POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Proposal in Response to Request for Qualifications as the Independent Monitor for the Cleveland Division of Police PROPOSAL PRESENTED BY ERIC P. DAIGLE, ESQ. CHIEF CHARLES REYNOLDS (RET.) PHONE (860) 982-5098 P.O. BOX 123 SOUTHINGTON CT 06489 WWW.POLICEPERFORMANCECONSULTING.COM POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ………………………………………………………… Page 4 II. Personnel…………………………………………………………………....... Page 7 1. Identification and Background of Team Members………………............. Page 10 2. Internal Organization…………………………………………………….. Page 16 3. Description of other Projects Including Time Commitment…………….. Page 17 III. Qualifications………………………………………………………………… Page 18 1. Monitoring, auditing, evaluating, or otherwise reviewing performance of organizations, including experience in monitoring settlements, consent decrees, or court orders…..………………………………………………..Page 18 2. Law enforcement practices, including training, community policing and problem-oriented policing, complaint and use of force investigations, and constitutional policing……………………………………………………. Page 20 3. Evaluating the breadth and depth of organizational change, including the development of outcome measures………………………………………. Page 22 4. Development of effective quality improvement practices……………….. Page 23 5. Mediation and dispute resolution………………………………………… Page 23 6. Statistical and data analysis……………………………………………… Page 24 7. Information technology/ Data management.…………………………….. Page 25 8. Working with government agencies, municipalities, and collective bargaining units………………………………………………………….. Page 25 9. Language skills and experience working with limited English proficient persons and communities, in particular communities whose primary language is Spanish or Portuguese……………………………………….. Page 25 10. Familiarity and understanding of local issues and conditions…………… Page 26 11. Effective engagement with diverse communities………………………... Page 26 12. Creation and evaluation of meaningful civilian oversight………………. Page 26 13. Familiarity with federal, Ohio and local laws, including civil rights laws and policies and rules governing police practices………………….. Page 27 14. Completing projects within anticipated deadlines and budget……………Page 27 15. Preparing for and participating in court proceedings…………………….. Page 28 16. Report writing for a broad variety of stakeholders………………………. Page 28 IV. Prior Experiences and References…………………………………………… Page 29 Page 2 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL V. Proposed Activities………………………………………………………… Page 32 1. Methods of Obtaining Information………………………………………. Page 33 2. Methods of Analyzing Information……………………………………… Page 33 a. Compliance Measures…………………………………………… Page 33 3. Methods of Reporting Information…………………………………… Page 38 4. Frequency of Proposed Activities…………………………………… Page 38 5. Personnel Responsible for Scope of Work………………………………. Page 39 6. Coordination with the City and CDP…………………………………….. Page 39 7. Coordination of Monitoring Activities…………………………………... Page 40 VI. Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias……………………………………….. Page 40 VII. Estimated Costs……………………………………………………………… Page 42 Notice for Handling Application This Application contains confidential information that shall not be disclosed to any third party not identified in the Request for Application to which the Applicant is responding. This confidential information shall also not be duplicated, used, or disclosed, in whole or in part, for any purpose other than to evaluate this Application. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Applicant as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of this Application, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose said confidential information to the extent necessary in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the DOJ’s right to use the confidential information contained in this Application if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The confidential information subject to this restriction contained in the Application is marked with the following legend: Use or disclosure of confidential information contained herein is subject to the restriction on the title page of this application. Page 3 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL I Executive Summary Police Performance Consulting, LLC (PPC) is pleased to present its proposal to conduct independent monitoring of the Settlement Agreement involving the United States Department of Justice, the City of Cleveland, and the Cleveland Division of Police (CDP). PPC offers what no other team in the Country can offer the City of Cleveland and CDP during the monitoring process. Our principal, Chief Charles Reynolds (Ret.), has over eighteen years of experience monitoring police agencies that were under a federal consent decree. In 1997, Chief Reynolds was appointed as the Independent Auditor for Steubenville Ohio, the second consent decree in this Country. Over the next eighteen years, he has served on multiple projects, has worked as a DOJ Consultant and has developed the standards and methodologies of monitoring techniques and methodology. Our Principal, Attorney Eric Daigle, is a national renowned expert in law enforcement operations, effectiveness and management. For over a decade, Attorney Daigle has worked with law enforcement agencies to ensure constitutional police operations. Specifically, Attorney Daigle is an expert in Use of Force management and force investigation. He works with agencies across the Country in developing constitutionally based policies, training, investigation, auditing and management. Our independent monitoring team is composed of law enforcement and legal professionals who possess recognized subject matter expertise and extensive monitoring experience and who remain engaged with rapidly evolving contemporary policing practices. Our proposal combines the talents and experience of these professionals to assure steady progress towards the achievement of full compliance with Agreement requirements. PPC recognizes that the Settlement Agreement is merely the vehicle that outlines certain revisions, including those that are procedural and administrative in nature, which the CDP must implement. When properly implemented, these revisions will enhance police accountability to the community, increase individual and organizational integrity, and minimize the risk of police misconduct, especially with respect to the use of excessive force. The City, in this Agreement, has agreed to promote, foster, and implement a number of changes in CDP policies and practices. These changes will result in improved police community relations, with a net effect of improving the delivery of police services to a more trusting and involved community. The PPC team is clearly positioned and prepared to assist with the implementation of the Agreement and compliance with its requirements, while promoting both organizational improvement and strengthened community relationships. The members of the team are experts in contemporary law enforcement practices, police monitoring, auditing and evaluation, intergovernmental relations, civil rights compliance, and constitutional considerations. The PPC team has extensive experience working with law enforcement agencies in formulating law enforcement policies, designing law enforcement training, teaching contemporary law enforcement practices, assessing internal affairs and disciplinary systems, evaluating law enforcement information management systems, and working with all elements of the criminal justice system. The PPC team is well-versed in collective bargaining issues. In addition, the PPC team is ready, willing, and able to Page 4 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL provide technical assistance to the CDP, as it may be requested. 1. Methodology of Completing the Project PPC utilizes proven methodologies based on the principle of constitutional policing, accountability and community trust. These three principles are intended to be a system of checks and balance. Each principle has the ability to identify failures in the other to ensure a strong foundational approach to monitoring. Ensuring constitutional policing in an agency requires three pillars of accountability. These pillars, as demonstrated by the image below, identifies that in order to ensure constitutional policing is occurring, a department must have sound policies and procedures, must training officers on the department policies and core tasks, and the supervisors must be properly trained to ensure that through close and effective supervision the officers are following policy and training. The methodology of monitoring is focused on ensuring linkage between the three pillars. If one of the pillars is open, the department’s commitment to constitutional policing is failing. The job of the monitor is to initially audit and hold the department accountable for implementing the three pillars. The goal is to work with the department to enhance capacity to audit and hold themselves accountable. The final principle is community trust. It is necessary to work with the community to demonstrate that the pillars are in place and CDP has put in operation a methodology of accountability. We anticipate ensuring involvement by community members and groups for the purpose of enhancing the strength of the police department. The success of the reforms depends on the quality of the partnerships that are formed and the voices that are heard. We believe the most important part of completing the project is being connected and available to the parties. The team anticipates monthly visits by two or more team members. In consultation with the parties, the team will establish protocols for visits, to include community meetings within each of the CDP five districts and will ensure that communications and activities are open and effective. Specific data necessary for measuring compliance and protocols for collecting it will be developed in concert with the parties. The team will make timely requests for any documents and records necessary to most effectively manage both on and off site monitoring activities. Specific outstanding Page 5 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL and/or non-compliant issues will be identified and analyzed and a specific measure of compliance will be developed. One of the two co-monitors will be accessible to the parties at all times to discuss progress with agreement compliance and issues or matters of mutual concern. The PPC team will determine compliance through: 1) an examination of existing, new and/or revised policies, and 2) implementation of practices that support each requirement in the Agreement. For each requirement, we will define compliance and outline the measures that will be utilized to determine compliance. We will discuss the specific methodology with the parties to ensure that everyone involved understands the process. Compliance will be measured by first determining if a policy has been drafted or revised to support each Agreement requirement. Having determined that an appropriate policy has been established, we will then determine if that policy has been promulgated and effectively implemented using our field tested and proven methodology, which is based on linkages as follows: 1) the development of policies that are consistent with Agreement requirements and generally accepted police practices, 2) thorough training of all affected personnel policy requirements, and 3) implementation and reinforcement of policy requirements through effective supervision of officers. Carefully coordinated linkages of these three areas will provide the path leading to successful compliance with all requirements. We recognize that some Agreement requirements will require substantial work and time to achieve full implementation; accordingly, we will establish three levels of compliance: 1. In Compliance - Effective implementation has been achieved. The CDP is consistently satisfying requirements; any violations are minor or occasional, but not systemic. 2. Partial Compliance - The CDP is consistently satisfying some components of the provision or all components on an intermittent basis; a moderate amount of work remains to achieve full compliance. 