Vallejo releases draft of police oversight model

VALLEJO – The Vallejo City Council will get its first look at a proposed police oversight model that would require alleged officer misconduct to be investigated by a third-party picked by top city officials.

The council is scheduled to hold a special workshop starting at 6 p.m. Tuesday to receive public input on the proposed model. If passed, Vallejo’s model would hire an outside investigator to review serious police incidents, including when an officer discharges their firearm at a person, when an officer’s use of force results in death or great bodily injury, and allegations of sexual assault or dishonesty.

Another component would establish a nine-member Community Police Review Commission tasked with reviewing the reports of the outside investigator, advising the chief of police on discipline and reviewing reports of bias or racism by officers, according to a staff report written by City Attorney Veronica Nebb.

“The Commission may also accept citizen complaints, review complaints received by the police department and other city departments and recommend independent investigation,” Nebb wrote.

The final aspect of the oversight model includes the creation of the office of Independent Police Auditor tasked with responding to all serious incidents “for the purpose of observation,” Nebb wrote.

The auditor will be allowed to be “present at all interviews of witnesses and subjects during the investigation of any serious incident,” and “to review the final investigatory reports, whether by an independent investigator or internal affairs, and to make recommendations to the Commission and/or the Chief of Police,” Nebb wrote.

In August, the council said it wanted to see more of a proposal by Common Ground, a non-partisan group of religious and non-profit organizations, which suggested a system of police oversight based on what is used in Oakland, advocating for a three-prong approach: a civilian police commission, inspector general, and community police review agency.

One big difference between the proposed oversight model in Vallejo and the police commission in Oakland would be that Oakland’s commission can fire the police chief, but Vallejo’s would not have that power.

Vallejo’s oversight would also not include the independent police review agency overseen by the police commission. Instead, an outside investigator would report to city officials.

Nebb said the decision to go with a third-party investigator instead of a review agency was because “different types of incidents require very different types of investigators.”

“For instance, it would not be typical to engage the services of the same individual to investigate an officer involved shooting as would be retained for an incident involving a sexual assault,” Nebb wrote. “Second, involving different independent contractors as investigators means that costs are only incurred when an incident occurs rather than incurring the cost of a full-time person who may only have a few incidents per year to investigate.”

The outside investigators would be selected by the city manager, city attorney, human resources director, and two members of the police commission, including the chair.

The city already has used a string of contractors for police investigations, such as former Sonoma County Sheriff Rob Giordano, who was hired to investigate the city’s badge bending scandal and produced a report that the city has refused to release but a superior court judge said had “no value.” The city has also used contractors to investigate the 2020 police shooting of Sean Monterrosa and allegations of racism by Det. Mat Mustard.

For the police commission, each council member would select a resident living in the council member’s district, while the mayor would pick a person living anywhere in the city. There would be two alternate members, including a youth between the ages of 18 and 25 and an additional at-large member.

City staff are proposing that police commission members would be a city resident, able to register to vote and not convicted of a felony in the last 15 years.

Other membership restrictions include not being a current law enforcement officer or having been employed as one within the last seven years, nor an immediate family member of any current or recently employed law enforcement officer. Commission members also could not be any attorney suing the city, anyone who was a party to any litigation involving the city within the last seven years, or any current city employees.

At least one Common Ground member has started a petition asking the council to slow the process down and give the council and community more time to review the ordinance. The petition includes comments from resident Anne Carr.

“This may be our only chance to influence the Police Oversight Model. Right now, the City plans to take comments on Dec 6, and vote it in as quickly as Dec 12,” Carr wrote. “Yup — they've had years to do this work, and we get as little as one night. Heck, we might get two hearings, but it's not guaranteed. Do not be fooled by the ‘living document’ BS. Once it’s voted it’s done.”

The city is tentatively scheduled to introduce the ordinance establishing an oversight model on Dec. 15 with final approval set for Dec. 20.

The council is attempting to get the oversight model in place before Diosdado “J.R.” Matulac , Charles Palmares and Peter Bregenzer are sworn in as the newest members of the city council in early January, replacing outgoing councilmembers Pippin Dew, Katy Miessner, and Hakeem Brown.

Nebb further noted that in subsequent discussions with Common Ground, the organization suggested “that the duties and powers of the Surveillance Advisory Board (SAB) be transferred to the (police commission), and that the SAB be dissolved.”

Nebb said that the proposed change is not included in the draft ordinance before the council “as staff thought that Council and the Community should weigh in on that question first.”

The council created the board in September 2021 following a push from the local American Civil Liberties Union  (ACLU) chapter and Oakland Privacy, as both expressed concerns with a lack of oversight for use of surveillance technology in the city. The board is tasked with advising the Vallejo City Council on best practices for protecting the privacy, safety, and civil rights of residents when the city chooses to use  surveillance technology.

The special Vallejo City Council meeting is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m., Tuesday inside the Vallejo City Hall Council Chambers at 555 Santa Clara St.

Members of the public will be able to participate in-person or remotely via Zoom.