OPA Director shall engage in a supplemental meeting to discuss the disagreement, which shall occur after an employee due process meeting has taken place.
((A.)) B. If the Chief ((of Police)) decides not to follow ((the OPA’s)) one or more of the OPA Director’s written recommendations on ((the disposition of an OPA complaint)) findings following an OPA investigation, the Chief shall ((make)) provide a written statement of the material reasons for the decision within 30 days of the Chief’s decision on the disposition of the complaint. ((The statement shall not contain the officer’s name or any personal information about the officer.)) If the basis for ((not sustaining the complaint)) the action is personal, involving family or ((medical information)) health-related circumstances about the ((officer)) named employee, the statement shall refer to “personal ((information)) circumstances” as the basis. ((The Chief shall make the written statement within 60 days of his or her final decision on the disposition of the complaint)). The written statement shall be provided to the Mayor, the Council President and the Chair of the public safety committee, the City Attorney, the OPA Director, the Inspector General, and the CPC Executive Director, and be included in the OPA case file and in a communication with the complainant and the public. If any findings or discipline resulting from an investigation are changed pursuant to an appeal or grievance, this responsibility shall rest with the City Attorney.
((B.)) C. If ((no discipline results from an OPA complaint because)) an investigation time limit ((specified in a collective bargaining agreement between the City and the subject employee’s bargaining unit)) as set forth in Section 3.29.130 has been exceeded, within ((60)) 30 days of the final ((disposition of the complaint investigation)) certification of the investigation by the OPA Director, the OPA Director shall make a written ((explanation)) statement of the nature of the allegations in the complaint and the reason or reasons why the time limit was exceeded. This requirement applies whether the OPA Director ((recommends that)) recommended the complaint be sustained, not sustained, or ((declines)) declined to make a recommendation because the time limit ((has)) had been exceeded. The written statement shall be included in the OPA case file and provided to the Mayor, the Council President and the Chair of the public safety committee, the City Attorney, the Inspector General, and the CPC Executive Director, and included in a communication with the complainant and the public.
((C.)) D. The written ((explanations)) statements required by ((Subsections A and B of this Section)) this Section 3.29.135 shall not identify named employees or divulge personal information about ((the subject officer or officers)) named employees or anyone else involved in the complaint and shall be subject to any applicable ((confidentiality requirements)) disclosure limitations in state or federal law. The ((explanations)) statements shall not affect any discipline decisions; ((as specified in Seattle Municipal Code 3.28.810 Subsection F,)) the Chief ((of Police)) remains the final ((Police Department)) SPD decision-maker in disciplinary actions.
((D.)) E. ((The written explanations required by Subsections A and B of this Section shall be provided to the Mayor and City Council.)) The OPA Director shall include summaries of ((these explanations)) the written statements required by this Section 3.29.135 in the OPA Director’s annual report((reports required by Seattle Municipal Code 3.28.825)). The summaries ((shall not identify or divulge personal information about the subject officer or officers or anyone else involved in the complaint and)) shall be ((subject to)) consistent with any applicable confidentiality requirements in state or federal law.
F. Termination is the presumed discipline for a finding of material dishonesty based on the same evidentiary standard used for any other allegation of misconduct.
Section 19. A new Section 3.29.140 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.140 Office of Police Accountability - Staffing
A. The OPA Director and the Deputy Director shall be civilians and, within 18 months of the effective date of the ordinance introduced as Council Bill 118969, all investigative supervisors shall be civilian.
B. All OPA staff working directly with SPD supervisors to support the handling of minor violations and public access to the accountability system shall be civilians.
C. Within 12 months of the effective date of the ordinance introduced as Council Bill 118969, intake and investigator personnel shall be entirely civilian or a mix of civilian and sworn, in whatever staffing configuration best provides for continuity, flexibility, leadership opportunity, and specialized expertise, and supports public trust in the complaint-handling process.
D. All staff shall have the requisite skills and abilities necessary for OPA to fulfill its duties and obligations as set forth in this Chapter 3.29 and for OPA’s operational effectiveness.
