OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT POLICE MONITOR CITY OF NEW ORLEANS SUSAN HUTSON INDEPENDENT POLICE MONITOR September 18, 2015 Via Email: cmaldonado??thelensnolmorg Charles Maldonado Staff Writer The Lens 1025 S. Jefferson Davis Pkwy. New Orleans, LA 70125 SUBJECT: Public Records Request dated September 15, 2015 Dear Mr. Maldonado: In accordance with Louisiana Public Records Law R.S. 44:1, et seq, please find attached the Of?ce of the Independent Police Monitor?s response to your public records request dated September 15, 2015. If you have any further questions or issues regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (504) 681?3203. Very truly yours, I I I Ursula Price Deputy Police Monitor 535 ST, CHARLES AVENUE, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 7?0130-3049 4r? Phone (504) 681?3223 I Fax {504} 681-3230 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ed Quatrevaux Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:10 PM Susan Hutson Suzanne Wisdom External Review notice of external review 150630.pdf Please see attached.  You may address any questions directly to PARC (MerrickBobb@PARC.info).    Ed Quatrevaux Inspector General City of New Orleans This correspondence is part of an ongoing investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review and is exempt from the Public Records Act until the investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review is complete. See La. R.S. 33:9614 and La. R.S. 44:4.1(B)(18). Please notify this office immediately should you receive a Public Records Request which includes this correspondence.   1 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL CITY OF NEW ORLEANS I-{ri QignTEFvAm INSPECTORGENERAI. June 30, 2015 Susan A. Hutson, Independent Police Monitor City of New Orleans 525 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans LA 70130 Dear Ms. Hutson, The establishing legislation for the Office of Inspector General (DIG) requires an External Review of the Office every three years. The Audit, Inspection and Evaluation, and the Investigations Divisions of the DIS were reviewed by the Association of Inspectors General reviewers in 2012 and 2015. However, the Independent Police Monitor Division of the New Orleans Office of Inspector General has not received an external review since its inception in 2009. As Inspector General, have the responsibility to ensure that all divisions of this office are operating efficiently, effectively, and consistent with national standards and/or guidelines. To that end, I have engaged the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) to perform an external evaluation of the Police Monitor Division of the OIG. The objective of the review is to determine whether the policies and practices of the Independent Police Monitor Division are consistent with national standards and guidelines for police monitors. PARC is uniquely suited to perform an evaluation of the Independent Police Monitor Division because it was engaged by the New Orleans City Council to provide a blueprint for the formation of the independent police monitor office in 2007. Moreover, PARC is regarded as the nation?s leading authority on police monitoring. PARC published the National Guidelines for Police Monitors, which was funded by the Department of Justice and developed with the assistance of police monitoring professionals across the nation. Mr. Merrick Bobb, founder of PARC, will lead the External Review. PARC has identified the week of July 27, 2015 for a site visit. The scope of the External Review is the period from July 1, 2010- June 30, 2015. The External Review does not require advance preparation. You only need to make yourself and your staff available to describe and discuss the policies and procedures your office follows and provide documents as requested. PARC will communicate directly with you concerning its methodology and calendar. WK E.R. Quatrevaux 525 9 Awe.- Nljl-"l' Till3Ll-304Ll Phone (Still hill?320i} [5(14} hill-32R! Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Susan Hutson Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:10 PM Ed Quatrevaux Suzanne Wisdom RE: External Review Ltr to OIG from IPM 7-1-15.pdf Dear Mr. Quatrevaux:      Attached please find my response.      Susan Hutson  Independent Police Monitor  Office of the Independent Police Monitor  525 St. Charles Avenue  New Orleans, LA 70130  (504) 681‐3275      Susan       From: Ed Quatrevaux Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:10 PM To: Susan Hutson Cc: Suzanne Wisdom Subject: External Review   Please see attached.  You may address any questions directly to PARC (MerrickBobb@PARC.info).    Ed Quatrevaux Inspector General City of New Orleans This correspondence is part of an ongoing investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review and is exempt from the Public Records Act until the investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review is complete. See La. R.S. 33:9614 and La. R.S. 44:4.1(B)(18). Please notify this office immediately should you receive a Public Records Request which includes this correspondence.   1 OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT POLICE MONITOR CITY OF NEW ORLEANS SUSAN HUTSON INDEPENDENT POLICE MONITOR July 1, 2015 Inspector General Ed Quatrevaux VIA EMAIL RE: OIPM Peer Review Dear Mr. Quatrevaux: Thank you for your communication of June 30, 2015 in which you suggest the Office of Independent Police Monitor (OIPM) be evaluated by Merrick Bobb of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) during the week of July 27, 2015. I was surprised and disappointed by your letter because there was no notice to us nor any consultation at all with our office about the selection of the right evaluator, the scope of the audit, or the timing of the audit. This letter points out several problems with that suggestion and offers a way forward. Historically, the relationship between you and the Independent Police Monitor has been a contentious one but it is my sincere hope that we can resolve this issue professionally and amicably in the transparent and accountable manner that our community has a right to expect. First, you should know that because our office values peer review we have already been working on the process of securing a competent independent peer reviewer for our office since November of last year. We began this process by reaching out to National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) in November of 2014 to ask about peer review for police oversight agencies. In February of 2015, we asked NACOLE to lead this review and began discussing the specifics. As the national experts in our field, they have been working to put together a peer review that fits and we believe we have landed on a mechanism for review. The better practice would be if OIPM, like your office the OIG, has our national organization handle our peer review because we, like you, would like actual peers to handle our review. Second, the organization you suggest for peer review is not really appropriate for this task for several reasons. We believe that the organization you suggest, PARC, although very important to the oversight community, is not exactly in the right position to conduct a peer review. PARC is not a governmental agency. Although it contracts for some governments, it is funded through foundation grants and contracts and is a nonprofit organization. In fact, PARC is a living example of how disparate different oversight mechanisms can be. 525 ST. CHARLES AVENUE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130-3049 Phone (504) 681-3223 Fax (504) 681-3265 Inspector General Ed Quatrevaux July 1, 2015 Page 2 A review of PARC’s current projects shows that, unlike the OIPM, PARC does not appear to take complaints, does not do any real-time monitoring of police shootings, is not directly involved in any individual misconduct cases, and seems to perform mostly as an after-the-fact auditor of processes and systems. As you may know, the community of Los Angeles County, California replaced PARC, which was a part of the oversight mechanism for the LA County Sheriff’s Office, with an embedded oversight mechanism. I also understand that you may have had prior contractual relationships with PARC, which can create at the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest in you contracting with them to conduct an inspection on an organization with which you have had many prior disputes. I am sure our community does not need nor want this process to bog down in questions of agendas nor inquiries into possible conflicts of interest. For these reasons, you can understand why NACOLE would be a much better choice. Third, because you did not consult with us at all to try to come up with an appropriate or workable timeline for peer review there are real world practical problems with your suggestion that this occur this month. In fairness, when you scheduled the peer review for your own staff you gave notice several months before the review. Our office work is equally as important and our work deserves the same respect. You know well that we are in the process of moving our offices. We would like to move out and into the new space we found as soon as is possible, pending completion of any legal requirements and your assistance. Simone, Ursula and I will be out of the city from July 27-29th at training and I have additional obligations outside of the city from July 24th through August 1st. We also have work planned, including a report that we are working on with the Office of the Consent Decree Monitor, and an in depth peer review will disrupt that work. In order to do this right, we need to work together to come up with a workable timeframe for an excellent peer review. Fourth, it is not fair to now consider this a matter of urgency for your office since we note that although the OIG’s ordinance (Sec. 2-1120 (16) (b)) requires that “The office of inspector general shall be subject to peer review by the Association of Inspectors General every three years,” you never made the OIPM a part of your past two peer reviews. In fact, your office never requested that we even speak to your peer reviewers. In conclusion, we are totally in favor of peer review and have started that process. I thank you for your suggestion but that organization is not the appropriate one to review us nor is the timeline realistic or workable. I will share with you the details of our communications and plans with NACOLE and will work with you and your staff to develop a realistic timeline for implementing this review. 525 ST. CHARLES AVENUE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130-3049 Phone (504) 681-3223 Fax (504) 681-3230 Inspector General Ed Quatrevaux July 1, 2015 Page 3 I look forward to your response. I am also willing to discuss this matter in public at the next Ethics Review Board meeting if you prefer. Sincerely, Susan Hutson Independent Police Monitor 525 ST. CHARLES AVENUE NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70130-3049 Phone (504) 681-3223 Fax (504) 681-3230 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Susan Hutson Wednesday, July 01, 2015 2:12 PM Michael Cowan; 'Allen Miller (1221)' (Allen.Miller@phelps.com); James A. Brown (jabrown@liskow.com); Howard L. Rodgers III ; 'Joe Ricks'; bboutin@gssmin.org; Donald Frampton (frampton@scapc.org) (frampton@scapc.org) FW: External Review Ltr to OIG from IPM 7-1-15.pdf; notice of external review 150630.pdf Good Afternoon ERB Members:    Attached please find the Office of the Independent Police Monitor’s Response to the Inspector General’s recent  scheduling of an evaluation for our office.  