3. Non-compliance - Significant work remains to achieve compliance. Each team member will analyze and report on findings of his or her review, which will be included in periodic reports to the parties and the court. Prior to final release of the report, a draft will be submitted to the parties for review and comment. Unless otherwise agreed or directed, PPS will issue Compliance Reports three times each year for the previous four-month period. The PPC will ensure that all interactions with the parties, and in particular with members of the CDP, are open and respectful. The team will work closely with the parties and their representatives and provide technical assistance as may be requested so as to meet their objectives. At the close of each monthly site visit, team members will debrief the city and CDP officials on findings and address problems encountered during the visit. Page 6 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL We believe that proper policy, procedure, training, supervision, and operations in law enforcement are paramount to the realization of respectful, transparent, and constitutional policing. Through its collective experience, our team offers proven ability and success in the review, evaluation, and development of comprehensive policies and procedures. Our experience includes conducting patterns and practice investigations with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, acting as members of multiple monitoring teams, and providing technical assistance as police practices experts to agencies under DOJ investigation. Our experts have the technical and legal experience to ensure a use of force management system and an internal affairs function that employs generally accepted contemporary policing practices. We will also ensure that Cleveland Division of Police demonstrates to the community and to its employees that the department has an objective and effective internal system to fairly investigate actions of members of the department, including their use of force. We have reviewed the Settlement Agreement and related documents and believe our expertise would benefit the Cleveland Division of Police’s progress towards maintaining an effective and constitutionally sound police department. II. Personnel The PPC team consists of professionals who are experienced and well-qualified to address the various issues and requirements contained in the Agreement. The team will be led by Attorney Eric Daigle and Chief Charles Reynolds, who will serve as co-monitors. Attorney Daigle has experience with monitoring agreements as a member of the monitoring teams in Oakland (CA) and formerly Niagara Falls (NY). He also consults with Law Enforcement Agencies across the country, some under DOJ scrutiny, to implement proper policy, training, supervision, and accountability. As an experienced state police officer and police practices litigator, he currently instructs in police and legal seminars across the country on agency liability, use of force standards and investigations, internal affairs, and tactical operations. He is a regular presenter for International Association of Chiefs of Police - Legal Officers Section (IACP), the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE), FBI-Law Enforcement Executive Development Association (FBI-LEEDA), and the National Association for Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE). Attorney Daigle annually hosts one of the nation’s largest threeday Use of Force Summits. The Summit focuses on current issues and methodologies involving police use of force and related use of force liability issues, as well as community relations and effective internal affairs practices. Chief Reynolds is one of the original consent decree monitors and has been instrumental in developing the monitoring process over the last eighteen years. We believe that Chief Reynolds has been instrumental in developing the standard practice in development of monitoring techniques and methodologies. Appointed in 1997 as Auditor of the second consent decree under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §14141 involving the Steubenville (OH) Police Department, he adapted and developed the methodology to effectively monitor police departments. Since that time, Chief Reynolds has continued to improve those Page 7 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL techniques, technologies, and methodologies while monitoring consent decrees and/or agreements involving the New Jersey State Police, Prince George’s County (MD) Police Department, and as Deputy Monitor involving consent decrees/agreements for the Detroit (MI) Police Department, Oakland (CA) Police Department, and the Niagara Falls (NY) Police Department. He was also a principal evaluator with the Oversight Commission on Policing Reform in Northern Ireland, responsible for monitoring and reporting on progress with the “Patten Report” recommendations as part of the ongoing peace process. Additional team members possess wide-ranging experience and expertise in law enforcement and related areas. For example, six members of the team have served as chiefs of police or in high level command positions within their respective agencies and understand the challenges that confront police chiefs and the agencies they lead. One team member also served as compliance director in the Prince George’s Police Department during the successful implementation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the DOJ. Four members have participated in monitoring under the provisions of a decree/agreement and fully understand the requirements of such projects. In order to remain skilled and knowledgeable on contemporary issues and practices, team members are active in and hold key positions with several prominent law enforcement and law enforcement related organizations. These include the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELA), FBI-Law Enforcement Executive Development Association (FBI-LEEDA), FBI National Academy, International Law Enforcement Auditors Association, and the Historical Black Colleges and Universities Association. Members also maintain close affiliations with the Civil Liberties Union, the Innocence Project, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), and the Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Such diversity and background will be important to ensure community confidence in the work of the Monitor. PPC offers a wide breadth of experience that will facilitate a high quality evaluation and effective technical assistance to the Cleveland Division of Police. Our monitoring methodology consists of a customized team concept. For purposes of this monitoring proposal, we have identified team members, however, the team can be adjusted to meet the needs of the project. The individual characteristics of our team principals make them uniquely qualified to best serve the needs of the review process. The review team members’ experiences and background are complementary characteristics that are mutually reinforcing, as we will illustrate. Our consultants are well-versed in best practices for use of force, stops and detentions, nondiscrimination, and community policing. They have recent monitoring experience and are technically skilled with regard to analyzing risk management databases, citizen complaint procedures, and police officer training. We are acutely aware of the burdens a large monitoring team places on an agency; accordingly, we will coordinate activities closely with the CDP so as to avoid disruption of ongoing service delivery commitments. Page 8 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Utilizing our two-phase concept, team members are able to interact more efficiently and more cost effectively. Our experience includes: • working as law enforcement officers and executives responsible for the development, implementation, management, and evaluation of use of force policies and procedures; • providing expert assistance to a variety of law enforcement agencies on policing issues, including use of force policies, procedures and training, stop and detentions, community policing, complaint systems, disciplinary systems, investigations, and accountability mechanisms; • designing and implementing programs to correct systemic deficiencies in law enforcement agencies; • responding to crisis situations following police shootings and other significant uses of force and making the difficult judgments about the propriety of particular uses of force; • addressing legal issues specific to law enforcement; • assisting in investigations of cases involving alleged excessive use of force; • working with government officials, police unions, and community groups on a variety of policing issues; • working with the U.S. Department of Justice investigating law enforcement agencies with systemic civil rights violations; • participating in public policy and criminal justice research to assess the impact of management systems on police integrity and police use of force; • designing and implementing leadership development programs to ensure that supervisors have the tools, ability, and will to uphold policies and procedures related to use of force and police integrity; and • compliance monitoring of law enforcement agencies. There are eight (8) members of the PPC Team, all with extensive law enforcement or related experience; six (6) are active or retired police executives, one is actively engaged in civilian police oversight, and one is an attorney who specialize in law enforcement operations. Our consultants’ rapport with departments comes, in part, from the fact that we have been on both sides of the fence so to speak. As police chiefs, we have gone in front of the community after a “bad shooting” incident, been responsible for the firing of police officers, and have implemented reforms in our own agencies. As consultants or professionals involved in related activities, we have studied police conduct, externally overseen police activities, and been challenged to Page 9 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL convince police officers that reform is a positive change. Equally important, we have the patience, experience, and restraint to provide monitoring services in a manner that minimizes the intrusion into the day-to-day affairs of the police department. 1. Identification and Background of Team Members We propose Eric Daigle and Charles Reynolds to serve as Co-Monitors. To assist in the review, PPC has chosen law enforcement executives and has identified subject matter experts to provide specific focused support in selected areas. Additional subject matter experts may be identified as required. Competent administrative staff will be selected as required. In our experience, working in collaborative teams yields the most positive results when assessing policy and procedure. Eric P. Daigle, Esq. Attorney Eric P. Daigle is an attorney, whose primary area of expertise is in civil litigation in both federal and state court, with an emphasis on defending municipalities and municipal clients in civil rights actions, including police misconduct litigation. Attorney Daigle is the principal of Daigle Law Group, LLC a nationally renowned law firm specializing in police operations and police misconduct. Attorney Daigle currently serves as member of the federal Independent Monitoring Team for the City of Oakland Police Department, California. He has also served as a member of the Independent Monitoring Team for the Niagara Falls Police Department, NY Consent Decree brought by the State of New York. As a lawyer with civil rights and law enforcement experience, Attorney Daigle brings to his position of Monitor both the police perspective and the civil rights perspective when examining all compliance tasks. It is his position that all problem-solving techniques must make sense from both of these perspectives. Attorney Daigle works as a consultant and expert witness for law enforcement pattern and practice development. He has worked as a Police Practices Consultant for the Virgin Islands Police Department and the Puerto Rico Police Department, which is under a Federal Consent Decree. His work focused on the development of use of force policy, developed training for the officers and supervisors, and implemented operational changes. He works with agencies across the country to prevent DOJ investigations where allegations of excessive force, multiple officer involved shootings have occurred, or an ineffective internal affairs process is identified. He works with agencies to develop policies, training, and implementation of investigation/ tracking functions. Attorney Daigle is a legal use of force trainer and conducts training related to managing force, deadly force investigations, and tactical liability. He serves as general counsel for the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Association and conducts internal affairs training for the association. He is well versed in best practice standards for use of force and internal affairs. He is a member of the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) Board of Directors, an instructor in the use of force seminar, and holds its Certified Litigation Specialist (CLS) credential. Attorney Daigle is the Vice Chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Page 10 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Police Legal Officers Section and a member of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE). He holds the Certified Practitioner of Oversight from NACOLE. Attorney Daigle is a retired Connecticut State Police Trooper and a certified officer in the State of Connecticut. Attorney Daigle has attended multiple Force Science training programs and is a Certified Force Science Investigator. Attorney Daigle is also a certified trainer in the Fair and Impartial Policing training programs. Charles Reynolds Mr. Reynolds serves as Deputy Monitor for the Negotiated Settlement Agreement related to the Oakland Police Department, Detroit Police Department, and formally the Consent Decree in Niagara Falls (NY). He previously served as the Independent Auditor for the consent decree in the City of Steubenville (OH) and as a member of the monitor teams for the consent decree/agreements between the USDOJ and the State of New Jersey (state police) and Prince George’s County (MD) police, respectively. Moreover, Mr. Reynolds was one of the principle evaluators with the Oversight Commission on Policing Reform in Northern Ireland, responsible for monitoring and reporting on progress with the “Patten Report” recommendations as part of the ongoing peace process. Mr. Reynolds has consulted on police organizational and management issues in eighteen states and internationally. He recently consulted with the Puerto Rico Police Department, which is under a Federal Consent Decree, and serves as a policy reviewer for the consulting group overseeing the Federal Court Order involving the Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff’s Office. He also serves as a police practices expert for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He holds a Bachelor of Science (cum laude) Degree in Criminal Justice and a Master’s Degree in Public Administration (MPA). Mr. Reynolds’ police career spans over 50 years, during which he has served as Chief of Police for over 26 years and as Assistant to the Director of Public Safety for the Navajo Nation. He is a Past President and a current member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Executive Committee and its Civil Rights and Wrongful Convictions Committees. Mr. Reynolds is a former member and Vice Chair