No civilian staff shall be required to have sworn experience and no civilian staff shall have been formerly employed by SPD as a sworn officer.
E. The OPA Director and the Chief shall collaborate with the goal that the rotations of sworn staff into and out of OPA are done in such a way as to maintain continuity and expertise, professionalism, orderly case management, and the operational effectiveness of both OPA and SPD, pursuant to subsection 3.29.430.G.
F. The appropriate level of civilianization of OPA intake and investigator personnel shall be evaluated by OIG pursuant to Section 3.29.240.
G. OPA investigators and investigative supervisors shall receive training by professional instructors outside SPD in best practices in administrative and police practices investigations. OPA investigators and investigative supervisors shall also receive in-house training on current SPD and OPA policies and procedures.
Section 20. Section 3.28.825 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is renumbered, recodified in Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29, and amended as follows:
((3.28.825 Reports.)) 3.29.145 Office of Police Accountability - Reporting
A. OPA shall maintain a website consistent with City Information Technology standards. OPA’s website shall contain its OPA Manual and comprehensive, substantive, and timely information on matters of public interest concerning SPD’s accountability system, including information about OIG and CPC and links to their websites.
B. OPA shall post online, in a timely manner, summaries of completed investigations, including the allegations, analysis, and findings. OPA shall post on its website and distribute, by electronic subscription, a compilation of completed investigation summaries from the prior quarter, noting any investigations for which discipline has been appealed.
C. At the time they are issued, OPA shall post online and copy to OIG and CPC letters sent to SPD recommending Management Actions. OPA shall timely post online and copy to OIG and CPC updates on the outcomes of its Management Action recommendations, including SPD written responses to OPA Management Action recommendations and the status of these recommended changes to SPD policies or practices.
D. OPA shall work with the City Attorney’s Office to publicly release information about closed OPA cases as promptly and with as much transparency as legally and practically possible.
E. Each year in June and December, OPA shall provide to OIG status reports regarding (a) all OPA cases that were referred by OPA for possible criminal investigations during the previous six months and (b) all OPA cases that were referred by OPA for possible criminal investigations in earlier periods and for which investigations remained open at any time during the current reporting period. These status reports shall include the nature of the criminal allegation, the case number, the named employees, the date of complaint, the timeliness of the criminal investigation, and the current status of the case.
F. The OPA Director shall produce annual reports that are readily understandable and useful to policymakers. The annual report shall describe the work of OPA in fulfilling OPA’s purpose, duties, and responsibilities detailed in this Chapter 3.29. The report shall include OPA Director recommendations for changes in policies and practices, collective bargaining agreements, City ordinances, and state law and summarize the implementation status of any previous OPA recommendations, and, for any that have not been implemented, the reasons. The annual report shall also summarize information received from community outreach that has informed OPA’s work. The annual report shall be posted online and electronically distributed to the Mayor, City Attorney, Council, Chief, Inspector General, and CPC, as well as to the City Clerk for filing as a public record.