We look forward to discussing it with you at the next ERB Meeting and would  ask that it appear on the agenda as a discussion item.      Additionally, we again request your assistance in reaching an agreement with the OIG about a more effective working  relationship. This attempt to, with very little notice, force a peer review on our office appears to be unfair treatment by  the Inspector General.  Further, we question the appropriateness of the reviewers selected. We are for peer review, as  we discussed with you during an ERB meeting, and have been working on getting peer review conducted through our  national organization.  Your assistance in making sure that we are peer reviewed in a fair manner by a qualified group of  reviewers, would be greatly appreciated.    Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.    Sincerely,    Susan Hutson  Independent Police Monitor  Office of the Independent Police Monitor  525 St. Charles Avenue  New Orleans, LA 70130  (504) 681‐3275      From: Susan Hutson Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:10 PM To: Ed Quatrevaux Cc: Suzanne Wisdom Subject: RE: External Review   Dear Mr. Quatrevaux:      Attached please find my response.      Susan Hutson  Independent Police Monitor  Office of the Independent Police Monitor  525 St. Charles Avenue  New Orleans, LA 70130  1 (504) 681‐3275      Susan       From: Ed Quatrevaux Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 3:10 PM To: Susan Hutson Cc: Suzanne Wisdom Subject: External Review   Please see attached.  You may address any questions directly to PARC (MerrickBobb@PARC.info).    Ed Quatrevaux Inspector General City of New Orleans This correspondence is part of an ongoing investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review and is exempt from the Public Records Act until the investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review is complete. See La. R.S. 33:9614 and La. R.S. 44:4.1(B)(18). Please notify this office immediately should you receive a Public Records Request which includes this correspondence.   2 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Susan Hutson Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:52 AM MerrickBobb@PARC.info NACOLE Peer Review NACOLE Peer Review Letter for NOLA OIPM.pdf Dear Mr. Bobb:    Attached please find a commitment from NACOLE to conduct our peer review.  We intend to utilize NACOLE for this  endeavor.     Sincerely,    Susan Hutson  Independent Police Monitor  Office of the Independent Police Monitor  525 St. Charles Avenue  New Orleans, LA 70130  (504) 681‐3275            1 July 14, 2015 Susan Hutson Independent Police Monitor Office of the Independent Police Monitor City of New Orleans 525 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans, LA 70130 Sent via email Re: Peer Review of the New Orleans Office of the Independent Police Monitor Dear Ms. Hutson: As per our on-going discussions initiated by you in November of 2014, the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is committed to working with you toward an agreed upon scope of work for NACOLE to initiate and complete a peer review of the New Orleans Office of the Independent Police Monitor. Should the City of New Orleans or the Office of the Independent Police Monitor decide to move forward with NACOLE at this time, we would anticipate being able to complete such work by the end of the fourth quarter of 2015. In addition to our conversations wherein you emphasized your desire for a thorough review and assessment of the operations of your agency by similarly situated peers in the field of civilian oversight, our Director of Operations, Liana Perez, has been in contact with your staff to clarify your expectations and time frames. Ms. Perez will be your point of contact, under my direction, as we move forward in our continued discussions. Kind regards, Brian Buchner President NACOLE P.O. Box 87227 ♦ Tucson, AZ 85754 ♦ (317) 721-8133 E-mail: info@nacole.org ♦ Web site: www.nacole.org Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Merrick Bobb Saturday, July 18, 2015 5:12 PM Susan Hutson Ed Quatrevaux; Matthew Barge Peer review Letter to S. Hutson--07-18-15.pdf Please see the attached letter and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 1 July 17, 2015 BY EMAIL Susan Hutson Office of the Independent Monitor shutson@nolaoig.org Dear Susan, I am delighted that PARC has been chosen to conduct the peer review of the OIPM. You and I have met and conversed on a number of occasions, both while you were at the office of the Los Angeles Inspector General and in your current capacity in New Orleans. I’ve also come to know Simone and look forward to seeing her again. I am aware that the OIPM has engaged in worthwhile projects, and I have followed your organization through reports and from the media. It is my intention to conduct a full, fair, and complete review of the office. We have made plans to be in New Orleans to commence work on Tuesday, August 18. We will be there for the most of the rest of the week, and we may have to return to New Orleans at a later time. I am contacting you a month in advance in order for you, Simone, and Ursula to arrange your schedules so that you can be generally available during our visit. In order to make our upcoming visit most productive, I would be grateful if you would send me all documents which you contend set forth the power, scope, extent, and any limitations on OIPM or on you as IPM in the performance of your duties. Please send them by email to me at merrickbobb@parc.info and to Matthew Barge at matthewbarge@parc.info by the close of business on Friday, July 24. If they cannot be emailed, send them to us by FedEx or another air courier. I would further be grateful if you by the same date would also forward to us for our review all correspondence, including emails, between OIPM and you, on one hand, and Ed Quatrevaux, on the other hand, dealing with the legal relationship, power, and authority between the Inspector General and the OIPM. We would also like the same between DOJ or the Consent Decree Monitor and OIPM. Please also by the same date send us a list of powers and authority you do not believe you or OIPM currently have but would be useful or beneficial to have. I will be in contact with you over the next month as PARC gets prepared for our trip to New Orleans. Sincerely, ______________________________ Merrick Bobb Executive Director Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan Hutson Monday, July 20, 2015 10:56 AM 'Merrick Bobb' RE: Peer review Good Morning Mr. Bobb:    My objections to having this scheduled, yet a second time, without any consultation with me remain the same.      In addition to the pre‐scheduled obligations I have in late July and early August, we are publishing important reports  during August and I will be participating in discussions, events, and projects leading up to and during the 10th  Anniversary of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.  Additionally, I am also scheduled to go out of town to a conference during  the first week of September.     So, again I must express that it would be respectful to coordinate a date with our office.    Sincerely,    Susan Hutson    From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 5:12 PM To: Susan Hutson Cc: Ed Quatrevaux; Matthew Barge Subject: Peer review Please see the attached letter and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 1 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Merrick Bobb Monday, July 20, 2015 2:34 PM Susan Hutson Peer review Dear Susan — I regret any inconvenience caused a few months ago by the initial scheduling of meetings with you and your staff in July. It was for that reason that we postponed our initial meeting with you for yet another month, until mid-August. We were careful to plan things so that you would have a full month to get prepared. We will not be postponing our trip in August. If you personally are unavailable, we will meet instead with Simone and Ursula at your offices at 10 AM on Tuesday, August 18. We could also meet personally with you on August 19 or the morning of August 20. If those dates do not work out, please let me know four convenient dates in the second half of September, before the NACOLE conference, when you personally can commit to meet, by teleconference or otherwise. We continue to need the requested documents by the end of this week. Because the requested information relates directly to the power and authority of your office, I would imagine that it is near at hand. If you need any clerical help with this task, let me know today and I will get you some staff. I continue to be pleased to be involved in this project, and I encourage you to see PARC’s involvement as a benefit and opportunity for the OIPM. Sincerely, Merrick Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 1 213.623.5757 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan Hutson Monday, July 20, 2015 3:13 PM 'Merrick Bobb' RE: Peer review Dear Merrick:      If you truly regretted causing us inconvenience you would have worked with us on a date, instead of carefully planning  around your schedule.  I leave town on Friday and will be in and out after that for the better part of a week.  Also, 2 of  my 5 people are gone this week to a conference and one of those will also be gone parts of next week.  These activities  were planned for months by our office, whereas yours was not.  And, last but not least, we had an OIS last night that had  one my folks out all night and that case will be our priority over any and every other matter this week. Not to mention  that we still have complaints to take/monitor and mediations to plan/conduct.    It’s not a matter of not being in the office on a particular day, it’s a matter of me being respected, being able to plan,  and being able to have time to get my work done.  I continue to be displeased about this surprise inspection and I see it  for exactly what it is.  What’s more, if you were treated in this manner, I do not believe that you would be encouraged  by the process.     