The federal monitoring team overseeing the sweeping reform measures of the Oakland Police Department is taking a critical look at police actions around Occupy Oakland.

The monitoring team said in a recently released report that it will soon issue a report on Oakland police and its handling of the local Occupy actions.

"This has been prompted by deep concerns over what we observed regarding these events, and by the reinforcement of those concerns through our preliminary analyses," the team said in a Jan. 17 quarterly report. "We note that we will conduct a review of Occupy Oakland issues, which are related to the Negotiated Settlement Agreement, as part of our next regular quarterly report that will cover the period from Oct. 1, through Dec. 31, 2011.

The monitoring team recently was given additional oversight duties by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson who is overseeing a 2003 negotiated settlement agreement with Oakland in the Rider case scandal. Henderson has stated his frustration over OPD's failure to fully comply with all of the agreed upon reforms and is threatening to put in place a federal court order receivership.

The federal monitor's review of the department's Occupy Oakland actions will come at a critical time for the Oakland police. On Saturday, police dispersed tear gas, beanbag projectiles and smoke devices as Occupy protesters attempted to take over the Kaiser Convention Center. Later that day, protesters temporarily took over City Hall and caused some vandalism. Journalists from several major media outlets also were arrested.

In the eighth report from the current federal monitoring team, the movement hangs like a heavy shadow over the police department.

"The events around Occupy Oakland appear to raise some serious concerns about the capacity of the Department to, on its own, adopt and hold true to the best practices in American policing ... For the moment, we find ourselves facing an uncomfortable reality: The path forward is not clear," the report reads in part.

In a separate appendix, the monitors offer clues on how they view the police actions around Occupy Oakland.

"We also note that unusual circumstances posed by the events surrounding Occupy Oakland do
not relieve the Department, in any way, of any of the requirements of NSA compliance," the report states. "Instead, it is precisely in such times that the reforms agreed upon in the NSA are at their point of greatest significance, as they govern the behavior of the Department and its officers."

Monitors observed Oakland police during the early period of Occupy Oakland - Oct. 25-28 and Nov. 14-18. Additionally, federal monitors were present at Occupy-related activity October through December.

"We were, in some instances, satisfied with the performance of the Department; yet in others, we were thoroughly dismayed by what we observed," the report states. "I cannot overstate our concern that although progress on compliance has been slow, even those advancements may have been put in doubt in the face of these events."

The  monitoring team said Occupy Oakland will play an important role in showing whether or not the Oakland Police Department is truly reformed.

"After more than eight years under Federal Court supervision, we cannot help but view the events of Occupy Oakland as a test of the reform mettle of this Department," the report said.

Overall, the federal monitors said they were frustrated by the level of progress by the Oakland police department as it relates to all of its reforms.

"The overall level continues to be a marginal improvement, at best, from our first report, when we found the Department in compliance with 10 Tasks ... We remain concerned by this degree of stagnation."

The 91-page quarterly report from the federal monitoring team ends on a less than hopeful note regarding the Oakland police.

"As we complete this report, we cannot help noting that, in our two years on task here, we have
reported little measurable progress by the Department," it states. "We also remind ourselves that our task should, in fact, be quite simple: We monitor a process initiated with an agreement between the Parties about what would be done. It would be difficult for anyone to explain – let alone justify– the current state of affairs."