((A.)) ((The Director shall issue at least two reports per year to the Mayor and City Council describing the work of the OPA and making recommendations for policy changes as determined by the Director. Each year at least one of the Director’s reports shall report)) The annual report shall also include, but not be limited to, the following statistics and information:
((1. The total number of complaints received by the Office of Professional Accountability;
2. The number of complaints by classification and nature of allegation;
3. The percentage of complaints resulting in each kind of finding, namely, sustained, not sustained, unfounded, supervisory intervention or exonerated;
4. The nature of disciplinary action taken in sustained cases;))
1. The number and percentage of all complaints by classification and nature of allegation received by OPA;
2. The number and percentage of all complaints and allegations sustained and the specific disciplinary or other remedial action taken in sustained cases;
3. The number and percentage of cases that were not certified as thorough, timely, and objective by OIG, including actions taken by the OPA Director to reduce the number of not certified cases;
4. The number and percentage of cases that were appealed or grieved, and the number and percentage of these cases in which findings and/or discipline determinations were changed, and the nature of those changes, as a result of appeals or for other reasons;
5. The number and percentage of all complaints and allegations not sustained, and the categorization of all not sustained findings, e.g., unfounded, inconclusive, or lawful and proper;
6. The number and percentage of all complaints handled directly by frontline supervisors, referred for Supervisor Action, Management Action, training, or alternative resolution;
((5.)) 7. The ((geographic)) precinct, sector, and shift distribution of incidents underlying complaints;
((6.)) 8. The racial, ethnic, ((and)) gender, and geographic distributions of complainants, ((as)) to the extent this information is provided voluntarily by complainants;
((7.)) 9. The racial, ethnic, gender, assignment, shift, and service seniority distributions of ((officers)) named employees who are subjects of complaints;
((8.)) 10. The number of ((officers)) named employees who have received ((three)) two or more sustained complaints within one year; ((and
9. The timeliness of OPA complaint handling.))
11. Patterns and trends in all OPA complaints, including year-to-year comparisons of demographic data that can help identify problems, deter misconduct, and inform SPD policy and practice improvements; and
12. The accessibility, transparency, timeliness, thoroughness, responsiveness, and effectiveness of OPA and SPD processes, including but not limited to, OPA investigations; complaints referred by OPA for Supervisor Action; complaints handled directly by frontline supervisors; Supervisor Action referrals; mediations, Rapid Adjudication, and other alternative resolution processes; and Management Actions and Training Referrals.
((B. The OPA Director and OPA staff may meet with citizens and community groups to solicit community input on policies and practices related to police accountability.))
((C.)) G. The OPA Director shall make available to ((the OPA Auditor and OPA Review Board)) OIG and CPC information necessary for their respective ((auditing and reporting)) functions ((as)) set forth in this ((chapter)) Chapter 3.29, in a timeframe allowing for the timely performance of their duties.
Section 21. Section 3.28.830 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 120728, is renumbered, recodified in Subchapter I of Chapter 3.29, and amended as follows:
((3.28.830)) 3.29.150 Office of Police Accountability - Confidentiality of files and records ((.))
((The Director shall, in the case of unsustained complaints, prepare a summary of the investigation, including a description of the number of witnesses interviewed, the investigative methods employed, and a brief explanation of why the complaint was not sustained. The Director shall provide a copy of the summary to the complainant. The))Consistent with federal and state law, including the Criminal Records Privacy Act, chapter 10.97 RCW, as well as relevant collective bargaining agreements, the OPA Director shall protect ((the confidentiality of Department)) from disclosure confidential, non-public OPA and SPD files and records to which ((s/he)) OPA has been provided access.(( to the extent permitted by applicable law, in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, and in the same manner and to the same degree as s/he would be obligated to protect attorney-client privileged materials under legal and ethical requirements. The Director shall also be bound by the confidentiality provisions of the Criminal Records Privacy Act (RCW Chapter 10.97) and Public Disclosure Act (RCW Section 42.17.250 et seq.))) The OPA Director shall not identify the ((subject of an)) named employee in an OPA investigation in any public report required by this ((chapter)) Chapter 3.29.
Section 22. Subchapter VIII of Chapter 3.28 of the Seattle Municipal Code is recodified as Subchapter II of Chapter 3.29 and amended as follows:
Subchapter ((VIII)) II Office of ((Professional Accountability Auditor)) Inspector General for Public Safety
Section 23. A new Section 3.29.200 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter II of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.200 Office of Inspector General for Public Safety established - Functions and authority
A. There is established an independent Office of Inspector General for Public Safety (OIG) to fulfill the purposes set forth in Section 3.29.010.
