Oversight That Strengthens Both Policing and Public Trust

Police monitoring is often discussed as if communities face a simple choice: support the police or scrutinize them.

That is a false choice.

Effective oversight can protect the public, support good officers, and help law enforcement agencies identify problems before they become patterns. It can also provide something every police department needs but cannot build through public relations alone: credibility.

Santa Rosa’s independent police auditor provides an important example of how oversight can be integrated into an agency’s routine accountability and improvement systems.

OIR Group’s fourth annual report on the Santa Rosa Police Department describes a relationship built on early access, professional independence, and ongoing dialogue. OIR does not simply arrive after an investigation is finished, read the conclusions, and place a stamp of approval on the file.

It is involved while the work is in progress.

That distinction matters.

A Public Report Deserves Public Attention

The timing of this report also matters.

The City Council accepted OIR’s annual report at its regular meeting this past Tuesday. The council was not asked to approve a new policy or take formal action. However, receiving the report at a public meeting was itself an important act of transparency. (Watch the presentation here)

Police accountability should not be confined to confidential files, internal memos, or closed-door meetings. It belongs in the public square, where residents can hear what the independent auditor found, what the Police Department did well, and where improvement is still needed.

Two versions of the report were posted on the city’s website. One version contains the main report. The second version also includes a case-status appendix with brief summaries of the 55 personnel investigations conducted by the Independent Police Auditor.

That appendix is valuable because it illustrates how oversight operates in real cases. It shows where OIR concurred with outcomes, where it participated in officer interviews, where it requested follow-up, and where it identified concerns that may not have led to formal discipline but still warranted attention.

That level of detail helps residents see that oversight is not just a concept. It is case-by-case work.

And yes, sometimes the unglamorous paperwork is where democracy earns its coffee.

There Is No Single Oversight Model

Civilian oversight of law enforcement takes many forms.

Some communities establish civilian review boards composed of residents who review completed complaint investigations or hear appeals. Others create independent investigative agencies with their own investigators and authority to examine allegations independently of the police department.

Inspector general and monitor models typically focus more broadly on policies, patterns, use of force, training, discipline, and organizational performance. Hybrid systems combine features of several approaches.

In the most serious circumstances, a police agency may operate under a consent decree. These court-enforceable agreements often result from federal findings of a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing. They can mandate extensive reforms covering force, searches, arrests, supervision, training, discipline, complaint investigations, and data collection, usually under the oversight of a court-appointed monitor.

Consent decrees can promote significant institutional change, but they are also demanding, costly, and potentially lengthy. They are generally designed to remedy serious organizational failures, not to serve as the routine oversight structure for every police department.

No single model is automatically best.

A large metropolitan department with thousands of officers may need a full-time investigative agency, an inspector general, and a civilian commission. A smaller agency may lack the case volume, staffing, or financial resources to support this structure.

Communities must consider the department's size, the number and nature of complaints, local history, community expectations, available funding, and the oversight body's authority to do its work.

They must also ask whether the chosen model will have genuine independence, access to evidence, professional competence, and sufficient influence to effect change.

An oversight office with an impressive title but limited access is like a smoke detector without batteries. It may look reassuring on the ceiling, but it will not be much help when something starts burning.

A Question Santa Rosa Considered Years Ago

My interest in civilian oversight began long before Santa Rosa adopted its current model.

While I was a sergeant overseeing internal investigations for the Santa Rosa Police Department, I became a member of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) and attended many of its conferences and training sessions, where I was exposed to oversight systems in communities across the country.

Those sessions helped me understand that oversight isn’t a single structure. Each model has strengths, limitations, and resource requirements.

At the time, the police chief asked me to examine the various approaches and recommend one that could meet Santa Rosa’s needs.

After reviewing the options, I concluded that a police-auditor model would be the most appropriate for our community and department. It could provide an independent professional review without unnecessarily duplicating the entire internal investigations system. It could assess whether investigations were complete, objective, and consistent with policy, and identify broader issues in training, supervision, and organizational practices.