of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. He is a member of the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) Board of Directors and holds its Certified Litigation Specialist (CLS) credential. He is a charter member and former Chairman of the New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council. He is a former Board Member of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) and holds its Certified Practitioner of Oversight Credential. Mr. Reynolds is also certified as a Force Science Investigator. Mr. Reynolds has served his community in various capacities, including Acting City Manager, Mayor, City Councilor, and Chair of the Ethics Commission and the Parking Commission. He also served as Trustee of the local hospital and Chair of the community based mental health center board of directors. Page 11 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL John Romero Mr. Romero is a core Team Member for the Office of Technical Compliance Advisor (Monitor) for DOJ Agreement for Reform with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He also serves as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, and has worked with the Bratton Group, LLC and Strategic Police Partnership, LLC. Mr. Romero’s policing career spans over 44 years, during which he served in multi-cultural communities. He served as a member of the New York City Police Department, retiring at the rank of Deputy Inspector in 1999. He was appointed Chief of Police in Lawrence, Massachusetts, where he served until his retirement in 2014. During his tenure in New York, he served in a variety of capacities, including assignments with the Homeless Outreach and AntiGraffiti Units. As a captain in the NYPD, Mr. Romero was trained and designated Shooting Team Leader. In that capacity, he was put in charge of internal investigative teams, who responded to police shootings and conducted investigations into firearm discharges by NYPD personnel. During his tenure as Lawrence police chief, he was recognized for his focus on the importance of building community relationships and trust as he faced the challenges of rebuilding a demoralized agency, while trying to reverse an ever increasing crime rate. Mr. Romero is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Police Administration. John R. Brown Mr. Brown retired from the Pennsylvania State Police at the rank of Lt. Colonel after completing more than 29 years of service. Mr. Brown currently serves as a member of the Federal Independent Monitoring Team for the City of Oakland Police Department and the City of Detroit Police Department. He also serves as a member of the Independent Monitoring Team for the Niagara Falls, NY Consent Decree brought by the State of New York. As the former Deputy Commissioner of Professional Responsibility for the Pennsylvania State Police, he specialized in internal affairs and community trust building, which he brings to his position of consultant. Mr. Brown is an executive reviewer with the evaluation and demonstration programs of the National Institute of Justice, in collaboration with Educational Services, Inc., of Bethesda, Md. Brown has collaborated with the Office for Victims of Crime, within the United States Department of Justice, on its witness intimidation and diversity working groups. Mr. Brown served on IACP advisory committees that aimed to link local law enforcement internal affairs practices, facilitate community trust building, employ returning combat veterans as police officers, and increase police response for people with mental illness. Mr. Brown served on the Pennsylvania Governor’s Executive Diversity Council regarding commonwealth diversity recruiting initiatives with the Office of Diversity Management. Mr. Brown has been a guest Page 12 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL speaker with IACP; the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs; American University, located in Washington, D.C.; California University of Pennsylvania; Elizabethtown College, located in Pennsylvania; and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Leroy K. James Mr. James is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of L. K. James and Associates LLC, a consulting firm specializing in campus safety and security assessment and compliance for institutions of higher education. Prior to establishing his consulting firm, Mr. James served as the Chief of Police and Executive Director for Safety and Security at Howard University in Washington DC from 2008 through 2014. From August 1980 through January 2008, Mr. James served as a member of the Prince George’s County, Maryland Police Department. He rose through the ranks of that agency retiring at the rank of Police Major, after a twenty-seven year career. In his final assignment, he served as the Patrol Commander for the Oxon Hill District, which encompasses 74 square miles, and served approximately 150,000 people. During his police career with Prince George’s County, Mr. James also served as the Executive Officer to the Chief of the Bureau of Patrol, as a Homicide Investigator and Supervisor for over five (5) years, as well as assignments in the Internal Affairs Division, Planning & Research Division, Office of the Director of Public Safety – Office of Homeland Security, the Forensics Services Division, the Narcotics Division, and the Bureau of Patrol. Mr. James also served as Prince George’s County Police Department’s first Compliance Coordinator, where he was the liaison between the Department, Prince George’s County government, the Independent Monitor, and the U.S. Department of Justice for both the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree Project from 2004 through 2006. As the Compliance Coordinator, Mr. James was responsible for coordinating all of the Department’s compliance and implementation activities related to the Memorandum of Agreement and the Consent Decree issued by the United States Department of Justice on January 22, 2004. Both the Memorandum of Agreement and the Consent Decree were the result of separate Department investigations, initiated in 1999 and 2000. Mr. James also benchmarked several other agencies that were already in the process of executing a Memorandum of Agreement or a Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice. The New Jersey State Police and the Pittsburgh Police Bureau were two of the agencies involved in the benchmarking process. In November 2004, Mr. James led a team of Prince George’s County Police Department officials to the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Police Bureau to learn how they had specifically implemented their Performance Assessment and Review System (PARS). The PARS system was an automated personnel performance management system, which was mandated by the Consent Decree. The PARS system had been cited as a “best practice” model among Early Identification and Warning Systems in police departments nationwide. In December 2004, Mr. James led a similar team to Trenton, New Jersey for a briefing on the New Jersey State Police Management Awareness Personnel Performance System (MAPPS). The MAPPS system is an integrated system for maintaining, retrieving, and analyzing information regarding the performance of the members of the agency. These benchmarking site visits were arranged by the Page 13 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Office of the Compliance Coordinator for the members of the police department to better understand how to design, implement, and manage a comprehensive personnel records management system that would adhere to the requirement outlined in their Memorandum of Agreement. Donald Anders Mr. Anders is a subject matter expert in multiple critical law enforcement disciplines, including: use of force, internal affairs, criminal investigations, policy development and commensurate training, leadership, operations, supervision and accountability, critical incident management, collaboration, and risk management. He worked with the Oakland Independent Monitoring Team and served as a member of the federal Compliance Director’s staff, during which he reviewed and coauthored a detailed report on the Occupy Oakland protests. Most recently, he has consulted for two international Silicon Valley firms on the issues surrounding critical incident management, policies, training, and accountability. Chief Anders volunteers his time with the Northern California Innocence Project at the Santa Clara University School of Law. He resides in Northern CA. Mr. Anders retired from full-time peace officer status in 2010, following more than 32 years of service with two law enforcement agencies, the last of which was the San Jose, CA Police Department, where he served for 28 years. During his tenure at San Jose PD, he served in many capacities, including but not limited to: Special Operations, Internal Affairs, Criminal Investigations, Field Training, Administration, and Field Operations. Mr. Anders is a graduate of the FBI National Academy; he holds a Bachelors of Arts Degree in Management; and a Master of Arts Degree in Education from San Diego State University. Terri Wilfong Ms. Wilfong has 33-years of law enforcement experience. She served as Chief of Police in Greenville South Carolina from 2007- 2014. In her role as chief, she reorganized the department through allocation of manpower into three divisions for a more balanced approach of responsibility to the community. The Internal Affairs Unit was restructured to enhance the efficiency of citizen interaction, officer involvement, and the investigation and tracking of all complaints. During her tenure as Chief, a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) was created with officers who were trained to respond to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. This team was the first one established in the state of South Carolina and the agency consisted of the largest numbers of officers trained in CIT throughout the State. A Compstat program was implemented to review crime maps and trends in coordination with crime reduction strategies. To ensure transparency of crime in the City of Greenville, a program called Raids on Line was accessible on the department’s website. The program had the capability to send email notifications of current crime every 24 hours to those who signed up Page 14 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL through the website. In 2003, the Jefferson County Police Department and the Louisville Division of Police were merged into the new Louisville Metro Police Department. Ms. Wilfong was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel as part of the first executive command staff of the newly created department from 2003-2006. In her role as Lieutenant Colonel, she worked with a committee to merge all aspects of the two agencies and developed the new organizational chart for the merged Louisville Metro Police Department. She implemented and directed the Compstat Management Process and restructured and directed the crime analysis section to serve the Department’s Compstat goals and directives. She created and managed a Violent Crime Task Force, whose goal was to identify and apprehend wanted violent chronic offenders. She planned and coordinated the law enforcement strategies for all special events in the Louisville area, including the Kentucky Derby, the Breeder’s Cup, and the PGA championship. Ms. Wilfong also served 17 years with the Jefferson County Police Department. During this time, she completed a variety of assignments and rose to the rank of Captain. Her assignments included a patrol officer, certified police instructor, Sergeant in the patrol division and criminal investigations division, Lieutenant in the patrol division, Commander of the Internal Affairs Unit, Accreditation Coordinator, Assistant Commander on the Hostage Negotiations Team, and a Captain as a Patrol Commander. Ms. Wilfong was a Kentucky State Trooper from 1983-1985 and served as a trooper in operations and a detective in the Special Investigations Division. She was Deputy Sheriff with Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office from 1981-1983 and served as a Court Deputy. She has been a guest instructor for the Southern Police Institute’s Administrative Officers Course and an instructor for the Department of Criminal Justice Training in Kentucky. Ms. Wilfong has expertise in the area of ethics, discipline, and re-organization of police departments. She has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Justice Administration and a Master of Science Degree in Justice Administration, both from University of Louisville. She is a graduate of the Southern Police Institute, 95th Administrative Officer's Course. Ms. Wilfong is an instructor for IACP on leadership and the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Association on discipline and ethics. Brian Buchner Mr. Buchner is a Special Investigator with the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In that capacity, he oversees all aspects of the Los Angeles Police Department’s operations, with a primary focus on ensuring the preservation and institutionalization of Consent Decree reforms, assessing compliance with Department policies and state and federal law, and evaluating the integrity and effectiveness of the Department’s accountability systems. He has more than ten years of direct experience working in civilian oversight of law enforcement, during which he has reviewed hundreds of sensitive law enforcement investigations, including those that arise in the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting, in-custody death, or Page 15 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL other critical police-involved incident. Prior to joining the OIG in 2007, Mr. Buchner was the Policing Specialist at the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), where he assisted the PARC Director and Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors with monitoring and