B. There shall be a civilian Inspector General responsible for carrying out the duties set forth in this Subchapter II.
C. There shall be a civilian Deputy Inspector General to perform such duties and have such powers as the Inspector General may prescribe and delegate to fulfill and effectively manage the duties set forth in this Subchapter II, including acting on behalf of the Inspector General when necessary. The Inspector General shall obtain from an outside law enforcement agency a thorough background check of the Deputy Inspector General, including records of arrest, charges, or allegations of criminal conduct or other nonconviction data for the purpose of determining the individual’s fitness to perform the duties of the Inspector General, prior to the Deputy Inspector General’s appointment to the position, as well as of any staff who will have access to confidential OPA classification, OPA investigation, or Police Intelligence Auditor information.
D. OIG oversight activities shall objectively ensure the ongoing integrity of SPD processes and operations and that SPD is meeting its mission to address crime and improve quality of life through the delivery of constitutional, professional, and effective police services, and meeting its mission in a way that reflects the values of Seattle’s diverse communities.
E. OIG shall conduct risk management reviews and performance audits, including analysis of sample and aggregate data, to identify systemic problems and to establish patterns and trends, of any and all SPD and OPA operations, and criminal justice system operations that involve SPD or OPA.
F. OIG shall review OPA’s misconduct complaint-handling and investigations, other OPA activities, and the effectiveness, accessibility, timeliness, transparency, and responsiveness of the complaint system.
G. OIG may also conduct audits and reviews for any areas that may (a) involve potential conflicts of interest; (b) involve possible fraud, waste, abuse, inefficiency, or ineffectiveness; (c) undermine accountability or be unethical; or (d) otherwise compromise the public’s trust in the police or the criminal justice system.
H. OIG shall have the authority to review and audit policies and practices of other City departments and offices in areas related to policing and criminal justice matters.
I. OIG shall enhance an SPD culture of police accountability through means including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Collaborating with the Chief, the OPA Director, and other SPD leadership to strengthen the involvement of supervisory personnel in the accountability system;
2. Assisting SPD in the development and delivery of SPD in-service training related to the accountability system and helping ensure that this training is part of the curriculum for all new employees; and
3. Collaborating with SPD to make disciplinary processes as fair, impartial, objective, certain, timely, consistent, understandable, transparent, and effective as possible.
J. OIG shall be responsive to community needs and concerns through means including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Obtaining information about community perspectives and concerns germane to OIG’s oversight responsibilities, including using the expertise of CPC;
2. Conducting community outreach to inform the public about OIG’s role and scope of responsibilities, in consultation with CPC, and receiving feedback from CPC on issues surfaced as a result of its community outreach activities;
3. Consulting with CPC regularly to ensure that OIG materials are readily understandable, and that informational materials are culturally and linguistically appropriate and widely available to Seattle’s diverse residents both in English and in translation;
4. Providing technical assistance on OIG matters to CPC, as reasonably requested and consistent with the purposes of this Chapter 3.29; and
5. Maintaining and promoting use of a hotline and other technologies to receive anonymous reports from the public and City employees regarding matters germane to this Chapter 3.29.
K. OIG shall review evidence-based research and successful police practices in other jurisdictions and make recommendations based on such reviews to City policymakers for increasing the effectiveness of SPD and related criminal justice system processes.
Section 24. A new Section 3.29.210 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter II of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.210 Office of Inspector General for Public Safety - Independence
A. The City shall provide staff and resources that it deems sufficient to enable OIG to perform all of its responsibilities specified in this Chapter 3.29. The Inspector General shall submit an annual budget request to the Mayor. The OIG budget shall be appropriated in a Budget Control Level that is independent of any other City department. The Inspector General may advocate for resources directly to Councilmembers or the Council during the budget process and throughout the year.
B. Except as prohibited by law, OIG shall have timely, full, and direct access to all relevant City employees, facilities, documents, files, records, and data in OPA, SPD, and other City departments and offices that are necessary to perform its duties set forth in this Chapter 3.29. Should any City department decline to provide OIG access to documents or data, the declining department shall provide the Inspector General with an itemization describing the documents or data withheld and the legal basis for withholding access to each item.