Years later, the city adopted an independent police-auditor model and currently retains OIR Group to perform that work.

The latest report suggests that the model is serving the city well.

Oversight From the Beginning, Not the End

The most important feature of Santa Rosa’s system is OIR’s early involvement.

OIR has direct access to the department’s internal case-management system and can review new misconduct cases as they arise. OIR’s auditors can examine police reports, interviews with complainants and witnesses, officer interviews, body-worn camera recordings, and other evidence available to SRPD leadership.

OIR can help identify issues requiring investigation, recommend further inquiry, and participate in interviews with officers accused of misconduct.

This is far more meaningful than reviewing a closed file months later.

By the time an investigation is complete, important decisions have already been made. Allegations have been framed. Witnesses have been interviewed or not interviewed. Evidence has been collected or overlooked. Conclusions have begun to harden.

Early participation allows the auditor to ask questions while there is still time to address them.

OIR does not have the authority to issue findings or impose discipline. Those responsibilities remain with SRPD leadership. However, the auditor can question assumptions, identify gaps, offer an independent interpretation of the evidence, and publicly report concerns.

That combination preserves the department’s responsibility for managing its employees while ensuring that its work is subject to external professional review.

Accountability Is More Than Discipline

SRPD opened 55 misconduct cases in 2025. Of these, 12 were initiated internally, and 17 resulted in findings that employees violated policy.

Some involved relatively minor performance issues. Others were serious.

The report details investigations into unlawful entries into private residences, inadequate follow-up on crimes, failures to properly handle domestic violence allegations, inaccurate police reporting, and a supervisor's misconduct toward subordinates.

In one case, nearly 50 department employees were interviewed during an investigation into a supervisor. Eighteen separate incidents were sustained, and the supervisor is no longer with the department.

These cases are troubling. They should be.

But the existence of misconduct does not, by itself, define an organization's integrity. What also matters is whether the organization is willing to uncover and honestly investigate it, impose appropriate consequences, and change the conditions that allowed it to occur.

OIR concluded that SRPD’s major misconduct investigations were generally thorough, methodical, and credible. It also noted that the department was fully cooperative, provided unrestricted access, and engaged in candid discussions, even when the parties did not fully agree.

That willingness to tolerate scrutiny reflects organizational confidence, not a form of weakness.

Looking Beyond “Within Policy”

One of the OIR report’s strongest features is its recognition that accountability cannot end with the question, “Was the officer within policy?”

An officer’s actions may not warrant formal discipline, yet still fall short of the professionalism the community should expect.

A remark may be unnecessarily dismissive. An investigation may be technically adequate yet lack initiative. An officer may use authority legally but without sufficient patience, explanation, or empathy. A supervisor may approve conduct that warrants closer scrutiny.

OIR identified several such cases and encouraged SRPD to address them through counseling, training, improved documentation, and improved supervision.

This is where oversight can have its greatest long-term impact.

Discipline addresses proven misconduct. Thoughtful review improves performance.

The report also praises SRPD’s expanding review of force and critical incidents. The department’s Major Incident Review Board examines not only whether force complied with policy but also tactics, decision-making, supervision, communications, equipment, and training.

During the presentation, Santa Rosa Police Chief John Cregan provided additional context for the report. In 2025, SRPD officers responded to about 111,000 calls for service and made about 6,600 arrests. Use of force was reported 185 times, representing about 0.17% of all calls for service.

These numbers do not eliminate the need for careful review of every force incident, but they do provide an important perspective. Most police contacts are resolved without force, and when force is used, the community benefits from a system that requires documentation, supervisory review, and independent oversight.

SRPD also reviewed 54 incidents in which officers pointed firearms at people. Although those incidents did not necessarily involve physical force, the department recognized that pointing a firearm at someone is a significant exercise of government authority and warrants formal examination.

That is an important evolution.

The absence of a policy violation should never prevent an agency from asking whether an encounter could have been handled more safely, respectfully, or effectively.

Oversight Must Also Examine Itself

A favorable report should not serve as an excuse for complacency.