critically reviewing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Buchner is the current President of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), having been involved with the organization since 2004. He has spoken about policing and police oversight issues in a variety of forums, including panels hosted by NACOLE, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Society of Criminology, the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, the Homicide Research Working Group, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, the University of California-Los Angeles, and in jurisdictions and communities across the nation. Mr. Buchner most recently provided testimony to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing regarding civilian oversight of law enforcement. Mr. Buchner holds credentials as a Certified Inspector General, a Certified Practitioner of Oversight and a Certified Law Enforcement Auditor. He also holds a Bachelor of Science (cum laude) Degree in Criminal Justice, and a Master of Arts Degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2. Internal Organization Team Member Eric Daigle, Esq. Duties Co-Monitor, Operation Charles Reynolds Co-Monitor, Administration Leroy James Team Member James R Brown Team Member Page 16 of 46 Areas of Responsibility Policies, Search and Seizure, Use of Force, Crisis Intervention, Officer Assistance and Support, and Supervision. Community Engagement and Building Trust, Community and Problem-Oriented Policing, Bias-Free Policing, Accountability, Transparency and Oversight Accountability, Community and Problem-Oriented Policing Bias- Free Policing, Accountability, and Search and Seizure POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL James Romero Team Member Brian Buchner Team Member Donald Anders Team Member Terri Wilfong Team Member Community Engagement and Building Trust, Community and Problem Oriented Policing Transparency and Oversight, Community Engagement and Building Trust Use of Force, Supervision, Officer Assistance and Support Crisis Intervention, Policies, Supervision 3. Description of other projects including time commitment Below is a chart which identifies projects on which team members are currently working and a summary of hours worked by month. Team Member Charles Reynolds Charles Reynolds Eric Daigle John R. Brown Donald Anders John Romero John R. Brown Terri Wilfong John R. Brown Donald Anders Donald Anders Project Oakland Deputy Monitor Police Practices Expert Oakland Police Department Oakland Police Department Hours Per Month 32-40 Hours 8-16 Hours 5 Hours Puerto Rico Police DOJ Program Diagnostic Center FBI – Law Enforcement Executive Leadership Programs NFL Security Maricopa County Sheriff’s Monitor Northern California Innocence Project 56 Hours Page 17 of 46 5 Hours 15 Hours 60 Hours 15 hours 40 Hours 10 Hours POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL III. Qualifications This following section has been organized to present the information required by the Request for Qualifications in a manner intended to enhance its clarity and reduce repetitive responses. This section describes the qualifications of each member, specific to requested topics. The intent is to demonstrate each team member’s strengths, which meet the requirements of this Request for Proposal and address the following topics: 1. Monitoring, auditing, evaluating, or otherwise reviewing performance of organizations, including experience in monitoring settlements, consent decrees, or court orders; The members of the PPC team are recognized experts in contemporary policing and have extensive backgrounds in law enforcement or law enforcement practices. Team members also have extensive experience in monitoring settlements, consent decrees, and court orders, as demonstrated below. Mr. Reynolds has more than 28 years’ experience as a police chief, having served in five communities, including Dover and Lebanon, New Hampshire. He also served as Assistant to the Director of Public Safety for the Navajo Nation, where he prepared recommendations for organizational change to include, personnel and resource allocation, internal affairs operations, law enforcement training, and in addition, monitored compliance with a Tribal Court consent decree relating to jail conditions. Mr. Reynolds has been involved with monitoring since its inception, having been appointed in 1997 as the Independent Auditor for the Consent Decree involving the City of Steubenville, OH and the U.S. Department of Justice. He also served as a member of the Independent Monitor Teams in the Consent Decree involving the New Jersey State Police, where he monitored compliance with requirements relating to traffic stops, searches and seizures, and citizen complaints, and the Memorandum of Agreement involving the Prince George’s County Police Department where he monitored use of force. He served as the Deputy Monitor for the Detroit Police Consent Decrees relating to the Use of Force and Conditions of Confinement, served as Deputy Monitor for the Consent Decree in Niagara Falls (NY), and presently serves as Deputy Monitor for the Negotiated Settlement Agreement related to the Oakland Police Department Mr. Reynolds has consulted on police organizational and management issues in eighteen states and internationally. He also serves as a police practices expert for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Moreover, Chief Reynolds was one of the principal evaluators with the Oversight Commission for Policing Reform in Northern Ireland, responsible for monitoring and reporting on progress with the “Patten Report” recommendations as part of the ongoing peace process. He also served as a member of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies a Commission (CALEA) and Vice President and President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). Attorney Daigle currently serves as member of the federal Independent Monitoring Team for the City of Oakland Police Department, California. He also has served as a member of the Page 18 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Independent Monitoring Team for the Niagara Falls Police Department, NY Consent Decree brought by the State of New York. As a lawyer with civil rights and law enforcement experience, Mr. Daigle brings to his position of Monitor both the police perspective and the civil rights perspective when examining all compliance tasks. Attorney Daigle works as a consultant and expert witness for law enforcement pattern and practice concerns. He has worked as a police practices consultant for the Virgin Islands Police Department and the Puerto Rico Police Department, which are under a Federal Consent Decree. He works with agencies across the country to prevent DOJ investigations where allegations of excessive force, multiple officer-involved shootings have occurred, or an ineffective internal affairs process are identified. He works with agencies to develop policies, training, and implementation of investigation/ tracking functions. Mr. Brown currently serves as member of the Federal Independent Monitoring Team for the City of Oakland Police Department, California. He also has served as a member of the Independent Monitoring Team for the Niagara Falls Police Department, NY Consent Decree brought by the State of New York. While serving as a Deputy Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police, Lt. Col. Brown had responsibility for oversight of the Department’s Bureau of Integrity and Professional Standards (BIPS). He audited, used and analyzed data pertaining to the operations and programs of the PSP, a police organization of over 6,000 employees. During his period of executive management, he oversaw the successful reform of the PSP and brought the department into compliance or substantial compliance with 40 recommendations overseen by an independent monitor team. Mr. Anders served as a member of the Federal Independent Monitoring team for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Oakland Police Department. He served as a member of the Independent Federal Compliance Director’s Team for the Oakland Police Department responsible for investigation of internal affairs complaints, use of force and officer involved shootings. Additional team members possess wide-ranging experience and expertise in law enforcement and related areas. For example, six members of the team have served as chiefs of police or in high level command positions within their respective agencies and understand the challenges that confront police chiefs and the agencies they lead. Mr. James has used his experience as the Compliance Coordinator at the Prince George’s County Police Department as a benchmark for several other agencies that were already in the process of executing a Memorandum of Agreement or a Consent Decree with the U.S. Department of Justice. The New Jersey State Police and the Pittsburgh Police Bureau were two of the agencies involved in the benchmarking process. In November 2004, Mr. James led a team of Prince George’s County Police Department officials to the Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Police Bureau to learn how they had specifically implemented their Performance Assessment and Review System (PARS). In December 2004, Mr. James led a similar team to Trenton, New Jersey for a briefing on the New Jersey State Police Management Awareness Personnel Performance System (MAPPS). The MAPPS system is an integrated system for maintaining, retrieving, and analyzing information regarding the performance of the members of the agency. Page 19 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Mr. Romero is a core team member for the Office of Technical Compliance Advisor (Monitor) for DOJ Agreement for Reform with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He also serves as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, and has worked with the Bratton Group, LLC and Strategic Police Partnership, LLC. Mr. Buchner is a Special Investigator with the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In that capacity he oversees all aspects of the Los Angeles Police Department’s operations, with a primary focus on ensuring the preservation and institutionalization of Consent Decree reforms, assessing compliance with Department policies and state and federal law, and evaluating the integrity and effectiveness of the Department’s accountability systems. He has more than ten years of direct experience working in civilian oversight of law enforcement, during which he has reviewed hundreds of sensitive law enforcement investigations, including those that arise in the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting, in-custody death, or other critical police-involved incident. Prior to joining the OIG in 2007, Mr. Buchner was the Policing Specialist at the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), where he assisted the PARC Director and Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors with monitoring and critically reviewing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 2. Law enforcement practices, including training, community policing and problemoriented policing, complaint and use of force investigations, and constitutional policing; In addition to the information provided in Section 1 above, several members of the PPC team have extensive command and consulting experience implementing law enforcement practices, training, community policing and problem-oriented policing, complaint and use of force investigations, and community policing. The members of this team believe that the linkage of these topic areas is the necessary methodology to improve effective and constitutional-based policing. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. James, Mr. Romero, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Wilfong have over 100 years of experience as a police chiefs dealing with these topic areas. Attorney Daigle, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. James, Mr. Romero, and Mr. Brown now consult with law enforcement agencies to enhance the linkages from policy development, training, supervision, and accountability. Members of the PPC team have consulted on these topics with various police departments, such as Steubenville (OH) Police Department, Detroit (MI) Police Department, Oakland (CA) Police Department, New Jersey State Police, Prince Georges County (MD), Puerto Rico Police, Virgin Islands Police, Niagara Falls (NY) Police Department, Seattle (WA) Police Department Multiple members of the PPC team conduct training as subject matter experts on these topics. Most significantly is Attorney Daigle, who provides instruction at a majority of nationally recognized law enforcement organizations on practices, training, community linkage, complaint and use of force investigations, along with the concept of constitutional based policing. Attorney Daigle is clearly the leader in the industry conducting high level training on these subjects across the country. Page 20 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Attorney Daigle is a legal use of force trainer and conducts training related to managing force, deadly force investigations, and tactical liability. He serves as general counsel for the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Association (FBI-LEEDA) and conducts internal affairs training for the association. He is well-versed in best practice standards for use of force and internal affairs. He is a member of the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE) Board of Directors, an instructor in the use of force seminar, and holds its Certified Litigation Specialist (CLS) credential. Mr. Reynolds has consulted on police organizational and management issues in eighteen states and internationally. He consulted with the Puerto Rico Police Department, which is under a Federal Consent Decree, and presently serves as a policy reviewer for the consulting group overseeing the Federal Court