OPCR reports faster intake, persistent disciplinary gaps; chief aligns with panels most of the time

The Community Commission on Police Oversight on July 6 heard a pair of reports from the Office of Police Conduct Review that showed measurable improvements in case processing but also highlighted continuing questions about discipline and transparency.

Russell Fujisawa, associate director of the Office of Police Conduct Review, told commissioners that as of late June the office had 70 complaints in its queue, roughly split between cases within the 30‑day intake requirement (about 35) and 35 cases beyond that threshold. Fujisawa said intake review duration averaged about 17 days and that the office has narrowed the backlog substantially from the 180–200‑day delays discussed a year earlier.

Nick Poladian, administrative investigation supervisor, described the administrative investigation workflow: once a matter is routed to investigation (a 3401 packet), investigators review body‑worn camera and other evidence, seek voluntary interviews with non‑sworn witnesses, and conduct compelled interviews of current MPD officers. Poladian said OPCR uses standardized benchmarks (5, 30, 60, 90, 120 and 180 days) and supervisory checklists to monitor progress but that investigators lack subpoena power for non‑MPD entities and cannot compel separated officers to participate, which can slow some investigations.

Melinda Jeong, OPCR policy and research coordinator, presented a dataset of review‑panel recommendations and chief disciplinary decisions covering January 2024 through May 2026. The dataset analyzed allegations routed for administrative investigation and review panel consideration. Jeong said roughly 50% of allegations in the dataset were not sustained; about 18% were sustained at a low level (level A) and another portion at higher levels. She emphasized that coaching was not counted as formal discipline but reported that 38 allegations in the dataset were remedied by coaching.

Jeong also reported that allegations clustered in a small number of policy chapters — including code of conduct, equipment and supplies, and vehicle operations — and that those categories showed different rates of sustained findings and discipline. Importantly, Jeong said the chief’s final decision aligned with review‑panel recommendations about 81% of the time; departures were roughly split between imposing more or less discipline and typically differed by about one degree on the department’s discipline scale.

Commissioners pressed OPCR staff on two recurring topics: how decisions to route matters to coaching are made and the documentation and public visibility when the chief departs from panel recommendations. Fujisawa said intake uses a discipline matrix narrative to assess whether an allegation is eligible for coaching and that OPCR will check an officer’s disciplinary history when considering a coaching referral. He also said internal affairs provides the chief with officers' disciplinary histories when a case goes to the chief and that chief memos are posted publicly when discipline is imposed; by contrast, chief decisions that do not impose discipline may not be publicly described in the same way.

Several commissioners and public commenters urged more clarity and a standardized approach: requests included a new discipline matrix, clearer facilitation protocols for review panels, a record of chief deviations where discipline was not imposed, and a joint training or discussion between civilian and sworn panelists to reconcile differing perspectives.

The commission received and filed the reports; commissioners said they expect follow‑up materials and further data as part of upcoming committee work and a planned public hearing in September.