Susan    From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:34 PM To: Susan Hutson Subject: Peer review Dear Susan — I regret any inconvenience caused a few months ago by the initial scheduling of meetings with you and your staff in July. It was for that reason that we postponed our initial meeting with you for yet another month, until mid-August. We were careful to plan things so that you would have a full month to get prepared. We will not be postponing our trip in August. If you personally are unavailable, we will meet instead with Simone and Ursula at your offices at 10 AM on Tuesday, August 18. We could also meet personally with you on August 19 or the morning of August 20. If those dates do not work out, please let me know four convenient dates in the second half of September, before the NACOLE conference, when you personally can commit to meet, by teleconference or otherwise. We continue to need the requested documents by the end of this week. Because the requested 1 information relates directly to the power and authority of your office, I would imagine that it is near at hand. If you need any clerical help with this task, let me know today and I will get you some staff. I continue to be pleased to be involved in this project, and I encourage you to see PARC’s involvement as a benefit and opportunity for the OIPM. Sincerely, Merrick Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 2 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Merrick Bobb Monday, July 20, 2015 4:37 PM Susan Hutson Ed Quatrevaux Re: Peer review Susan — Because of the press of business at OIPM this week, I will ask the Inspector General by copy of this email to provide you with the clerical help necessary to produce the documentation by Friday. Merrick Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 On Monday, July 20, 2015 1:13 PM, Susan Hutson wrote: Dear Merrick: If you truly regretted causing us inconvenience you would have worked with us on a date, instead of carefully planning around your schedule. I leave town on Friday and will be in and out after that for the better part of a week. Also, 2 of my 5 people are gone this week to a conference and one of those will also be gone parts of next week. These activities were planned for months by our office, whereas yours was not. And, last but not least, we had an OIS last night that had one my folks out all night and that case will be our priority over any and every other matter this week. Not to mention that we still have complaints to take/monitor and mediations to plan/conduct. It’s not a matter of not being in the office on a particular day, it’s a matter of me being respected, being able to plan, and being able to have time to get my work done. I continue to be displeased about this surprise inspection and I see it for exactly what it is. What’s more, if you were treated in this manner, I do not believe that you would be encouraged by the process. Susan From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:34 PM To: Susan Hutson Subject: Peer review 1 Dear Susan — I regret any inconvenience caused a few months ago by the initial scheduling of meetings with you and your staff in July. It was for that reason that we postponed our initial meeting with you for yet another month, until mid-August. We were careful to plan things so that you would have a full month to get prepared. We will not be postponing our trip in August. If you personally are unavailable, we will meet instead with Simone and Ursula at your offices at 10 AM on Tuesday, August 18. We could also meet personally with you on August 19 or the morning of August 20. If those dates do not work out, please let me know four convenient dates in the second half of September, before the NACOLE conference, when you personally can commit to meet, by teleconference or otherwise. We continue to need the requested documents by the end of this week. Because the requested information relates directly to the power and authority of your office, I would imagine that it is near at hand. If you need any clerical help with this task, let me know today and I will get you some staff. I continue to be pleased to be involved in this project, and I encourage you to see PARC’s involvement as a benefit and opportunity for the OIPM. Sincerely, Merrick Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 2 213.623.5757 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Merrick Bobb Tuesday, July 21, 2015 4:44 PM Ed Quatrevaux; Susan Hutson Jessica Lang; Matthew Barge Re: Peer review charter CHAPTER 4.pdf; IPM Ordinance 23434.pdf Dear Ed and Susan — Thank you very much for sending the relevant portions of the City Charter and the IPM Ordinance. I would also like to express my gratitude to the IG for the speed with which he has made Jessica Lang available to the OIPM. What I am seeking is all sources of power and authority and limitations on the OIPM and the IPM. Susan, please let me know whether there are sources other than the charter and the ordinance. Please let the IG and Jessica Lang know what's necessary in order for you to get me the information by next Friday. It is also important that I have a clear understanding of what additional powers and authority you believe would be beneficial in carrying out OIPM's mission. Please let me know if you have any questions about the foregoing. Best regards, Merrick Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:04 AM, Ed Quatrevaux wrote: Mr. Bobb, 1 I will certainly assist in the gathering of documents, and have Jessica Lang to assist the police monitor retrieve documents. I will also provide assistance in locating other documents, but note that you asked for correspondence between us that Ms. Hutson believes relevant. She must determine what is relevant to her, but I could provide the documents I think relevant and Ms. Hutson could add to that set. Please let me know if you would like me to do that. I have attached the relevant portion of the City’s Charter and the police monitor ordinance, the governing documents. Ed Quatrevaux Inspector General City of New Orleans 504 681-3212 (desk) 504 330-7977 (mobile) This correspondence is part of an ongoing investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review and is exempt from the Public Records Act until the investigation, examination, audit, inspection, or performance review is complete. See La. R.S. 33:9614 and La. R.S. 44:4.1(B)(18). Please notify this office immediately should you receive a Public Records Request which includes this correspondence. From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 4:37 PM To: Susan Hutson Cc: Ed Quatrevaux Subject: Re: Peer review Susan — Because of the press of business at OIPM this week, I will ask the Inspector General by copy of this email to provide you with the clerical help necessary to produce the documentation by Friday. Merrick Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 On Monday, July 20, 2015 1:13 PM, Susan Hutson wrote: Dear Merrick: If you truly regretted causing us inconvenience you would have worked with us on a date, instead of carefully planning around your schedule. I leave town on Friday and will be in and out after that for the better part of a week. Also, 2 of my 5 people are gone this week to a 2 conference and one of those will also be gone parts of next week. These activities were planned for months by our office, whereas yours was not. And, last but not least, we had an OIS last night that had one my folks out all night and that case will be our priority over any and every other matter this week. Not to mention that we still have complaints to take/monitor and mediations to plan/conduct. It’s not a matter of not being in the office on a particular day, it’s a matter of me being respected, being able to plan, and being able to have time to get my work done. I continue to be displeased about this surprise inspection and I see it for exactly what it is. What’s more, if you were treated in this manner, I do not believe that you would be encouraged by the process. Susan From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 2:34 PM To: Susan Hutson Subject: Peer review Dear Susan — I regret any inconvenience caused a few months ago by the initial scheduling of meetings with you and your staff in July. It was for that reason that we postponed our initial meeting with you for yet another month, until midAugust. We were careful to plan things so that you would have a full month to get prepared. We will not be postponing our trip in August. If you personally are unavailable, we will meet instead with Simone and Ursula at your offices at 10 AM on Tuesday, August 18. We could also meet personally with you on August 19 or the morning of August 20. If those dates do not work out, please let me know four convenient dates in the second half of September, before the NACOLE conference, when you personally can commit to meet, by teleconference or otherwise. We continue to need the requested documents by the end of this week. Because the requested information relates directly to the power and authority of your office, I would imagine that it is near at hand. If you need any clerical help with this task, let me know today and I will get you some staff. 3 I continue to be pleased to be involved in this project, and I encourage you to see PARC’s involvement as a benefit and opportunity for the OIPM. Sincerely, Merrick Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 4 CHAPTER 4 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; ETHICS Section 9-401. Office of Inspector General. (1) The Council shall by ordinance create an Office of Inspector General (OIG) and otherwise provide with respect thereto. (2) The OIG shall provide for a full-time program of investigation, audit, inspections, and performance review to provide increased accountability and oversight of entities of city government or entities receiving funds through the city, and to assist in improving agency operations and deterring and identifying, fraud, waste, abuse, and illegal acts. The OIG is specifically authorized to conduct audits of City entities. The OIG shall also provide for an Independent Police Monitor Division, charged with monitoring the operations of the New Orleans Police Department, particularly in the areas of civilian and internally-generated complaints, internal investigations, discipline, significant uses of force, and incustody deaths. (3) The OIG, in conjunction with the Ethics Review Board, shall receive an annual appropriation from the Council in an amount not less than .75% (three-quarters of one percent) of the General Fund operating budget, adopted pursuant to Section 3-115(2), which individual appropriation may not be vetoed by the Mayor, notwithstanding the Mayor's authority pursuant to Section 3-113(4) to disapprove or reduce any item or items of appropriation, and also notwithstanding the Mayor's authority pursuant to Section 3-113(2) to disapprove any ordinance in its entirety. The Council may by ordinance, adopted by unanimous vote of a quorum, provide for deviation from this percentage in cases of natural disaster or other extreme circumstances. Of the budget percentage specified in this paragraph, an amount shall be allocated for the operation of the Ethics Review Board adequate to implement its functions efficiently and effectively. (4) The OIG may retain special counsel notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4-403 of this Charter. Section 9-402. Ethics. (1) Prior to July 1, 1996, the Council shall by ordinance establish an Ethics Review Board and shall authorize it to enforce the provisions of the Code of Ethics. Six members of the Board, all of whom are domiciled in and electors of the City, shall be appointed by the Mayor from lists of three nominees each submitted by the presidents or chancellors of the public and private universities located within the City of New Orleans, and one additional member shall be appointed by the Mayor, all appointments subject to approval by a majority of the members of the City council. No member of the ethics Review Board may hold any elective or appointed position with the city nor any other government or political party office. A vacancy on the Board shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. A member of the Board may be removed by the Mayor only for cause in accordance with the procedures established in Section 9-104 of the Charter and by the council in accordance with the procedures and for the reasons established in Section 3-125 of this Charter. The City Council shall authorize the Ethics Review Board to establish additional recommendations for the code of Ethics, to issue advisory opinions, to promulgate rules regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the Code of Ethics, to refer cases for investigation on referral or complaint, to retain counsel, and to impose fines. (2) Prior to December 31, 1996, the City Council, upon recommendation from the Ethics Review Board, shall by ordinance establish ethical rules governing the conduct of City employees, elected officials, contractors, and other persons who are the recipients of public funds, who are engaged in the performance of a governmental function, or who are in a position to influence the conduct of City employees or officials. The Code of Ethics shall incorporate by reference and adopt the provisions of the Louisiana Code of Governmental Ethics and shall provide for such other, more stringent provisions as the Council may deem appropriate. The Code of Ethics shall prohibit the Ethics Review Board from hearing any alleged violation that constitutes a violation of the State Code of Governmental Ethics if the Ethics Review Board ascertains that the entity designated by the State to enforce said State Code has considered or is considering the alleged violation. (3) Once adopted, the ordinances referenced in this section may be amended only by an ordinance receiving a two-thirds favorable vote of the entire membership of the Council. ORDINANCE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS CITY HALL: March 5, 2009 CALENDAR NO. 27,382 NO. 23434 MAYOR COUNCIL SERIES BY: COUNCILMEMBERS CARTER, MIDURA, CLARKSON AND FIELKOW (BY REQUEST) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain the pay plan for officers and employees in the unclassified service of the city of New Orleans in accordance with sections 3-118 and 4-206(g) of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans to establish new job classifications of independent police monitor (U-0989), deputy police monitor (U-0990) and executive director of community relations for the office of independent police monitor (U-0991), and to establish hiring rates for the new classifications; and otherwise to provide with respect thereto. SECTION 1. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HEREBY ORDAINS, That the unclassified pay plan for officers and employees in the unclassified service of the city of New Orleans in accordance with sections 3-118 and 4-206(g) of the Home Rule Charter of the City of New Orleans is hereby amended and reordained in order to establish new job classifications of independent police monitor (U-0989) at a hiring rate of grade 80, step 79, ($131,468) per annum); deputy police monitor (U-0990) at hiring rate of grade 79, step 51, ($90,567 per annum); and executive director of community relations for the office of independent police monitor (U-0991) at a hiring rate of grade 73, step 46, ($73,325 per annum). SECTION 2. Job descriptions for the classifications of police monitor, deputy police monitor and executive director of community relations for the office of independent police monitor are attached to this ordinance and made a part hereof. ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS MARCH 19, 2009 JACQUELYN B. CLARKSON PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL DELIVERED TO THE MAYOR ON MARCH 20, 2009 APPROVED: MARCH 27, 2009 C. RAY NAGIN MAYOR RETURNED BY THE MAYOR ON MARCH 27, 2009 AT 4:25 P.M. PEGGY LEWIS CLERK OF COUNCIL ROLL CALL VOTE: YEAS: Carter, Clarkson, Hedge-Morrell, Midura, Willard-Lewis - 5 NAYS: 0 ABSENT: Fielkow, Head – 2 Independent Police Monitor Proposed Salary: l3 Ler?iS Quali?cations. The independent police monitor shall be an attorney with substantial. eitperience in criminal, civil rights, and/or labor law, or corporate and/or governmental investigations; or an individual with at least ?ve years? experience in law enforcement oversight, preferably with a graduate degree. Knowledge of law enforcement, particularly of internal investigations of wrongdoing and uses of force, is essential. The independent police rnooitor shall possess impeccable integrity, sound judgment, and an ability to relate effectively with all those who base a stake in law enforcement incloding, bot not limited to, residents of and eisitois to New Orleans, the police department, other law enforcement agencies, and relevant parts of city The independent police rnoniior shell possess an onderstanding of the city?s ethnic diversity, cultural traditions, and socioeconomic situation. {Diaries and rerponsibilities. The independent police monitor shall monitor the New Orleans Police Department, particularly in the areas of: civilian and internally? generated complaints; internal investigations; discipline; use of force; and in~custody deaths. The independent police monitor shall review and analyse the numbers and types of complaints; assess the quality and timeliness of New Orleans Police Department investigations; review the adequacy of data collection and analysis; review the public integrity boreaois policies, procedures, and needs; conduct risk management renews; review the operations and effectieeness of New Orleans Police Department ?early warning system?; review specific issues regarding supervision, training, and discipline; relevant pattern analysis; and other tasks to ensure New Orleans Police Department acconntability, transparency, and responsiveness to the it serves. Additionally, the independent police monitor shall promulgate policies and procedures related to the referenced duties and responsibilities. The independent police monitor sh all receive complaints alleging misconduct by New Orleans Police Department personnel that he will refer to the New Orleans Police Department Office of Internal Investigations for investigation. The independent police shall have the power to review the classi?cation of all internal investigations and, in circumstances where the independent police monitor believes an investigation was misclassi?ed, to recommend to the New Orleans Police Department that it be reclassi?ed. All completed investigations reeiewed by the independent police monitor shall be accompanied by a report in writing to the New Orleans Police Department stating whether the investigation was considered fair, thorough, timely or insuf?cient. The independent police monitor shall have the power to recommend that an internal ineestigation be reopened if he determines that the investigation was not thorough or fair. The independent police monitor shall establish and administer a mediation program for civilian complaints, guided by best practices identified in other jurisdictions with such mediation programs. The independent police monitor shall compile data regarding commendations and shall identify of?cers, units, and precincts that have been commended by the public for daing exceptienal work; review patterns relating to civil Claims and lawsuits alleging New Orleans Felice Department misconduct, payout amounts overtime, units disproportionately represented :33 subjects of claims and lawsuits; review training and schedules tc identify beat praetieea and any need for improvementa to public report each yea}: detailing its mcaitczing and review activities, statistical infcmatien free: the New Orleans Felice Department, ideaii?ed, reecmmendatinns made, and recommendations adopted by the Bepartmena Deputy Police Monitor Proposed Salary: 905567 Qeaa?g?ieefiees The deputy peliee meniier shall be en encmey with seheteesiei experience i212 criminal, civil rights? end/er iebcr law, or ccrperste sedge: gceemeeisi er an individual with master?s degree and at least three years? experience in law enfercemeet Knewledge {if law particularly {3f insemel investigations ef wrengdeing and uses of ferce, is essensisl. Seeing analytic and mitieg skills are required. The deputy pclice {seeker shell pessess impeccable integrity, judgment end es understanding ef the eiiy?s etimie diversity: eelturai traditions, and simeticni Defies emf sespeesz??z?iizfes, The deputy police monitor will develop policies fer and exercise sehsteetiel independent diseretien in assessing the quality and timeliness cheW Orleans Police Bepertinent ineesiigeticns; reviewing the adequacy of data cellecticn and enelysis; reviewing the peblie integrity pelieies, procedures, and reseurce needs; conducting risk management reviews; reviewing the cperstiens and effectiveness ofNew Orleans Police Department ?early seeming system?; reviewing speci?c issues regarding supervision, training, and discipline; conduct relevant pattern analysis; and other tasks to ensure New Orleans Police Department. transparency, and reSponsiveness t0 the community it serves ?I?he deputy police menitcr will also exercise discretion in reviewing investigations cempleted by the New Pei-ice Department to determine Whether they should be reopened or reclassified. The deputy pclice menitcr will establish standards and methodologies fer reviews, investigatiens, end date collection and will prepare reports. The deputy police menith will the duties cf the independent police nienitcr during an absence. Executive Director of Community Relations Proposed Salary: 70.643 Quali?cations. The executive director of community relations will have a master?s degree in communications or a related ?eld and at least seven years? professional experience in public relations. The executive director of community relations must have outstanding communication skills, sound judgment and an understanding of the city?s ethnic diversity, cultural traditions, and socio-economic situation. Duties and responsibilities. The executive director of community relations will exercise substantial discretion in deve10ping and maintaining an effective outreach program and in facilitating communication between the New Orleans Police Department and the community. The executive director of community relations will establish the policies of the Of?ce of the Independent Police Monitor for relationships with community and civic groups and with police associations. The executive director of community relations will develop relationships with community and civic groups and act as a liaison between the independent police monitor and the community. The executive director of community relations will be reSponsible for deve10ping a program of public education relating to the duties and functions of the independent police monitor and will develop complaint and commendation forms in languages and formats accessible to residents. The executive director of community relations will hold at least one public outreach meeting in each council district of the city at least once every four months and meet with each police association a minimum of three times each year. Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Merrick Bobb Monday, August 03, 2015 6:11 PM Susan Hutson Matthew Barge Peer review Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Dear Ms. Hutson: In July 2015, I wrote to you on behalf of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) requesting various documents concerning OIPM’s power and authority. I asked you to send the documentation to me by July 24. As of this writing, nothing has been received. On July 20, I asked you to provide dates in the second half of September to meet with you in person or by teleconference, should you be unable to meet in person when my team and I are scheduled to be in New Orleans on August 18, 19, or 20. Also in that writing, I also asked you whether the New Orleans home charter and city code were the only sources of OIPM’s power and authority. Your response to my July 20 letter did not address my questions. Instead, it indicated that you would be unavailable throughout all of August and September and unable to meet at any juncture during that two-month time period. I wrote to you later that same day to offer whatever clerical help you might find useful to respond to my document request. Since then, I have heard nothing from you. As you know, the City has engaged PARC to conduct a peer review of the OIPM. PARC would prefer to work closely with the OIPM. In our police accountability, monitoring, and consulting work for numerous other cities and organizations, the work has always benefited greatly from stakeholders working together in a collaborative spirit whenever possible. 