Order involving the Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff’s Office. He also serves as a police practices expert for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He is a member of the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement and holds its Certified Litigation Specialist (CLS) credential. Mr. Romero is a core team member for the Office of Technical Compliance Advisor (Monitor) for DOJ Agreement for Reform with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. He also serves as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Justice, Special Litigation Section, Civil Rights Division, and has worked with the Bratton Group, LLC and Strategic Police Partnership, LLC. Mr. Brown monitors and assesses use of force investigations and Force Review Boards in the federal consent decree in Oakland, CA, monitored and assessed Force Investigations and Command Level Force Review Teams (CLFRT) in the completed Detroit, MI federal consent decree, and monitors and assesses internal investigations, discipline and community outreach (including training) in the state consent decree with the Niagara Falls, NY consent decree. Mr. Brown is also a Subject Matter Expert (SME) that was selected as part of the U.S. Office for Justice Programs (OJP) Diagnostic Center, Metro East Police District Commission (MEPDC) engagement in East St. Louis, IL. During his career with the Prince George Police Department, Mr. James served as the Department’s first Compliance Coordinator, where he was the liaison between the police department, the Prince George’s County government, the Independent Monitor, and the U.S. Department of Justice for both a Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree Project from 2004 through 2006. As the Compliance Coordinator, Mr. James was responsible for coordinating all of the Department’s compliance and implementation activities related to the Memorandum of Agreement and the Consent Decree, which the U.S. Department of Justice issued to the Department on January 22, 2004. Both the Memorandum of Agreement and the Consent Decree were the result of separate investigations of the police department, initiated in 1999 and 2000. Mr. Anders served as a member of the federal Independent Monitoring team for Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Oakland Police Department. He served as a member of the Independent Federal Compliance Director’s Team for the Oakland Police Department responsible for investigation of internal affairs complaints, use of force and officer involved shootings. Page 21 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL After service as the Police Chief in Greenville South Carolina where she reformed the department’s Internal Affairs Unit, Ms. Terri Wilfong developed the first Crisis Intervention Team and implemented the first use of force reporting system. She is currently a Lead Instructor for the FBI- Law Enforcement Executive Development Association teaching in the Supervisory, Command and Executive Leadership Program. Mr. Buchner is a Special Investigator with the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In this capacity, he oversees all aspects of the Los Angeles Police Department’s operations, with a primary focus on ensuring the preservation and institutionalization of Consent Decree reforms, assessing compliance with Department policies and state and federal law, and evaluating the integrity and effectiveness of the Department’s accountability systems. 3. Evaluating the breadth and depth of organizational change, including the development of outcome measures; Members of the PPC team are experts in evaluating the breadth and depth of organizational change, including the development of outcome measures. Mr. Reynolds was one of the original monitors of police departments in 1997 under the authority of 42 U.S.C. §14141 and was a guiding force in developing the methodology of evaluating organizational changes and the development of outcome measures. The members of the PPC team, who served as police chiefs, utilize their experience in that role to evaluate the ability of those working in their departments. Experts Reynolds, Daigle, Romero, James, Brown, Buchner, and Wilfong are active consultants in the police practices field. They have spent years mastering their craft and the ability to identify and evaluate the process of organizational change; assist departments in understanding their current stage in the organizational change process; and assist departments in implementing self-assessment outcome measures. Attorney Daigle currently serves as member of the federal Independent Monitoring Team for the City of Oakland Police Department, California. He has also served as a member of the Independent Monitoring Team for the Niagara Falls Police Department, NY Consent Decree, brought by the State of New York. As a lawyer with civil rights and law enforcement experience, Mr. Daigle brings to his position of Monitor both the police perspective and the civil rights perspective when examining all compliance tasks. He works with agencies across the country to prevent DOJ investigations where allegations of excessive force, multiple officer-involved shootings have occurred, or an ineffective internal affairs process is identified. He works with agencies to develop policies, conduct training, and implement investigation/ tracking functions. Mr. Reynolds serves as Deputy Monitor for the Negotiated Settlement Agreement related to the Oakland (CA) Police Department and serves as Deputy Monitor for the Consent Decrees related to the Detroit (MI) Police Department as well as the Niagara Falls (NY) Police Department. He previously served as the Independent Auditor for the Consent Decree in the City of Steubenville (OH), and as a member of the monitor teams for the consent decree/agreements between the USDOJ and the State of New Jersey (state police) and Prince George’s County (MD) police, respectively. Moreover, Mr. Reynolds was one of the principle evaluators with the Oversight Page 22 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Commission on Policing Reform in Northern Ireland, responsible for monitoring and reporting on progress with the “Patten Report” recommendations as part of the ongoing peace process. Mr. Brown currently serves as member of the Federal Independent Monitoring Team for the City of Oakland Police Department, California. He has also served as a member of the Independent Monitoring Team for the Niagara Falls Police Department, NY Consent Decree, brought by the State of New York. Mr. Brown works with agencies across the country to prevent DOJ investigations specific to implementing an effective internal affairs process and community interaction. He works with agencies to develop policies, conduct training, and implement investigation/ tracking functions. Mr. Buchner is a Special Investigator with the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). In that capacity, he oversees all aspects of the Los Angeles Police Department’s operations, with a primary focus on ensuring the preservation and institutionalization of Consent Decree reforms, assessing compliance with Department policies and state and federal law, and evaluating the integrity and effectiveness of the Department’s accountability systems. He has more than ten years of direct experience working in civilian oversight of law enforcement, during which he has reviewed hundreds of sensitive law enforcement investigations, including those that arise in the aftermath of an officer-involved shooting, in-custody death, or other critical police-involved incident. Prior to joining the OIG in 2007, Mr. Buchner was the Policing Specialist at the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), where he assisted the PARC Director and Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors with monitoring and critically reviewing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. 4. Development of effective quality improvement practices; All members of the PPC team are clearly leaders in the process of developing effective quality improvement practices. In addition to the information provided above, the members of the PPC team are foremost experts in their respective areas of compliance analysis. The PPC team readily acknowledges and expects to not only be responsible for the evaluation of CDP through the life of the Agreement, but to provide CDP with the team’s collective years of experience and knowledge in the form of technical assistance. One of the PPC team’s strengths is that they maintain contemporary knowledge of issues facing law enforcement operations in 2015. By keeping current with present day issues, they remain leaders in the industry on topics affecting law enforcement agencies, including: policy development, training methodology, effective internal affairs methods, legal standards and recent court rulings, utilization of available technology, and use of force standards. 5. Mediation and dispute resolution; Mediation and dispute resolution is a necessary skill of those who evaluate organizations to facilitate change and encourage and provide outcome measures. All proposed team members are industry experts and during their tenure as police chiefs, attorneys, and educators, they have utilized their mediation and dispute resolution skills on an ongoing basis as leaders, instructors, and advocates. Their experience includes conducting disciplinary hearings and the administration Page 23 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL of discipline to employees, as well as mediating complaints from members of society and mediating issues within the community, particularly those pertaining to police involvement. Attorney Daigle has extensive experience as a litigator with mediation and dispute resolution, which includes formal application in court or administrative hearings and the implementation of police practice changes in policy, training, and supervision. Ms. Wilfong and Mr. Buchner have experience with interactions between and within law enforcement and the community. In fact, Mr. Buchner, in his capacity as a Civilian Oversight of LAPD, uses his experience to meditate complaints against the LAPD. Mr. Brown was responsible for overseeing his Department’s reform and accountability efforts in the areas of misconduct, sexual harassment/sexual misconduct, sworn member domestic violence, use of force, and early intervention/risk management initiatives. Mr. Brown led the development of the department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office’s statewide liaison program and had oversight of citizen complaints that alleged discrimination or disparate treatment through the Internal Affairs and/or EEOO functions. 6. Statistical and data analysis; Statistical and data analysis is an important part of monitoring or evaluating a police department. This process usually focuses on using both an early intervention or risk management database and collection of data regarding stops of subjects detained by police. Data analysis is a necessary step when properly evaluating department operations. This process includes: use of force, automobile accidents, Internal Affairs complaints, lawsuits, and injuries caused to prisoners. As police chiefs, PPC team members have used and implemented some portion of statistical and data analysis into their departments operations. The PPC team believes that their experience utilizing statistical and data analysis is superior to any other team. As the Deputy Monitor for the Oakland Police Department, Mr. Reynolds and Attorney Daigle have five years of experience in the analysis of statistical and data analysis specific to vehicle stops, field investigation, and detentions. When evaluating the stops made by OPD members, Attorney Daigle audits thousands of field and stop data reports. They collect and audit the available data for the purpose of reporting on the audit results. Mr. Reynolds serves as Deputy Monitor for the Negotiated Settlement Agreement related to the Oakland Police Department and previously in the same capacity for Consent Decrees related to the Detroit (MI) and Niagara Falls (NY) Police Departments. He previously served as the Independent Auditor for the Consent Decree in the City of Steubenville (OH) and as a member of the monitor teams for the consent decree/agreements between the USDOJ and the State of New Jersey (State Police), and Prince George’s County (MD) police and Detroit Police Department, respectively. In all of these projects the statistical and data analysis is necessary to identify compliance measures. Attorney Daigle and Mr. Brown currently serve as a members of the Federal Independent Monitoring Team for the City of Oakland Police Department in California. They also served as a member of the Independent Monitoring Team for the Niagara Falls Police Department, NY Page 24 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Consent Decree brought by the State of New York. Mr. Daigle worked as a police practices consultant for the Virgin Islands Police Department and the Puerto Rico Police Department, which are under a Federal Consent Decree. In all of these projects, statistical and data analysis was necessary to identify compliance measures. During his career with the Prince George’s Police Department, Mr. James served as the Department’s first Compliance Coordinator, where he was the liaison between the Department, the Prince George’s County government, the Independent Monitor, and the U.S. Department of Justice for both a Memorandum of Agreement and Consent Decree Project from 2004 through 2006. 7. Information technology; Data management; Information technology and data management are key administrative functions for the effective operation of a police department. Members of the PPC team have extensive experience in the development of effective information technology and data management, bringing their respective police departments up to current technological operational standards. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Romero, Mr. James, Mr. Brown, and Ms. Wilfong are all police chiefs/executives whose experience includes implementing data management systems. In fact, Mr. Anders and Ms. Wilfong have focused on the evaluation, selection, and implementation of technology and data management into their respective departments. Their knowledge and experience is essential to support the IT Department and personnel with selection and implementation of technology that will enhance CDP’s ability to collect, analyze, and report on necessary data sets. 8. Working with government agencies, municipalities, and collective bargaining units; The strength of the PPC team is their collective experience in the industry. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. James, Mr. Romero, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Wilfong have over 100 years of experience as police chiefs dealing with governmental agencies, municipalities and collective bargaining units. Attorney Daigle, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. James, Mr. Romero, and Mr. Brown currently monitor, audit, and consult with law enforcement agencies across the country. These team members focus on working with local, state, and federal agencies in their respective careers. Attorney Daigle for over the past decade has worked with Government Agencies and municipalities providing consulting services to improve police operations, effectiveness and management. During these consulting services, Attorney Daigle has worked with and negotiated with collective bargaining units. 9. Language skills and experience working with limited English proficient persons and communities, in particular communities whose primary language is Spanish or Portuguese; PPC team member John Romero is fluent in Spanish which will prove beneficial when working with limited English proficient persons and communities. This particular proficiency has proven to be beneficial in his position as a core team member on the monitoring team in Puerto Rico. Page 25 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL 10. Familiarity and understanding of local issues and conditions; Six of our team members were senior executives in local and state police organizations. They are intimately familiar with issues confronting local police departments. The will be quick to understand the conditions and issues confronting the CDP. PPC clearly understands the importance of understanding and familiarity of local issues and conditions. We will use our relationships with the parties and community representatives to stay updated and will consider retaining local counsel if possible. 11. Effective engagement with diverse communities; Members of the PPC team have extensive experience and expertise in facilitating effective engagement with diverse communities. Mr. Romero’s policing career spans over 44 years, during which he served in multi-cultural communities. He served as a member of the New York City Police Department, retiring at the rank of Deputy Inspector in 1999. He was appointed Chief of Police in Lawrence, Massachusetts, where he served until his retirement in 2014. During his tenure in New York, he served in a variety of capacities, including assignments with the Homeless Outreach and Anti- Graffiti Units. During his tenure as Lawrence police chief, he was recognized for his focus on the importance of building community relationships and trust as he faced the challenges of rebuilding a demoralized agency, while trying to reverse an everincreasing crime rate. Mr. Brown collaborated with the Governor’s Advisory Commissions on Latino, African American, and Asian affairs in the development of innovative community based and process strategies to improve and reform the department’s hiring processes to recruit qualified minorities and women into enlisted and civilian positions. In Mr. Brown’s role as monitor/auditor in the Niagara Falls, NY consent decree, he monitors and provides technical assistance to the department in their community outreach efforts. He provides technical assistance on community outreach policies, training, and accountability. Mr. Brown is a Subject Matter Expert (SME) that was selected as part of the U.S. Office for Justice Programs (OJP) Diagnostic Center, Metro East Police District Commission (MEPDC) engagement in East St. Louis, IL. Mr. Reynolds, in his capacity as Deputy Monitor in Oakland and Detroit, and including his capacity as police practices expert for the DOJ, has interacted with diverse community members. As part of these projects, Mr. Reynolds has met with community members, community leaders, and faith-based leaders to identify concerns relevant to police operation and understanding the concerns of the community. It is essential that the community be heard to understand their concerns. The PPC team is diverse in race and gender for the purpose of meeting the needs of engaging a diverse community. 12. Creation and evaluation of meaningful civilian oversight; The PPC team recognizes the challenges with the creation and evaluation of meaningful civilian oversight. Members of the team have the required skill set to ensure successful implementation. The team’s strengths in this area is enhanced through the guidance of Mr. Buchner. Mr. Buchner has ten years of direct experience working in civilian oversight of law enforcement, specifically in his current capacity as Special Investigator with the Los Angeles Board of Police Page 26 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Commissioners, Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Mr. Buchner has worked directly with Ferguson, Sonoma County and St. Louis, all of which are at different points in the process of establishing civilian oversight. Also, Mr. Buchner was the principal investigator for a national survey of police oversight models for the Eugene Police Commission and co-authored the final report. Mr. Buchner is the current President of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), having been involved with the organization since 2004. He has spoken about policing and police oversight issues in a variety of forums, including panels hosted by NACOLE, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Society of Criminology, the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, the Homicide Research Working Group, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, the University of California-Los Angeles, and in jurisdictions and communities across the nation. Mr. Buchner most recently provided testimony to the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing regarding civilian oversight of law enforcement. Mr. Reynolds served as a member of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) Board of Directors, and Attorney Daigle is an active member in NACOLE, and has provided police practices training at the last three conferences. Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Buchner, and Attorney Daigle are Certified Practitioners of Civilian Oversight. 13. Familiarity with federal, Ohio and local laws, including civil rights laws and policies and rules governing police practices; Knowledge of laws and rules of police practices is another strength of the PPC team. All members of the team have extensive experience in law enforcement operations, as well as Federal civil rights laws and policies and rules governing police practices. The team’s Attorney focus on specific laws and rules governing police practices nationally. Attorney Daigle has 14 years as a litigator, focusing specifically on Federal civil rights law specific to 42 U.S.C §1983, and agency liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The PPC team has extensive experience in developing, auditing, and implementing policies and procedures that guide the operation of an effective and constitutional police department. Policy development requires a particular skill set. The PPC team is exceptionally knowledgeable about national standards, including model policies, effective operations, accreditation standards, DOJ agreements across the country, and legal standards, and the manner in which they apply to law enforcement. This team possesses the necessary skill set required to effectively guide policy development at the Cleveland Division of Police. 14. Completing projects within anticipated deadlines and budget; Prior sections have demonstrated the vast experience of PPC members as a result of their involvement in multiple projects across the country. The team’s projects have included monitoring, consulting, and auditing; and through their positions as police executives, they understand the importance of meeting the deadlines and budgets identified with this project to ensure that progress is continuous. In Section IV below, the PPC team identifies references for Page 27 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL multiple projects on which they have worked. Contact with these references will establish that PPC team members can meet assigned deadlines. Based on the information provided, PPC has identified a respective budget for operational purposes. This project, like many others, requires that the work be organized to meet the requirements of the proposed and accepted budgets. It is understood that the failure to meet the requirements of anticipated deadlines, or within agreed upon budgets, will result in a breach of contractual requirements. 15. Preparing for and participating in court proceedings; and Members of the PPC team include law enforcement executives, an attorney, and police practices experts, who have extensive experience in preparing for and participating in court proceedings. The experts with law enforcement education and training have considerable experience in the preparation of police reports, affidavits, and evidence for use in court proceedings. This includes the ability to testify regarding the content of their reports and their findings. Team members also have extensive experience with testifying in criminal matters, administrative hearing, and in civil actions. In addition, Attorney Daigle has knowledge and experience preparing legal briefs and cases for trial. Attorney Daigle has litigated multiple cases in both civil and criminal courts and in administrative hearings, which requires extensive preparation and participation. 16. Report writing for a broad variety of stakeholders. As a member of an Independent monitoring team, report preparation is an important and necessary task to advise a broad variety of stakeholders on the police department’s progress in meeting the requirements of the Agreement. The PPC team has significant experience in report writing. Specifically, Mr. Reynolds has been preparing and writing extensive monitoring reports since 1997. In fact, he developed the reporting methodology that he used in Steubenville OH, Detroit MI, and Oakland CA. Having managed and produced well over fifty reports, he is unsurpassed in his understanding of the manner in which reports are effective and beneficial to the project and for the dissemination of essential information to a variety of stakeholders. The remainder of the team has worked as consultants on many projects across the country, which requires an analysis of data, documents, training, and police reports. Upon completion of the analysis, team members produce reports that clearly articulate the method of analysis, the scope of the data examined, and the result or outcome of the analysis. The extensive experience of this team will ensure a clear, effective report, which will be beneficial for a broad variety of stake holders. Page 28 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL IV. Prior Experiences and References Team Member Charles Reynolds Charles Reynolds Charles Reynolds Charles Reynolds 1 Project Former CALEA Commissioner, Team Leader and Assessor. Reviewed compliance with CALEA standards for enforcement agencies applying for Accredited status. References W. Craig Hartley, Jr. Executive Director chartley@calea.org James D. Brown Conference Coordinator jbrown@calea.org Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) 13575 Heathcote Boulevard Gainesville, VA 20155 703-352-4225 Steubenville Consent Judgment - Independent Auditor. Evaluated and reported on status of compliance with 1997 Decree entered in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio. New Jersey (State Police) Consent Judgment - Member of Monitor Team. Evaluated stops, searches, seizures for compliance with requirements relating to profiling. Oversight Commission for Policing Reform in Northern Ireland – Principal Evaluator. Evaluated and reported on progress with the implementation of the “Patten Report” recommendations as part of the ongoing peace process in Northern William A. McCafferty Chief of Police 123 S. Third Street Steubenville, OH 43952 740- 283-6102 bmcafferty@cityofsteubenville.us Deceased Page 29 of 46 Colonel Rick Fuentes Superintendent New Jersey State Police P.O. Box 7068 W. Trenton, NJ 08628 (609) 882-2000 Ext. 6500 Thomas A. Constantine Former, Superintendent, New York State Police; Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration; Oversight Commissioner (Police Reform) Northern Ireland1 Gil Kleinknecht Chief (Ret) St. Louis County (MO) Police Department Former Associate Commissioner & POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Charles Reynolds Charles Reynolds John R. Brown Charles Reynolds Ireland. Naturalization Service Assistant Director (Ret), U.S. Marshals Service Evaluator, Oversight Commission for Police Reform, Northern Ireland Prince George's County (MD) Police Department Memorandum of Agreement, OA Member of Monitor Team. Evaluated all uses of force and of force and assisted with issues related to implementation of the risk management system. Roberto L. Hylton Chief of Police (ret) Prince George’s County Police Department Senior Law Enforcement Advisor Office of the Administrator (FEMA) 202-646-7668 Roberto.hylton@fema.dhs.gov Detroit Police Department Deputy Monitor. Responsibility for coordinating activities of monitor team and specific responsibility for overseeing review and assessment of serious use of force events and overseeing the preparation of quarterly reports. Oakland Police Department, Deputy Monitor. Responsibility for coordinating activities of monitor team and overseeing preparation of quarterly reports. Page 30 of 46 Melvin High Chief of Police (ret) and present Sheriff, Prince George’s County 5303 Chrysler Way Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 301-780-8600 sheriffinfo@co.pg.md.us Attorney Allan Charlton City of Detroit and the Detroit Police Department Legal Counsel Detroit, MI. 313-530-4650 Celia Banks-Washington 2nd Deputy Chief, Legal Advisor Detroit Police Department 313-596-2158 Washingtonc@detroitmi.gov Sean Whent Chief of Police 455 7th Street Oakland, CA 94607 510-238-3568 swhent@oaklandnet.com POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Specific responsibility for providing monthly technical assistance to the OPD regarding compliance issues. Specific focused responsibility for overseeing the collection and analysis of stop data. Eric Daigle, John R. Brown Donald Anders Charles Reynolds Eric Daigle, Esq. Members of monitor team with specific responsibility for assessing stop data for indications of bias based policing, reviewing use of force and internal affairs reports. Prior Puerto Rico Police Subject Matter experts and PRP consultants. Focus was on use of force and search and seizure Policy development and training. No longer engaged with this project Paul Figueroa Assistant Chief of Police Oakland, CA 510-238-7183 pfigueroa@oaklandnet.com Attorney James B. Chanin Plaintiff’s Attorney Oakland 510-848-4752 Xiomara Colon- Rodriquez, Esq. Legal Counsel XCR Law Offices 36 Valley Street Seekonk, MA -2771 Phone : (787) 579-3651 Email: xzrlaw@gmail.com John R. Brown Charles Reynolds Eric Daigle, Esq. Eric Daigle, Esq. Niagara Falls Police Department Mr. Reynolds served as Deputy Monitor with responsibility for initial team administration. Assignment completed. Mr. Daigle was assigned responsibility for policy development and use of force review. No longer engaged with this project. Virgin Island Police Department Prior consultant for VIPD under consent decree responsible for policy development, training and Page 31 of 46 Superintendent Brian Dalporto Niagara Falls Police Department 1925 Main Street, Niagara Falls, NY 14305 Phone: (716) 286-4545 Email: bryan.dalporto@niagrafallsny.gov Sherri Lewis, Esq. Virgin Islands Police Department Legal Counsel Sherri.lewis@vipd.gov.vi POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL use of force. Eric Daigle, Esq. Anchorage Police Department Operational study, policy Development and Training Chief Mark Mew Anchorage Police Department 4501 Elmore Rd, Anchorage, AK Phone: (907) 786-8595 Email: MMew@muni.org Eric Daigle. Esq. Wichita Police Department Operational Study, policy development and Training Sharon L. Dickgrafe Interim Director of Law and City Attorney Wichita, KS Phone: (316) 268-4681, ext 24 Angelas Jackson-Castain Office of Justice Programs Diagnostic Center Washington, D.C. 20531 Email: Angela@OJPDiagnosticCenter.org John R. Brown Donald Anders Police Operations Diagnostic Assessment and Ethics Accountability SME for Implementation on Metro East Police District Commission (MEPDC) engagement in East St. Louis, IL. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Independent Court Monitor Robert Warshaw Warshaw & Associates, Inc 348 Wabash Drive Sylva, NC 28779 Phone: (828) 586-1843 Email: rochtopcop@aol.com V. Proposed Activities The following section has been organized to present the information required by the Request for Qualifications in a manner intended to enhance its clarity and reduce repetitive responses. To summarize our objectives, this section will clarify the methodology we will employ to accomplish the following necessary tasks: • Develop a clear, definable, and practical monitoring process, including measurement criteria • Assess present status of the Department utilizing use of force/incident Page 32 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL reports, citizen complaints, and other criteria to establish a base line in order to assess progress with compliance and outcomes • Conduct an initial full team visit to review operations and meet with key members of headquarters, precinct, and division command staff and, where practical, with rank and file officers • Monthly site visits will be conducted by Co-monitors and two team members to review, assess, and assist with compliance requirements • Develop professional working relationships with each of the precincts and divisions to foster effective communications and understanding of agreement requirements • Conduct meetings with central command staff and precinct staff (5) and divisions (2) on a regular basis (one of the five precincts) • Conduct community meetings in each precinct (5 precincts) The following section is intended to describe the manner in which the PPC team would handle the responsibilities of the Independent Monitor by providing specific examples, discussing the important concept of defining compliance, and addressing the following topics: 1. Methods of Obtaining Information The PPC team expects to obtain information from a variety of sources within the CDP. PPC will, on a time table negotiated with the parties, submit a written production request that clearly identified the documents, reports, records and data necessary for evaluation. In addition to obtaining information from a CDP designated compliance coordinator, the monitoring team will obtain data and information directly from CDP components, including electronic databases and other document repositories. Information will also be collected through field observations and audits. In addition, two or more members of the monitoring team will be present in Cleveland on a monthly basis for regular meetings with representatives of the City of Cleveland, CDP, and the Department of Justice to discuss ongoing compliance issues, upcoming Monitor visits, and to provide technical assistance regarding best police practices. The monitoring team also anticipates holding open community meetings during each monthly visit with at least one of the five precincts. 2. Methods of Analyzing Information a. Compliance Measures The history and experience of the PPC principals has led them to conclude that some of the methodology used by monitoring teams across the country has not been beneficial to the success of the police department they are monitoring. PPC’s approach to monitoring combines straightforward assessment and technical assistance, with the goal of fostering the Department’s internal Page 33 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL capacity to develop and maintain the desired policy and procedure changes. This method allows our monitoring tenure to stay within the agreement. We believe it is important to work with the parties to develop a comprehensive monitoring plan. Our monitoring of compliance will include a review of all policy requirements set forth in the Agreement; a review of any required CDP audits; a review of a sample of use of force and misconduct investigations; a review of stop data, including searches, seizures, and racial and ethnicity data; assessments of information contained in the early warning system; a review and evaluation of CDP training and supervision; and community feedback. At each stage in this process, the PPC team will evaluate compliance with the Agreement with a view towards improving the operations of CDP, encouraging accountability, and fostering an environment that promotes the growth of professional, value-based policing. The members of the PPC team have extensive knowledge and experience in addressing problems within municipal police departments and in best practices in law enforcement. When requested by CDP officials, or if suggested by DOJ or other parties to the Agreement, PPC team members will share their knowledge of policing, best practices, community-oriented policing and community - police relationships in a positive and constructive fashion without mitigating the team’s commitment to a thorough and objective compliance evaluation. We will make recommendations to the parties, when appropriate, regarding measures necessary to ensure full and timely implementation of the agreements. As law enforcement professionals, our team has a commitment to both organizational compliance with the provisions of the decrees and organizational improvement in the furtherance of maximizing quality, just, and efficient delivery of police services to the Cleveland community. The PPC team clearly understands that the Monitor measures, evaluates, and reports on compliance, but does not manage nor direct Department activities. The PPC team will diligently avoid engaging in any activity that could be construed as intruding on the management prerogatives of the Chief and/or other Department members. In general, to achieve compliance with the requirements of Consent Judgments, an appropriate policy must be both adopted and effectively implemented. We recognize that some areas of the Agreement will require substantial work and time to achieve implementation and believe that it is appropriate to recognize when substantial progress towards implementation has occurred. Accordingly, we will utilize three levels of compliance: 1. In Compliance – Effective implementation has been achieved. The CDP is consistently satisfying requirements; any violations are minor or occasional, but not systemic. 2. Partial Compliance – The CDP is consistently satisfying some components of the provision or all components on an intermittent basis; a moderate amount of work remains to achieve full compliance. 3. Not in Compliance – Significant work remains to achieve compliance. The experience of PPC principals and consultants has shown us that no matter how a methodology for monitoring is identified, if the command staff of the police department does not acknowledge, implement, and accept necessary modifications, the project will not move forward. Page 34 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL In the multiple projects in which we have been involved, the substantial impediment to success was when supervisors and officers were not held accountable for accepting and implementing the changes contained in the Agreement. It is for this reason that a two-phase methodology is necessary. The team will begin its evaluation by determining a baseline of the current activity status at CDP specific to the use of force, internal affairs, citizen encounters and demographics, training, and discipline. Once a baseline is identified, it will assist the team in setting the objectives for compliance. During the first phase of the agreement, CDP will modify policies and investigative principles and training. We anticipate that most of these activities can be accomplished within the first year or two of the Agreement. Experience has shown that implementation of these policies and subsequent training are always the reason why Agreements are extended and substantial compliance is not met. The Department and the City must understand that the monitoring team will review use of force reports and arrest reports prepared by the officers, including video and reports which detail whether the officers met the requirements of the Agreement, policy, and training. The Department achieves Phase One compliance when it has promulgated appropriate policies and has trained relevant Department members or employees on the content of the approved policies and specific training identified in the Settlement Agreement. PPC proposes that under Phase One, the monitor must consider the following steps when determining policy compliance. In general, Phase One compliance comprises of the following steps: • All changes to existing policies, procedures, orders, directives, and protocol ("rules") applicable to specific tasks or paragraphs have been made, submitted to the monitor and, if applicable, to DOJ, and have received final approval. If DOJ approves the submissions, the monitor’s approval is expected; • All new policies applicable to specific tasks or paragraphs have been drafted, submitted to the monitor and, if applicable, to DOJ, and have received final approval. Again, if DOJ approves the submissions, the monitor’s approval is expected. • All training materials relating to new or changed policies specific to tasks or paragraphs have been drafted, reviewed, and received final approval from the monitor, as necessary; and • All relevant personnel, including officers, civilians, and the chain of command have been trained and tested on their understanding of new or changed policies related to specific tasks or paragraphs. PPC proposes that Phase Two will be the final phase, and identified as substantial compliance. In general, substantial compliance means that the requirements of the Settlement Agreement have been fully adopted through policy, effectively incorporated into training, and routinely and consistently applied in actual practice for a sustained period of time. In general Phase Two compliance comprises of the following steps: Page 35 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL • CDP police personnel in the field, in administrative positions such as internal affairs, and throughout the chain of command are actually implementing and complying with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; • The Department is producing fair, thorough, complete, and reasonable internal investigations, use of force investigations, and audits as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, and has adequate audit and oversight mechanisms to detect and correct lapses therein; • The Department thoroughly identifies, investigates, and corrects all material