C. OIG shall have authority to observe reviews, meetings, and trainings, such as SPD administrative investigation unit meetings, disciplinary hearings, or discussions of misconduct complaint investigations.
Section 25. Section 3.28.850 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is renumbered, recodified in Subchapter II of Chapter 3.29, and amended as follows:
((3.28.850)) 3.29.220 Office of ((Professional Accountability Auditor established.)) Inspector General for Public Safety - Qualifications
((A. There shall be an Office of Professional Accountability Auditor (hereinafter “OPA Auditor”) who shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council, to provide review and assessment of Office of Professional Accountability (hereinafter “OPA”) complaints and of Police Department policies and practices related to police accountability and professional conduct. The OPA Auditor shall serve a term of three years and may be reappointed to two subsequent three year terms by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. No individual may serve more than three three year terms as OPA Auditor. Should an OPA Auditor take office at any time after commencement of a regular term, the expiration of that term shall remain unaffected. The OPA Auditor may be removed from office for cause by the Mayor by filing a statement of reasons for removal with the City Council. The OPA Auditor shall be compensated as provided by ordinance or by appropriation in the City’s annual budget.
B.)) The Inspector General shall be a civilian with a background in criminal, civil rights, labor law, governmental investigations, and/or the management of governmental auditing; shall not be required to have law enforcement experience; and shall not have been formerly employed by SPD as a sworn officer. The Inspector General shall have a demonstrated ability to lead and manage staff in auditing, evaluating, and conducting investigations; conducting financial and performance audits; analyzing and assessing complex aggregate data for patterns and trends; and in recommending systemic improvements to policies and practices to support constitutional policing, ongoing system effectiveness, and police excellence. The ((OPA Auditor)) Inspector General should ((possess)) also have the following additional qualifications and characteristics ((at the time of appointment and throughout his or her term)):
((1.)) A. A reputation for integrity and professionalism, ((as well as)) and the ability to maintain a high standard of integrity and professionalism in the office;
((2.)) B. ((A commitment to and knowledge)) A commitment to ((of)) the need for and responsibilities of law enforcement, ((as well as the need)) including enforcement, community care-taking, and the need to protect the ((basic)) constitutional rights of all affected parties;
((3.)) C. A commitment to the statements of purpose and policies in this ((chapter)) Chapter 3.29;
((4.)) D. A history of ((demonstrated)) leadership experience ((and ability)) ;
((5. The potential for gaining the respect of complainants, Police Department personnel, and the citizens of this City;
6.)) E. The ability to ((work)) relate, communicate, and engage effectively with all who have a stake in policing, including, but not limited to, the general public, complainants, disenfranchised communities, SPD employees, and relevant City and other officials including the Mayor, ((City)) Council, City Attorney, Chief ((of Police)), OPA Director, ((other Police Department personnel, OPA Review Board, other public agencies, private organizations, and citizens)) and CPC;
((7.)) F. ((The ability, as shown by previous experience, to work with)) An understanding of the city’s ethnic and socio-economic diversity, and proven experience working with and valuing the perspectives of diverse groups and individuals; and
((8.)) G. The ability to ((maintain)) exercise sound judgment, independence, fairness, and objectivity in an environment where controversy is common.
((C. In addition to the qualifications and characteristics set forth in subsection B above, the OPA Auditor shall possess the following qualification: the OPA Auditor must be a graduate of an accredited law school and member in good standing of the Washington State Bar Association and, prior to appointment, have at least five years of experience in the practice of law or in a judicially related field.
D. The Chief of Police shall cause a thorough background check of nominees for OPA Auditor identified by the Mayor and shall report the results to the Mayor.))
Section 26. A new Section 3.29.230 of the Seattle Municipal Code is added to Subchapter II of Chapter 3.29 as follows:
3.29.230 Office of Inspector General for Public Safety - Appointment and removal
A. The Inspector General shall be appointed and reappointed in accordance with the process described in this Section 3.29.230. All appointees and reappointments shall be confirmed by a majority vote of the full Council. If the Council does not act within 30 days of notice of an appointment or reappointment, the appointment or reappointment shall be deemed confirmed.