1 Nevertheless, PARC takes its contractual obligations and duties to the City seriously. Given those obligations, we must continue with our peer review either with or without the cooperation of the OIPM or the IPM. Although it will be more costly, inefficient, and cumbersome to do so without OIPM’s involvement, PARC will get the job done. PARC carefully guards its reputation for objectivity, thoroughness, professionalism, and fairness. OIPM should have every assurance that PARC will it all times act consistently with this reputation. I therefore encourage you to consider this peer review a high priority and decide to work with us to conclude the review effectively, efficiently, and speedily. I very much urge you to call me regarding the peer review and our meeting with you or your staff on August 18. Sincerely, Merrick Bobb Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 2 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Merrick Bobb Monday, August 10, 2015 1:10 PM Susan Hutson Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins Response to your questions Response to S. Hutson--8-10-15.docx Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed Please see the attached letter responding to your questions. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 1 By email August 10, 2015 Dear Ms. Hutson; I want to thank you and Ursulaa Price for speaking w with me last Friday aboout the upcooming evaluation of the OIPM by PAR RC. I look forward f to meeting you and Ms. Prrice in persoon on August 18. I hope that our initiial conversaation late lasst week presages a helpful, collaborrative relationship and approach with reespect to thee evaluation. Followin ng our telephone confereence, I receiv ved a list of questions from you. I w will try my best to address them here. What is PARC’s definition of peer review? PARC has not formulated its ow wn definitio on of peer r eview. We do not usee the term inn any technical sense, nor is our use of the term reestricted to the process typically associated witth the review of academic studies prior to publication in academ mic journals. Generally speaking, we would consider c a “p peer review”” to be an eexamination of the qualiity or nature of a given entity that is co onducted by y a similarly situated entity. This tyype of review w has been a staple of quality assessmeent across go overnment, business, andd numerous other fields. For instance, “[e]very 3 years, indep pendent orgaanizations perform a peer review of GAO’s [thee U.S. Government Accountability Offfice’s] system m of qualityy control for work donee under geneerally accepted government auditing standards to t determine whether it is suitably designedd and operating effectively.”1 In the 1980s 1 and 1990s, the federal goverrnment “contracted withh peer review organizations to monitor hospital use and quality of care” provided to Meedicare patieents.2 The Asssociation to Advance Collegiate C Schools S of Business (A AACSB) usees “Peer-Reeview Teams . . . comprised of volun nteer deans and a busines s school administrators”” to evaluatte the P deparrtments them mselves often ask peer law enforceement standing of businesss schools.3 Police 4 New Orleanns has agencies to evaluate their work. Likewise,, the Inspec tor General’s office in N retained independent, outside peeer review.5                                                         1 Peer Review, Government Accountaability Office, http://www. gao.gov/about/review html (laast visited Auug. 10, 2015). 2 Stephen E. Dippe, et al, “A peer review of a peer rev view organiza tion,” 151 West. J. Med. 93, 993 (1989). 3 Peer Rev view Teams, AACSB Internaational, http://w www.aacsb.edu/en/accreditation/volunteerss/peer-review-tteams/ (last visited d Aug. 10, 2015). 4 See, e.g., Austin Police Department, “Peer Review w of Seattle P Police Investigation 2010-3003528,” availaable at partments/OPA A/highprofilec ases/AustinReport.pdf; MGT T of Americaa, Inc. http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Dep “Public Safety Police Operatiions” (June 2008), available at https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Auditorr/au06118a.pd f. 5 Association of Inspectors General, Letterr to E. Quatrevaux (A Apr. 6, 2015), availablle at http://www nolaoig.org/uploads/File/Peeer%20Review w/Peer%20Reviiew%20Report%202015.pdff. 1    Accordingly, for purposes of a general working definition that might be used to frame our scope of work, I would consider “peer review” to the be an “[e]valuation of the performance, or the quality of work, of a member of a peer group by experts drawn from that group.”6 What is the purpose of peer review? One purpose is to ascertain the degree to which the organization’s actions reflect adherence to the organization’s purpose and its mission statement. Another purpose of peer evaluation is to test whether the organization promotes and practices objectivity, transparency, fairness, education, accountability, and adherence to guiding legal and ethical principles. Our evaluation of OIPM will consider the foregoing. In its evaluation of the OIPM, PARC will also consider: 1) The structure and composition of the OIPM and the breadth and limitations of its oversight authority; 2) The degree to which OIPM’s policies and practices reflect best practice on civilian oversight; 3) The quality of OIPM’s work product; and 4) The community’s perceptions and knowledge of the OIPM’s roles, responsibilities, responsiveness, and effectiveness. How does a review of OIPM “power, scope, extent, and any limitations” contribute to the stated purpose of peer review? One must know what a given agency is empowered to do or is forbidden from doing in order to evaluate the quality of its work, the strength of its performance, and whether it adheres to ethical or legal standards. What national standards and best practices will you be using to measure our office against? Will you be using any standards that were not generated by you or PARC? PARC, as the nation’s leading repository and resource center on police oversight, collects and evaluates oversight mechanisms and their strengths and weaknesses as an ongoing project. Indeed, its founder and Executive Director has been engaged on a full-time basis in police oversight for nearly 25 years and has been credited with the invention of contemporary police oversight policy, theory, and practice. PARC does not merely do work in the oversight area—it is a leading authority in the field. PARC “wrote the book on police oversight after the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles.”7 Its work on a wide array of accountability, technical, and community issues is widely cited by policy experts, other monitors, civilian oversight mechanisms and community groups—and is                                                         6 Peer Review, BusinessDictionary.com, http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/peer-review html (last visited Aug. 10, 2015). 7 Dominic Holden,”SPD’s Big Job Opening,” The Stranger (Aug. 1, 2012), http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/spds-big-job-opening/Content?oid=14332997. 2    one of a few groups that “[t]he best departments keep an eye on” with respect to its reports and recommendations on best practices.8 PARC’s work has been widely recognized as “thorough, fair and methodical, with a reputation that has put [its] work above reproach.”9 The Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) was founded in 2001 by Merrick Bobb and the Vera Institute of Justice, and with the generous support of the Ford Foundation, to provide independent, evidence-based counsel and research on effective, respectful, and publicly accountable policing to law enforcement agencies, government entities, and community groups. A nonprofit organization with offices in New York and Los Angeles, PARC works with police agencies, local governments, civic leaders, appointed and elected officials, and community organizations to address difficult law enforcement issues and solve long-term problems. PARC has a long history of providing independent, evidence-based counsel on effective, respectful, and publicly accountable policing and civilian oversight. It has consulted at various points for the cities of Detroit, Michigan; Los Angeles, Pasadena, Oakland, and San Francisco, California; Wallkill, New York; Albuquerque and Farmington, New Mexico; Mesa, Arizona; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Portland and Eugene, Oregon; Denver, Colorado; the Southern Ute Reservation in Colorado; Seattle and King County, Washington; and several others. PARC currently serves as staff to Mr. Bobb in his capacity as court-appointed monitor overseeing the implementation of the federal consent decree in Seattle. PARC’s focus on independent assessments and monitoring is unique. It is the foremost expert on independent, in-depth assessment of mechanisms for civilian oversight. This focus on in-depth, real-world monitoring led to the award of a major grant from the Bureau of Justice Administration to lead a group of peer experts and monitors in constructing National Guidelines for Police Monitors—providing a first-of-its-kind foundation for the work and approach of other monitors, civilian review boards, auditors, police commissions, and law enforcement agencies subject to other civilian oversight. PARC played a similar role in the construction of national guidelines for internal affairs. PARC has evaluated commissions, review boards, and monitors. One example of that work involved Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In the wake of increasing tension in police communityrelations, the City of Milwaukee, which has the oldest fire and police commission in the United States, trusted PARC to evaluate its structures, practices, and procedures—and make recommendations for improving the rigor and transparency of its processes and procedures. Although some community stakeholders advocated for the wholesale disbanding and replacement of the Commission, PARC made concrete, practical recommendations to improve the Commission’s operations, including legislative recommendations. In conducting the review, PARC examined best practices in comparable jurisdictions to guide recommendations for improving the Commission’s work—situating action items in terms of the real-world experiences of other jurisdictions and oversight commissions. PARC's recommendations provided policymakers with a clear and pragmatic roadmap for reform of the Commission. Investigators and analysts were hired to conduct more meaningful                                                         8 9 Sally Kestin, et al, “Policing the Police: Investigating Law Enforcement,” IRE Conference (2013). Kevin Uhrich, “From Good to Great,” Pasadena Weekly (Sept. 11, 2013). 