Doc. 290: City’s “Action Plan”
Faced with serious issues of non-compliance when the Fifth Monitor’s Report was presented in June, Judge Brack ordered the City to develop an “Action Plan” to address some of the concerns of the non-party “stakeholders.”
Development of the Report and Action Plan has taken most of two months. The Judge clarified, then extended the deadline for the Report, which as it turned out is more a set of disconnected issues and problems with a narrative about responsive projects and efforts either planned, completed or underway.
The City’s Police Oversight Board, the Mental Health Advisory Committee, class counsel, and APD Forward reviewed a draft of the City’s report early in June, and presented their concerns. The Community Policing Councils, considered an important aspect of community involvement, do not appear to have participated.
The City’s lawyers and the DOJ joined in a motion asking the Judge to clarify whether or not he intended the “stakeholders,” those not parties to the lawsuit, but interested in it, to comment on the City’s proposed “action plan.” The answer was “yes.”
After receiving what presumably was a lengthy listing of issues and concerns the City’s lawyers asked for an additional two weeks to complete the action plan. That document was filed earlier this week. Doc. 290. At the CPOB’s monthly meeting Joanne Fine questioned whether the City would incorporate any of the Board member’s proposals into the plan.