instances of unconstitutional policing or other noncompliance; • The Department is actively and effectively managing risk of unconstitutional policing; • The Department's adjudicatory and disciplinary systems are producing fair and reasonable results, reinforcing new rules, and punishing noncompliance when retraining or other non-disciplinary options have been tried, or are not appropriate, given the gravity of the noncompliance; • Objective evidence demonstrates that constitutional policing is being maintained; and • All systems for the capture of new or existing data required by the Settlement Agreement are functioning and consistently supplying all relevant data required by the monitor, the court, and the parties. In determining substantial compliance, PPC believes the threshold should be met when the CDP has the capacity, will, internal control mechanisms, and competence to sustain compliance, and to identify and correct noncompliance during the life of the Decree and thereafter. The question will be whether the goals and objectives of the Settlement Agreement have been met and constitutional policing has been restored, maintained, and sustained. PPC agrees that the ultimate goal of the Settlement Agreement is the obliteration of unconstitutional conduct and the sustained maintenance of constitutional policing. Substantial compliance will depend on an agreed upon statistical and substantive assessment. The Cleveland Division of Police will not be in substantial compliance until it has achieved compliance in both phases. The process of Phase Compliance is illustrated in the diagram below, identified as Figure 2. Page 36 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL Formulate Measure of Compliance Two Phase Compliance Diagram Adjust Measure 1 Pending Compliance Report Phase 1 No Report Phase 1 Non-Compliance Pending Compliance Report Phase 2 Report Plum 1 Conpllance Report Phase 2 Non- Non-Compliance Pending Compliance Report Phase 2 yes no Report Phasa 2 Non- Non-Compliance 7 Report Phase 2 Compliance Figure 2. The Two Phase Compliance Process Page 37 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL The PPC will ensure that the groups within the CDP, whose work is being monitored, are treated openly, respectfully, and fairly. The team will work closely with these individuals during the site visits and will, as required or requested, provide technical assistance to support them in achieving their objectives. Furthermore, at the close of each site visit, the PPC will meet with CDP officials and DOJ to discuss some of the preliminary results of the on-site visit, address procedural problems encountered during the visit, collect copies of documents necessary for review off-site, and determine reporting period dates for the next site visit. The PPC fully embraces the concept of openness and transparency, believing it is the most critical element to ensure that misunderstandings do not occur, that all facts are fully developed, and that the objectives are achieved. The desired outcome will be "organizational improvement." 3. Methods of Reporting Information The PPC team’s expertise and experience in handling similar projects for other law enforcement agencies, as previously described, has prepared it to fulfill the monitoring requirements of the Agreement, including the requirement to provide regular reports on compliance with each substantive provision of the Agreement. The monitoring projects in which team members are or have been involved include the Oakland (CA), Niagara Falls (NY) Prince George’s County (MD), Steubenville (OH) Police Departments and the New Jersey State Police, all of which involved many similar tasks and issues. 4. Frequency of Proposed Activities The monitoring team, in conjunction with the Department of Justice and CDP, will draft a protocol for PPC team visits to CDP offices and districts, document retrieval, records review, and field observations. The PPC team, in consultation with the parties, will develop forms and protocols for the review, scheduling, and regularity of audits of various databases, CDP reports and forms. The PPC team will, however, retain the option to conduct random audits as it deems appropriate and necessary to monitor and evaluate compliance with the Agreement. The PPC team expects to obtain information from a variety of sources within the CDP. In addition to obtaining information from the Compliance Coordinator, the monitoring team will obtain data and information directly from CDP components, including electronic databases and other document repositories. Information will also be collected through field observations and audits. In addition, the monitoring team will establish regular monthly meetings with representatives of the City of Cleveland, CDP and the Department of Justice to discuss ongoing compliance issues, upcoming Monitor visits, and provide technical assistance regarding best police practices. PPC team members will visit CDP offices and precincts on a monthly basis. Any required documents and records will be requested in a timely manner prior to visits in order to maximize on-site time for compliance determination purposes. At the close of each site visit, the PPC team members will meet with CDP officials and the leaders of the various parties to discuss observations and other results of the on-site visits, address procedural problems encountered during the visit, collect copies of documents necessary for review off-site, and determine and/or schedule future activities. Page 38 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL 5. Personnel Responsible for Scope of Work Set forth below is a chart that summarizes the PPC team’s workload analysis, reflected in hours devoted to review, technical assistance, and report writing under the Consent Judgment. Initially, we project 15% of the time spent in review as technical assistance. We are, however, ready to provide a greater amount of technical assistance should the parties request it and the situation require it. Yearly Hours On-Site Hours Review/ Report Writing Technical Assistance Daigle 432 240 24 696 Reynolds 432 240 24 696 TM#1 140 192 10 342 TM #2 140 192 10 342 TM #3 140 192 10 342 TM #4 140 192 10 342 TM #5 112 192 10 314 TM #6 112 192 10 314 Admin. Assistant - 480 - 480 Total Labor Hours 1648 2112 108 3868 Consultant Hours per Year The chart depicts the specific tasks and activities that we believe will be critical to conducting the required monitoring and assistance that will conducted by each PPC team member over two years. The workload in this chart is presented in Hours by Year. 6. Coordination with the City and CDP The PPC will meet monthly or participate in telephone conferences with representatives of the City, the CDP, and the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department to review the nature of the tasks set out in the judgments and to describe how the monitoring team will assess compliance with these provisions. The members of the PPC team will ensure that they establish effective communications with and are available to senior officials of all parties. PPC advocates an open, transparent process that will permit all the parties to be fully aware of all activities of the monitoring team. PPC team members will communicate in person, whenever possible and Page 39 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL desired by the parties, and when appropriate through written reports and memoranda, by telephone or electronic means. For each substantive provision of the Consent Judgments, the PPC team will request the CDP to identify the Department’s designated representative from whom the documents and data needed to assess compliance can be obtained and who shall serve as the Department’s liaison to the team relevant to that requirement. Points of contact will be established with the Chief and each of the department's components and points of contact will be designated on the Independent Monitoring Team for specific responsibilities. The PPC team will maintain continuing lines of communications through the Chief of Police and other designated senior CDP, as well as the Compliance Coordinator designated by the CDP. After consultation with the parties, the PPC team will outline the measures to be used by the monitoring team in evaluating compliance for each provision of the Agreement. A very substantial effort will be made throughout the two years to ensure that the efforts of the PPC team are properly coordinated with the various components of the City, Police Department, and DOJ, and that all parties understand the methodology, the procedures to be employed and the measures that will be utilized to determine compliance. Communication will be critical and will be frequent in the first year. Significant amount of time will be spent on communication, task definition, and the establishment of protocols. Further, we believe effective communications will assist the parties in gaining an understanding of the capabilities of the PPC team so that the Department can seek assistance with issues in which our expertise can be helpful. 7. Coordination of Monitoring Activities The PPC team will meet monthly or conduct telephone conferences with representatives of CDP to review the nature of the tasks set out in the Agreement and to describe how the monitoring team will assess compliance with these provisions. The members of the PPC team will ensure that they establish effective communications with CDP representatives to coordinate the monitoring activities. This includes providing CDP with a document that identifies the necessary documents and data to be produced and provide sufficient time to allow the department to gather and produce the requests. The PPC team will work with CDP representatives to ensure the requested information is identified. Once documents are obtained, the PPC team will then coordinate with CDP representatives and provide the names of individuals it wishes to meet with during the site visits. The PPC team is dedicated to working efficiently and respectfully to assist CDP in identifying, providing, and discussing the information necessary to facilitate a monitoring visit. VI. Potential Conflicts of Interest or Bias No other member of the team is involved in any matter that presents a potential or actual conflict or bias. Page 40 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL VI. Estimated Costs In preparation of this estimated budget we have reviewed the Agreement in detail and have anticipated the duties/ responsibilities of the team members. It is the intent of PPC to maintain a manageable team size to reduce costs for the City of Cleveland. The data provided in Table #1 represents our interpretation of the Agreement requirements and our attempt to meet the needs of the Agreement. PPC expects that the costs identified are the anticipated costs, however, PPC will bill for work actually conducted, not to exceed the agreed upon proposed price. Table #1 Our preliminary budget was organized with a unique method of operations for PPC consultants. We anticipate an initial full team visit at the beginning of the project and then monthly site visits with select team members based on the needs of the visit. The data in Table #1 is broken into three areas for budgeting: on-site activities, review/report writing/ project management, and technical assistance. The “On-site activities” category denotes time spent in Cleveland meeting with parties and CDP. The second category identifies the time necessary to review documents and data, prepare the necessary reports, and project management. The category “Technical Assistance” is anticipated costs to provide guidance on a specific portion of the Settlement Agreement and general guidance on compliance issues. The category defined as “Overhead” is f the project for corporate expenses including accountant services and insurance. The final category identified as the contingency category is f the project for unanticipated labor or Page 41 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL travel. Table #2 below is a preliminary costing worksheet providing estimated costs associated with travel for PPC team members. These figures were used to compute travel costs identified in the preliminary budget. Table #2 Intentionally Left Blank Page 42 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL The data provided in Table #3 below represents our interpretation of the Agreement requirements and our attempt to meet the needs of the Agreement for year two. The costs identified below are the anticipated actual costs, however, PPC will bill for work actually conducted, not to exceed the agreed upon proposed price. Table #3 Intentionally Left Blank Page 43 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL The data provided in Table #4 below represents our interpretation of the Agreement requirements and our attempt to meet the needs of the Agreement for year three. The costs identified in the table are the anticipated actual costs, however, PPC will bill for work actually conducted, not to exceed the agreed upon proposed price. Table #4 Intentionally Left Blank Page 44 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL The data provided in Table #5 below represents our interpretation of the Agreement requirements and our attempt to meet the needs of the Agreement for year four. The costs identified in the table are the anticipated actual costs, however, PPC will bill for work actually conducted, not to exceed the agreed upon proposed price. Table #5 Intentionally Left Blank Page 45 of 46 POLICE PERFORMANCE CONSULTING, LLC INDEPENDENT MONITOR PROPOSAL The data provided in Table #6 below represents our interpretation of the Agreement requirements and our attempt to meet the needs of the Agreement for year five. The costs identified are the actual anticipated costs, however, PPC will bill for work actually conducted, not to exceed the agreed upon proposed price. Table #6 END OF PROPOSAL Page 46 of 46