3    investigations. The executive director began to take on a new role. The process of participating in the PARC assessment was cited by several stakeholders as an encouraging step toward ongoing engagement with the community on issues of structural reform. In another instance, PARC was hired by Eugene, Oregon to conduct a study of civilian oversight. When Eugene was considering implementing a new civilian oversight mechanism, it asked PARC to report on law enforcement oversight models used by cities across the U.S. In its report, PARC pioneered the leading conceptual framework for police oversight models — helping the City of Eugene tailor an accountability system to the community’s needs. Accordingly, PARC will be drawing upon the experience of 25 years as the foremost authority on civilian oversight. In the same way that it has for countless other jurisdictions, it will further consider the experience of other jurisdictions, civilian oversight mechanisms, and monitors. In 2008, pursuant to a grant from the Department of Justice, and with the assistance of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, PARC convened a broad group of stakeholders to debate and ultimately draft National Guidelines for Police Monitors. Twentythree (26) police accountability practitioners and law enforcement professionals from across the United States served as members of the working group that generated the standards. Thirty (30) additional practitioners and professionals gave shape, input, and direction to the efforts. Thus, the National Guidelines were generated by a wide group of seasoned and experienced experts, not merely PARC or its agents. Likewise, as with any of PARC’s independent assessments, our approach will be informed by national auditing and inspection standards, including but not limited to:    The Association of Inspectors General, Principles & Standards for Offices of Inspector General (Green Book); The Institute of Internal Auditors, International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Red Book); and The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book) Have those standards been subject to peer review or adopted by a national body? Again, charged with constructing National Guidelines for Police Monitors, PARC convened a broad group of stakeholders to debate and ultimately draft Uniform National Guidelines for Monitors. The resulting drafts were circulated to the entire working group for review. The final product was the subject of broad discussion among all involved in the group – and represents the consensus views of this diverse group of highly experienced police accountability and oversight practitioners. Consequently, these Department of Justice-sponsored standards were subject to vigorous debate, discussion, and review while being constructed. Appendix A lists the members of the working group on the national guidelines. *** 4    PARC It is my hope that the foregoing demonstratees our experience, expertise, and goood faith. P was the first, f several years ago, to t sketch outt how a monnitor’s office should lookk and functioon for New Orleans. We are tremendo ously pleased d to have thee opportunity to see how w it is faringg and nd your offic e. look forward to working closely with you an Sin cerely, ___ ____________________________ Me rrick Bobb Execcutive Direcctor 5    Appendix A Working Group for National Guidelines for Police Monitors (2008) The affiliations listed for participants below reflect the organization that they represented at the time of the construction of the guidelines—and in some cases may not reflect their current contact information or professional affiliation. Andre Birotte Office of Inspector General Figueroa Plaza 201 N. Figueroa, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90012 birottea@lapd.lacity.org Gary Blackmer Portland City Auditor 1221 SW 4th Avenue, Room 140 Portland, OR 97204 Michael R. Bromwich Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson Suite 800 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2505 Michael.Bromwich@friedfrank.com Kelli M. Evans Independent Assessment & Monitoring 1330 Broadway, Ste. 426 Oakland, CA 94612 kevans@opdimt.net Ella Bully-Cummings, Chief Detroit Police Department 1300 Beaubien Detroit, MI 48226 chiefofpolice@dpdhq.ci.detroit.mi.us Michael Gennaco Office of Independent Review 4900 S. Eastern Ave. Suite 204 Commerce, CA 90040 mjgennac@laoir.com Don Casimere Richmond CA, Police Commission 330 25th Street, Second Floor 6    Richmond, CA 94804 Don_Casimere@ci.richmond.ca.us Steven Edwards Bureau of Justice Assistance 810 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20531 Steven.Edwards@usdoj.gov Ms. Maureen O'Connell Metropolitan Police Department 300 Indiana Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 maureen.o'connell@dc.gov Anthony Pacheco Los Angeles Police Commissioner 150 N. Los Angeles St. Room # 150 Los Angeles, CA 90012 V8834@lapd.lacity.org Albert Pearsall DOJ-COPS Office 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Albert.Pearsall@usdoj.gov Sue Quinn 4131 Lymer Drive San Deigo, CA 92116 Suelqq@aol.com Ralph Godbee Assistant Chief Detroit Police Department 1300 Beaubien Detroit, MI 48226 godbeer597@dpdhq.ci.detroit.mi.us Mike Graham 340 29th Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 mdgraham@worldnet.att.net Christy E. Lopez Independent Assessment & Monitoring 7    6930 Carroll Ave, Suite 800 Takoma, MD 20912 clopez@opdimt.net Ilana Rosenzweig Independent Police Review Authority 10 West 35th Street 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60616 Ilana.Rosenzweig@iprachicago.org Jeff Schlanger Kroll Inc. 1116 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 jschlanger@krollworldwide.com Thomas Sharp Office Police Complaints 1400 I Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Thomas.Sharp@dc.gov Charles D. Reynolds P.O. Box 396 Dover, NH 03821-0396 reynolds.charles@comcast.net Richard Rosenthal Office of the Independent Monitor 201 W. Colfax Dept. 1201 Denver, CO 80202 Leslie Stevens Portland Police Bureau 1111 S.W. 2nd Avenue Portland, OR 97204 LStevens@portlandpolice.org Julio Thompson Office of the Attorney General 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 jthompson@atg.state.vt.us 8    Sam Pailca Compliance Investigations, Office of Legal Compliance Office of the General Counsel - Legal and Corporate Affairs Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052-6399 spailca@microsoft.com 9  Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Subject: Domonique Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:06 AM Susan Hutson Re: Blocked off for meetings with Merrick Bobb Yes Sent from my iPhone On Aug 12, 2015, at 9:43 AM, Susan Hutson wrote: Domonique,  Could I bring Selah to D&J on this day? Chantell is closed and I need to work.         1 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Susan Hutson Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:21 PM Merrick Bobb (mbobb@pacbell.net) Ursula Price; allyson collins (allysoncollins0@gmail.com); Matthew Barge FW: Response to your questions Good Afternoon Mr. Bobb:    Thank you for providing some clarification about the upcoming inspection process.  The follow is our list of persons  which we believe would help inform PARC in its work:      1. Judge Calvin Johnson ‐  ‐  2. Robert Goodman – Cease Fire NOLA ‐  3. James Carter (Norris Henderson may have contact information)The cell I used to have for him is   Might  still be good.   4. Norris Henderson ‐ Norris@vote‐nola.org ‐  5. Dr. John Penny ‐ jpenny@suno.edu ‐  6. Mary Howell ‐  7. Dr. Romell Madison –  8. Arnie Fielkow (Norris Henderson may have contact information)  9. Robert Cerasoli robertcerasoli@harvard.post.edu or by cell at 10. Seung Hong or Xochitl Brevera (they were the safe streets policy people who helped us identify the IPM as the  campaign SSSC wanted to launch for police accountability)   and Xochitl  just had a death so count her out.   11. Theresa Elloise (Safestreets member and successful litigant against NOPD who was prominently featured in  campaign for OIPM) – I can’t find Theresa’s number, but will keep looking.    12. Brother Walter Umrani – Peacekeepers New Orleans ‐  13. Erika McConduit (Urban League) ‐ emcconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org ‐    Sincerely,    Susan Hutson  From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 1:10 PM To: Susan Hutson Cc: Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins Subject: Response to your questions Please see the attached letter responding to your questions. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 1 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Merrick Bobb Wednesday, August 12, 2015 2:23 PM Susan Hutson Ursula Price; allyson collins (allysoncollins0@gmail.com); Matthew Barge Re: Response to your questions many thanks. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 10:21 AM, Susan Hutson wrote: Good Afternoon Mr. Bobb: Thank you for providing some clarification about the upcoming inspection process. The follow is our list of persons which we believe would help inform PARC in its work: 1. Judge Calvin Johnson 2. Robert Goodman – Cease Fire NOLA 3. James Carter (Norris Henderson may have contact information)The cell I used to have for him is . Might still be good. 4. Norris Henderson - Norris@vote-nola.org 5. Dr. John Penny - jpenny@suno.edu 6. Mary Howell 7. Dr. Romell Madison – 8. Arnie Fielkow (Norris Henderson may have contact information) 9. Robert Cerasoli robertcerasoli@harvard.post.edu or by cell at 10. Seung Hong or Xochitl Brevera (they were the safe streets policy people who helped us identify the IPM as the campaign SSSC wanted to launch for police accountability) and Xochitl just had a death so count her out. 11. Theresa Elloise (Safestreets member and successful litigant against NOPD who was prominently featured in campaign for OIPM) – I can’t find Theresa’s number, but will keep looking. 12. Brother Walter Umrani – Peacekeepers New Orleans 13. Erika McConduit (Urban League) - emcconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org Sincerely, Susan Hutson 1 From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 1:10 PM To: Susan Hutson Cc: Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins Subject: Response to your questions Please see the attached letter responding to your questions. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 2 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Merrick Bobb Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:38 PM Merrick Bobb Susan Hutson; Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins; Jeffrey Yamson Peer evaluation of OIPM I have been asked to evaluate the Office of the Independent Police Monitor in New Orleans and, in that connection, Susan Hutson suggested that I talk to you. I am the Executive Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California dedicated to respectful, effective, and constitutional policing. I currently monitor the Seattle Police Department in connection with a federal consent decree there. I would be grateful if you would give me a call this week at 213.623.5757 or next week on my mobile, 323.404.1661. Thanks.   Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 1 Law Clerk3 Merrick Bobb Wednesday, August 12, 2015 5:04 PM Susan Hutson; Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins Fw: Undeliverable: Peer evaluation of OIPM From: Sent: To: Subject: I sent an email to everyone on your list who has an email. Two bounced back:R. Madison and E.McConduit. After announcing who I was, what I was calling about, and that I was calling at your behest, Theresa Elloise hung up the phone on me. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 R m m Your message to emconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org couldn't be delivered. emconduit wasn't found at urbanleagueneworleans.org mbobb Office 365 emconduit Action Required Recipient Unknown TO address How to Fix It The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try the following:     Retype the email address then resend the message. Clear the recipient nickname cache in Outlook or Outlook Web App by following the steps in this article: NDR Response Code 5.1.10 in Exchange Online and Office 365. Contact the recipient (by phone or instant messaging, for example) to check that the address is correct. The recipient may have set up mail forwarding to an incorrect address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is working correctly. 