OIR identified areas where SRPD needs to improve.

Some lower-level complaints assigned to supervisors outside the Professional Standards unit were neither investigated nor documented with the same rigor as more serious cases. OIR recommended additional training for supervisors responsible for handling public complaints.

The report also identified recurring concerns, including delayed reports, incomplete follow-up, and inadequate documentation at the patrol level. Some residents had called the police for help but were dissatisfied with the completeness or timeliness of the response.

OIR recommended that SRPD examine workload, supervision, and other factors affecting the quality of investigations.

It also called for wider use of the Major Incident Review Board, stronger documentation to ensure corrective actions were completed, and a clearer process for final administrative review after officer-involved shootings.

These recommendations show why independent oversight matters.

Its purpose is not to announce that everything is fine. Its purpose is to identify what can be improved.

Transparency Enhances Legitimacy

Most residents will never read an internal affairs file. State confidentiality laws also limit the information that can be released about individual employees and disciplinary decisions.

That makes the independent auditor’s public report especially important.

It provides residents with insight into how complaints are received, investigated, and resolved. It explains the types of misconduct identified, the weaknesses found, and the recommended reforms. It also shows when evidence did not support an allegation.

Fair oversight must do both.

It must be willing to identify misconduct when it occurs and equally willing to exonerate an officer when the evidence shows the officer acted lawfully and appropriately.

Officers deserve that fairness. So do complainants.

Public trust does not require everyone to agree with every outcome. It requires confidence that the complaint was taken seriously, the evidence was objectively examined, and the conclusion was not predetermined.

That is why the public release of the report matters. And that is why the fuller version, with the case-status appendix, adds value. It helps residents better understand how the oversight process operates in real cases, not just in broad policy statements.

Transparency is not only about releasing a conclusion. It is about helping the public understand how that conclusion was reached.

Strong Oversight Supports Good Officers

Independent monitoring is sometimes portrayed as something imposed on police officers.

That perspective misses an important point.

The overwhelming majority of officers want to perform their duties honorably. They benefit when investigations distinguish between legitimate policing, correctable mistakes, and serious misconduct. They benefit when supervisors apply standards consistently. They benefit when poor conduct is addressed before it damages the entire department’s reputation.

Good officers should not have to bear the public consequences of employees who misuse authority or fail to meet professional standards.

Oversight also improves officer safety. Reviews of force, tactics, communications, and equipment can identify practices that unnecessarily put both officers and residents at risk.

Accountability and officer support are not competing principles. Each strengthens the other.

Why This Matters Today

Public trust in law enforcement remains fragile in many communities.

Every controversial encounter now unfolds in an environment dominated by cellphone video, body-worn cameras, social media, and immediate public judgment. Police agencies cannot respond to that reality by asking residents to simply trust their internal systems.

They have to demonstrate why those systems deserve trust.

Santa Rosa’s police-auditor model is a way to do that. OIR has early access to misconduct cases, reviews the underlying evidence, participates in investigations as they develop, and publicly identifies both strengths and shortcomings.

The model is not perfect and may not be the right fit for every jurisdiction. Communities must choose oversight systems that match their size, history, resources, and needs.

But every effective model requires some of the same fundamentals: meaningful independence, access to evidence, professional expertise, transparency, and law enforcement leaders willing to accept scrutiny.

Oversight should not be viewed as a punishment imposed on a police department.

When done well, it is part of the infrastructure of professional policing.

It helps protect constitutional rights. It strengthens supervision and training. It supports officers who serve with integrity. It provides residents with a credible place to raise concerns. And it helps build the relationships police need to keep communities safe.

Tuesday’s public presentation of the OIR report reminds us that accountability does not end when a report is posted online or received by the City Council. The real measure is what happens next: whether recommendations are tracked, whether improvements are implemented, and whether residents can continue to see enough of the process to trust that the work is real.

Trust cannot be ordered into existence.

It must be earned, examined, and renewed — one investigation, one reform, and one honest public report at a time.