B. For appointments, the public safety committee shall select from up to three qualified finalists identified by a search committee through a national process using merit-based criteria. CPC Commissioners shall constitute at least 25 percent of the search committee, one of whom shall serve as one of the search committee co-chairs. The public safety committee shall either appoint from among the finalists or initiate a new search. The public safety committee shall receive input from CPC and the OPA Director prior to reappointments.
C. The Inspector General may be appointed and reappointed for up to two six-year terms for a total of 12 years. Each term shall commence on January 1, except that the first Inspector General appointed pursuant to this Chapter 3.29 shall serve an interim term that commences immediately following Council confirmation; the interim term shall not count as a full term for the purposes of calculating term limits under this Section 3.29.230. The first full term shall begin in the first year after the commencement of the OPA Director’s term of office, to ensure that these terms do not run concurrently. Each appointment and reappointment shall be made whenever possible sufficiently prior to the expiration of the latest incumbent’s term of office, or the effective date of an incumbent’s resignation, permitting Council action on the appointment or reappointment at least 45 days before the expiration of the present term or the effective date of the resignation, so as to increase the likelihood of a seamless transition without a gap in oversight. If the public safety committee does not make an appointment or reappointment within 90 days of the first day of the expiration of a term, of a vacancy, or of Council rejection of the committee’s appointee, the Mayor shall appoint the Inspector General.
D. In the event of a vacancy, the Council President shall designate an interim Inspector General within ten days after the first day of the vacancy to serve until a new Inspector General is appointed. If the Council President does not designate an interim Inspector General within ten days of the first day of the vacancy, the City Attorney’s Office shall provide notice to the Mayor and the interim Inspector General shall be designated by the Mayor. The interim Inspector General may be either an OIG employee or an individual from outside OIG, but must substantially meet the qualifications in Section 3.29.220. An Inspector General whose term is ending may continue on an interim basis until a successor has been confirmed by the Council. An interim term shall not count as a full term for the purposes of calculating term limits under this Section 3.29.230.
E. To strengthen the independence of the Inspector General, the Council may remove the Inspector General from office only for cause, and in accordance with the following provisions:
1. Upon a majority vote of the full Council initiating removal, the Council President shall give written notice, specifying the basis for the intended removal, to the Inspector General, the Mayor, the OPA Director, and the CPC Executive Director.
2. Within ten days after receipt of the notice, the Inspector General may file with the Council President and the Chair of the public safety committee a request for a hearing on the cause for removal. The Inspector General’s request for a hearing shall be delivered at the same time to the Mayor, the OPA Director, the Chief, and the CPC Executive Director. If such request is made, the Council shall convene a hearing on the cause for removal in the public safety committee not sooner than 30 days and not more than 60 days following the Inspector General’s request for a hearing, at which the Inspector General may appear and be heard. The Council shall vote to approve or reject the removal within 30 days of the hearing.
3. If no request for a hearing is made, the Council shall vote to approve or reject the removal within 30 days of issuing notice of the intended removal, following input from CPC.
4. A two-thirds vote of the full Council is required to approve removal.
F. The Seattle Department of Human Resources shall obtain from an outside law enforcement agency a thorough background check of nominees for Inspector General, including records of arrest, charges, or allegations of criminal conduct or other nonconviction data for the purpose of determining the individuals’ fitness to perform the duties of Inspector General, and report the results to the appointing authority, prior to the Council taking final action on the appointment.
G. The Council shall be responsible for the performance evaluation of the Inspector General and shall seek the input of the public, Mayor, City Attorney, Chief, OPA Director, other SPD employees, and CPC. CPC shall provide input in accordance with subsection 3.29.360.N.
Section 27. Section 3.28.855 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 122744, is renumbered, recodified in Subchapter II of Chapter 3.29, and amended as follows:
((3.28.855 OPA Auditor’s Authority and Responsibility.