1 If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. Was this helpful? Send feedback. More Info for Email Admins This error occurs because the sender sent a message to someone whose mailbox is hosted by Office 365 but the email address is incorrect or doesn't exist. The error is reported by the recipient's email system, but most often it must be fixed by the person who sent it. A common example of when this can happen is when the recipient changes their email address but the sender picks the person from their recipient nickname list in Outlook or Outlook Web App. The nickname cache doesn't yet know about the new e-mail address -- it has stored the out-of-date email address information -- so when the message is sent the wrong address is used, even though the sender chose the right recipient. Another example is if the recipient is an Office 365 user but a license is not assigned to the user. In the Office 365 Admin Center check that the user has a valid license assigned to it. Sometimes it needs to be fixed by the recipient or the recipient's email admin, for example, when the recipient has created a mail forwarding rule to an incorrect address, or if there's a problem with their email address directory. If the sender is using the correct recipient address, and it's still not working, send a test message from another user mailbox to see if it's an issue unique to this sender. If you reproduce the problem sending from another user account, ask the recipient or the recipient's email admin to confirm that the recipient address exists, is correct, and is working. Suggest they check for misbehaving forwarding rules or possible email address directory issues (such as directory synchronization issues). For more information, see NDR Response Code 5.1.10 in Exchange Online and Office 365. Original Message Details Created Date: Sender Address: Recipient Address: Subject: 8/12/2015 9:38:12 PM mbobb@pacbell.net emconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org Peer evaluation of OIPM Error Details Reported error: DSN generated by: 550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient not found by SMTP address lookup DM2PR0801MB1007.namprd08.prod.outlook.com 2 * 7 8/12/2015 9:38:15 PM DM2PR0801CA0026.namprd08.prod.outlook.com DM2PR0801MB1007.namprd08.prod.outlook.com Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) 1 sec Original Message Headers Received: from DM2PR0801CA0026.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.162.18.36) by DM2PR0801MB1007.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.160.133.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.225.19; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:15 +0000 Received: from BL2FFO11OLC013.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c09::128) by DM2PR0801CA0026.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:3c28::36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.231.21 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:14 +0000 Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is 98.138.91.102) smtp.mailfrom=pacbell.net; urbanleagueneworleans.org; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=pacbell.net;urbanleagueneworleans.org; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=pacbell.net; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: pacbell.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: from nm9-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (98.138.91.102) by BL2FFO11OLC013.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.243.9 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:14 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pacbell.net; s=s2048; t=1439415493; bh=EQ3xA9z+KsHyNM3pr9gjErMHGIfAqCmoewOFfrUsiEo=; h=Date:From:ReplyTo:To:Cc:Subject:From:Subject; b=Gb6cTWxMEb9XdcYiG+fi001SLUzGThYKqT5kcSb2ZkzPpe4kBv4zUINaDZyU6AM3IRWJM6Y+v9cpOJIV4J1Wdoa 8BipZbnrFd20VQ6IDedLdnAk0JhyjaADzo83NDs7WeS5WL56g9nEC3ImoPtOCmrqeWKaLRHloC5rJdn2eNUaBxtCx KKD41k7JVPX6uzJHYaVceQFPfEVqFgmq/c0patDD9KVCW0O9KWWyvLRpflMZrM/WLcyjGzZ8IsDU+rjVRjNVKMgOj EBPzkhMR6PRpJD45DcZe4gWV1m2SN1DdhTV8X2ek5lEx/AJvv6X+h1N/Uls4B6yxXe9VihfiH8TNw== Received: from [98.138.101.128] by nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2015 21:38:13 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.196] by tm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2015 21:38:13 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1054.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2015 21:38:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 324084.67453.bm@omp1054.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: 66BCjk8VM1n21Tc5BSEPL VwBviSM7zo 3171DRbXIpd1TQIRcpGDK1MxJgTS6q yZ7bFA mvK0ys6Ggrx1o1pVR.z4to.00EQgv1Fj40weQENSD PEv15R nDDsQEwCHPXY9CetgX8f Xsjx23kF8WOyTVQkEPRdI.lapCZnu1D4McVYEESPs29OZN5dNujcriVv0q6wxRjXQWRs7dq3L5xQ hDZUlm4ihjkbky8Rf 9WELbq6fXYmnSK7lymg8VdM7KYcMClvQBaZFTsRQms2CLycbWrEtv1vwQr 0hCIpLtME0jKOYlIflE2S8p47TdzJEhdgC4K94JmRkMXXNozVUPmasqp0XOyJruYVJKNa8CbkKNm 6npP5LoJzYrBM6E09ADmp7vDFjwBrDyE9mTa 9cwXzKs8WuVY3N8idkyGiB.typXSVGTO0n9DZ.m UVaJGJFFvyCYDTVU22c8ZcPW70lH20eh5zMUef2UhCkF3fSPEqJ1c56DDZLyuXsZXkt613BJ5gAe 7p1dF9nMiQQ31TKhDXZrLdgxAgKE71STtDpDEgBV13dDCoUE1ptvr7QFv Received: by 98.138.105.250; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:12 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:12 +0000 3 From: Merrick Bobb Reply-To: Merrick Bobb To: Merrick Bobb CC: Susan Hutson , Matthew Barge , Allyson Collins , Jeffrey Yamson Message-ID: <1384951659.457862.1439415492409.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Peer evaluation of OIPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_457861_2094660176.1439415492405" Content-Length: 3388 Return-Path: mbobb@pacbell.net X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;BL2FFO11OLC013;1:fFsjkSjq0e5M7izRKKZ0zpbPGXA4yChSvWr4pLQ0X9t3LMhYfFWVgfatNbuYWRXF9KiTgJ AaFOP43EPzNCY3SoQPFTdLoRIV4ffDrleW6gu5lnt8eaKICivkZp2OL5gfI/oSYA7jIxH3uONqIDLuaJeASpTFXXs K7lwWP8DoSFoMDrlvQ6NDxRIUZcgAHjoUmMxICjAD7rnFLBflQWeacGbTGQPmz/7YkKacLKbkbj6rPBB9r7PDdQt/ b1t7h7c8IgMYy7TLw2L2w3AYZmk/Uu0D2va1/yloghU0WGFrDr6nqbjnWteDR04cCGuUFaMLkL1iJAeSN1mrzVc8M ZKPnQ== X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:98.138.91.102;CTRY:US;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM2PR0801MB1007;2:8IYcf58x8/cqOVit4c1IIcjIWznjwvnGftO0nZ1uJTdUumo2K7OsD3wIDEECsV n3msgp7E9JGgC29B5aem3cZga/EehVfANGtQ9K0wNziqj1hf5BYRw9x90WWOHXO++dmUXMh1R7kMsJUebVCIAMbjk w6a/zrs6gBaQb9s8VchE=;3:fJ9UDTH11SiN2aE5SVSxnIyFXm+Vg8ggt3fEluGjqTQOtPLvJGx29oXgpBHhfiUtn ci1/+umi/dcrC42hUuUZy/uU0wBPZis+Cn5D3/H34Tdg8TnRxpLxSPkphHScpDTHaV0La7QVIzF/YA8SeDCrO1TzW 6LSxKTFF4aOeDH/2vgyqfo6FYhhuwgmLGQ8mF1061a7ZeucGsqr/8xop8RUX5y5FXt6sWbuJMU78uR586sk0zmCJQ +57aTklziteeK;25:uRAEMONYjz6ObNCZRpd3FE2eg7tLkQLPB97gONG7wMh3GZjkvpOARBplgmokJEFerFSfPCIT F9O/uzND9ergBxCFj9S9NT8MJqAMs4BUf++EDo+YmVMlSf1i584sWWv8Pqte3m/dDMAjg3Ut07n02FAizmf5ErzOJ DCkKPjcHEwdD39nmvY9NlDcIJ3i+emRPD8+iFOh6MjNNwYcODf+Xu2eFIz/zD0r4/vx4UT2fGMm32+EQgmtncD3DO cIBVC6PP0wA4uKKdnRYp3LXg2Dyg== X-DkimResult-Test: Passed X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3001015);SRVR:DM2PR0801MB1007; I have been asked to evaluate the Office of the Independent Police Monitor in New Orleans and, in that connection, Susan Hutson suggested that I talk to you. I am the Executive Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California dedicated to respectful, effective, and constitutional policing. I currently monitor the Seattle Police Department in connection with a federal consent decree there. I would be grateful if you would give me a call this week at 213.623.5757 or next week on my mobile, 323.404.1661. Thanks.   Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net 4 merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 Message Hops HOP TIME (UTC) FROM TO WITH 1 8/12/2015 9:38:12 PM 2 8/12/2015 9:38:13 PM [127.0.0.1] omp1054.mail.ne1.yahoo.com NNFMP 3 8/12/2015 9:38:13 PM [98.138.89.196] tm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com NNFMP 4 8/12/2015 9:38:13 PM [98.138.101.128] nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com NNFMP 5 8/12/2015 9:38:14 PM nm9-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com BL2FFO11OLC013.mail.protection.outlook.com Microsoft SMTP Server (TL 6 8/12/2015 9:38:14 PM BL2FFO11OLC013.protection.gbl DM2PR0801CA0026.outlook.office365.com Microsoft SMTP Server (TL 98.138.105.250 I have been asked to evaluate the Office of the Independent Police Monitor in New Orleans and, in that connection, Susan Hutson suggested that I talk to you. I am the Executive Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California dedicated to respectful, effective, and constitutional policing. I currently monitor the Seattle Police Department in connection with a federal consent decree there. I would be grateful if you would give me a call this week at 213.623.5757 or next week on my mobile, 323.404.1661. Thanks.   Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 2:38 PM, "postmaster@urbanleagueneworleans.org" wrote: 5 I Forwarded Message Law Clerk3 Susan Hutson Friday, August 14, 2015 9:59 AM 'Merrick Bobb'; 'Matthew Barge'; 'Allyson Collins' RE: Undeliverable: Peer evaluation of OIPM From: Sent: To: Subject: I received an email from Erika McConduit of the Urban League.  Next week is incredibly hectic for her because of the  Urban League’s Katrina 10 year anniversary conference. Nonetheless, she said that she would try to meet with you, her  contact info is emcconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org and her cell phone is      I have not yet communicated with Dr. Madison.    From: Susan Hutson Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:12 AM To: 'Merrick Bobb'; Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins Subject: RE: Undeliverable: Peer evaluation of OIPM I will check on those two addresses.  As for Ms. Elloise, I am not sure if she understood your announcement, but I would  suggest trying her again.      From: Merrick Bobb [mailto:mbobb@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 5:04 PM To: Susan Hutson; Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins Subject: Fw: Undeliverable: Peer evaluation of OIPM I sent an email to everyone on your list who has an email. Two bounced back:R. Madison and E.McConduit. After announcing who I was, what I was calling about, and that I was calling at your behest, Theresa Elloise hung up the phone on me. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 R m m Your message to emconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org couldn't be delivered. emconduit wasn't found at urbanleagueneworleans.org mbobb Office 365 emconduit Action Required Recipient 1 Unknown TO address How to Fix It The address may be misspelled or may not exist. Try the following:     Retype the email address then resend the message. Clear the recipient nickname cache in Outlook or Outlook Web App by following the steps in this article: NDR Response Code 5.1.10 in Exchange Online and Office 365. Contact the recipient (by phone or instant messaging, for example) to check that the address is correct. The recipient may have set up mail forwarding to an incorrect address. Ask them to check that any forwarding they've set up is working correctly. If the problem continues, forward this message to your email admin. Was this helpful? Send feedback. More Info for Email Admins This error occurs because the sender sent a message to someone whose mailbox is hosted by Office 365 but the email address is incorrect or doesn't exist. The error is reported by the recipient's email system, but most often it must be fixed by the person who sent it. A common example of when this can happen is when the recipient changes their email address but the sender picks the person from their recipient nickname list in Outlook or Outlook Web App. The nickname cache doesn't yet know about the new e-mail address -- it has stored the out-of-date email address information -- so when the message is sent the wrong address is used, even though the sender chose the right recipient. Another example is if the recipient is an Office 365 user but a license is not assigned to the user. In the Office 365 Admin Center check that the user has a valid license assigned to it. Sometimes it needs to be fixed by the recipient or the recipient's email admin, for example, when the recipient has created a mail forwarding rule to an incorrect address, or if there's a problem with their email address directory. If the sender is using the correct recipient address, and it's still not working, send a test message from another user mailbox to see if it's an issue unique to this sender. If you reproduce the problem sending from another user account, ask the recipient or the recipient's email admin to confirm that the recipient address exists, is correct, and is working. Suggest they check for misbehaving forwarding rules or possible email address directory issues (such as directory synchronization issues). 2 For more information, see NDR Response Code 5.1.10 in Exchange Online and Office 365. Original Message Details Created Date: Sender Address: Recipient Address: Subject: 8/12/2015 9:38:12 PM mbobb@pacbell.net emconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org Peer evaluation of OIPM Error Details Reported error: DSN generated by: 550 5.1.10 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipientNotFound; Recipient not found by SMTP address lookup DM2PR0801MB1007.namprd08.prod.outlook.com * 7 8/12/2015 9:38:15 PM DM2PR0801CA0026.namprd08.prod.outlook.com DM2PR0801MB1007.namprd08.prod.outlook.com Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) 1 sec Original Message Headers Received: from DM2PR0801CA0026.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.162.18.36) by DM2PR0801MB1007.namprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.160.133.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.225.19; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:15 +0000 Received: from BL2FFO11OLC013.protection.gbl (2a01:111:f400:7c09::128) by DM2PR0801CA0026.outlook.office365.com (2a01:111:e400:3c28::36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.231.21 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:14 +0000 Authentication-Results: spf=none (sender IP is 98.138.91.102) smtp.mailfrom=pacbell.net; urbanleagueneworleans.org; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=pacbell.net;urbanleagueneworleans.org; dmarc=bestguesspass action=none header.from=pacbell.net; Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: pacbell.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) Received: from nm9-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (98.138.91.102) by BL2FFO11OLC013.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.243.9 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:14 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pacbell.net; s=s2048; t=1439415493; bh=EQ3xA9z+KsHyNM3pr9gjErMHGIfAqCmoewOFfrUsiEo=; h=Date:From:ReplyTo:To:Cc:Subject:From:Subject; b=Gb6cTWxMEb9XdcYiG+fi001SLUzGThYKqT5kcSb2ZkzPpe4kBv4zUINaDZyU6AM3IRWJM6Y+v9cpOJIV4J1Wdoa 8BipZbnrFd20VQ6IDedLdnAk0JhyjaADzo83NDs7WeS5WL56g9nEC3ImoPtOCmrqeWKaLRHloC5rJdn2eNUaBxtCx KKD41k7JVPX6uzJHYaVceQFPfEVqFgmq/c0patDD9KVCW0O9KWWyvLRpflMZrM/WLcyjGzZ8IsDU+rjVRjNVKMgOj EBPzkhMR6PRpJD45DcZe4gWV1m2SN1DdhTV8X2ek5lEx/AJvv6X+h1N/Uls4B6yxXe9VihfiH8TNw== 3 Received: from [98.138.101.128] by nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2015 21:38:13 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.196] by tm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2015 21:38:13 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1054.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Aug 2015 21:38:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 324084.67453.bm@omp1054.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: 66BCjk8VM1n21Tc5BSEPL VwBviSM7zo 3171DRbXIpd1TQIRcpGDK1MxJgTS6q yZ7bFA mvK0ys6Ggrx1o1pVR.z4to.00EQgv1Fj40weQENSD PEv15R nDDsQEwCHPXY9CetgX8f Xsjx23kF8WOyTVQkEPRdI.lapCZnu1D4McVYEESPs29OZN5dNujcriVv0q6wxRjXQWRs7dq3L5xQ hDZUlm4ihjkbky8Rf 9WELbq6fXYmnSK7lymg8VdM7KYcMClvQBaZFTsRQms2CLycbWrEtv1vwQr 0hCIpLtME0jKOYlIflE2S8p47TdzJEhdgC4K94JmRkMXXNozVUPmasqp0XOyJruYVJKNa8CbkKNm 6npP5LoJzYrBM6E09ADmp7vDFjwBrDyE9mTa_9cwXzKs8WuVY3N8idkyGiB.typXSVGTO0n9DZ.m UVaJGJFFvyCYDTVU22c8ZcPW70lH20eh5zMUef2UhCkF3fSPEqJ1c56DDZLyuXsZXkt613BJ5gAe 7p1dF9nMiQQ31TKhDXZrLdgxAgKE71STtDpDEgBV13dDCoUE1ptvr7QFv Received: by 98.138.105.250; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:12 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:38:12 +0000 From: Merrick Bobb Reply-To: Merrick Bobb To: Merrick Bobb CC: Susan Hutson , Matthew Barge , Allyson Collins , Jeffrey Yamson Message-ID: <1384951659.457862.1439415492409.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Subject: Peer evaluation of OIPM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_457861_2094660176.1439415492405" Content-Length: 3388 Return-Path: mbobb@pacbell.net X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;BL2FFO11OLC013;1:fFsjkSjq0e5M7izRKKZ0zpbPGXA4yChSvWr4pLQ0X9t3LMhYfFWVgfatNbuYWRXF9KiTgJ AaFOP43EPzNCY3SoQPFTdLoRIV4ffDrleW6gu5lnt8eaKICivkZp2OL5gfI/oSYA7jIxH3uONqIDLuaJeASpTFXXs K7lwWP8DoSFoMDrlvQ6NDxRIUZcgAHjoUmMxICjAD7rnFLBflQWeacGbTGQPmz/7YkKacLKbkbj6rPBB9r7PDdQt/ b1t7h7c8IgMYy7TLw2L2w3AYZmk/Uu0D2va1/yloghU0WGFrDr6nqbjnWteDR04cCGuUFaMLkL1iJAeSN1mrzVc8M ZKPnQ== X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:98.138.91.102;CTRY:US;IPV:NLI;EFV:NLI; X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: 1;DM2PR0801MB1007;2:8IYcf58x8/cqOVit4c1IIcjIWznjwvnGftO0nZ1uJTdUumo2K7OsD3wIDEECs Vn3msgp7E9JGgC29B5aem3cZga/EehVfANGtQ9K0wNziqj1hf5BYRw9x90WWOHXO++dmUXMh1R7kMsJUebVCIAMbj kw6a/zrs6gBaQb9s8VchE=;3:fJ9UDTH11SiN2aE5SVSxnIyFXm+Vg8ggt3fEluGjqTQOtPLvJGx29oXgpBHhfiUt nci1/+umi/dcrC42hUuUZy/uU0wBPZis+Cn5D3/H34Tdg8TnRxpLxSPkphHScpDTHaV0La7QVIzF/YA8SeDCrO1Tz W6LSxKTFF4aOeDH/2vgyqfo6FYhhuwgmLGQ8mF1061a7ZeucGsqr/8xop8RUX5y5FXt6sWbuJMU78uR586sk0zmCJ Q+57aTklziteeK;25:uRAEMONYjz6ObNCZRpd3FE2eg7tLkQLPB97gONG7wMh3GZjkvpOARBplgmokJEFerFSfPCI TF9O/uzND9ergBxCFj9S9NT8MJqAMs4BUf++EDo+YmVMlSf1i584sWWv8Pqte3m/dDMAjg3Ut07n02FAizmf5ErzO JDCkKPjcHEwdD39nmvY9NlDcIJ3i+emRPD8+iFOh6MjNNwYcODf+Xu2eFIz/zD0r4/vx4UT2fGMm32+EQgmtncD3D OcIBVC6PP0wA4uKKdnRYp3LXg2Dyg== X-DkimResult-Test: Passed X-Microsoft-Antispam: 4 UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3001015);SRVR:DM2PR0801MB1007; I have been asked to evaluate the Office of the Independent Police Monitor in New Orleans and, in that connection, Susan Hutson suggested that I talk to you. I am the Executive Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California dedicated to respectful, effective, and constitutional policing. I currently monitor the Seattle Police Department in connection with a federal consent decree there. I would be grateful if you would give me a call this week at 213.623.5757 or next week on my mobile, 323.404.1661. Thanks.   Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 Message Hops HOP TIME (UTC) FROM TO WITH 1 8/12/2015 9:38:12 PM 2 8/12/2015 9:38:13 PM [127.0.0.1] omp1054.mail.ne1.yahoo.com NNFMP 3 8/12/2015 9:38:13 PM [98.138.89.196] tm16.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com NNFMP 4 8/12/2015 9:38:13 PM [98.138.101.128] nm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com NNFMP 5 8/12/2015 9:38:14 PM nm9-vm6.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com BL2FFO11OLC013.mail.protection.outlook.com Microsoft SMTP Server (TL 6 8/12/2015 9:38:14 PM BL2FFO11OLC013.protection.gbl DM2PR0801CA0026.outlook.office365.com Microsoft SMTP Server (TL 98.138.105.250 I have been asked to evaluate the Office of the Independent Police Monitor in New Orleans and, in that connection, Susan Hutson suggested that I talk to you. I am the Executive Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California dedicated to respectful, effective, and constitutional policing. I currently monitor the Seattle Police Department in connection with a federal consent decree there. 5 I would be grateful if you would give me a call this week at 213.623.5757 or next week on my mobile, 323.404.1661. Thanks.   Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 On Wednesday, August 12, 2015 2:38 PM, "postmaster@urbanleagueneworleans.org" wrote: ----- Forwarded Message ----- 6 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Merrick Bobb Friday, August 14, 2015 3:47 PM emcconduit@urbanleagueneworleans.org Matthew Barge; Allyson Collins; Susan Hutson OIPM I have been asked to evaluate the Office of the Independent Police Monitor in New Orleans and, in that connection, Susan Hutson suggested that I talk to you. I am the Executive Director of the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC), a nonprofit based in Los Angeles, California dedicated to respectful, effective, and constitutional policing. I currently monitor the Seattle Police Department in connection with a federal consent decree there. I understand from Susan that this is a particularly busy time for you. I would be happy to talk to you on the phone if you have a few minutes to do so today or over the weekend. The best number to call is: 323.663.3553. Otherwise, I will try to call you. Sincerely, Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net or merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 1 Law Clerk3 Susan Hutson Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:47 AM Merrick Bobb (mbobb@pacbell.net); MerrickBobb@PARC.info Phone Conference From: Sent: To: Subject: Good Morning Merrick:    I am back in the office on limited duty this week and able to speak with you. I will be in the office, as much I can tolerate  it, from 8am‐12noon each day Central Time.  I will be out all of next week and unavailable, but will be back on  September 8th, hopefully at full duty. Please advise as to when you would like to speak this week or the week of  September 8th.      Sincerely,    Susan Hutson  Independent Police Monitor  Office of the Independent Police Monitor  525 St. Charles Avenue  New Orleans, LA 70130  (504) 681‐3275        1 Law Clerk3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Merrick Bobb Monday, August 31, 2015 4:47 PM Susan Hutson Allyson Collins; Matthew Barge Re: Phone Conference Hi, Susan — I was very pleased to receive your note the other day because it showed me that you are feeling better and taking some time to solidify your recovery. As you probably heard from others, I had a productive and enjoyable trip to New Orleans and met with almost everyone on the list you gave me. The next steps are for you and I to meet and to have my staff begin to take a look at a sampling of your files. I will give you a call next Tuesday after Labor Day to arrange things. In the interim, please continue to rest to get a complete and rapid recovery. Merrick Bobb mbobb@pacbell.net merrickbobb@parc.info 213.623.5757 On Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:47 AM, Susan Hutson wrote: Good Morning Merrick: I am back in the office on limited duty this week and able to speak with you. I will be in the office, as much I can tolerate it, from 8am-12noon each day Central Time. I will be out all of next week and unavailable, but will be back on September 8th, hopefully at full duty. Please advise as to when you would like to speak this week or the week of September 8th. Sincerely, Susan Hutson Independent Police Monitor Office of the Independent Police Monitor 525 St. Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 681-3275 1