It would have been the most comprehensive audit conducted of the department, but instead became the subject of disputes inside City Hall over methodology and access to information.
It never happened.
Emails obtained by The OBSERVER through a public records request showed Watson raising concerns that then-Interim City Manager Leyne Milstein questioned her methodology and demanded extra justification for the review.
Watson wrote that former City Manager Howard Chan and then-Police Chief Kathy Lester had opposed the earlier audit as well.
“It has been stated over and over again that SPD leadership welcomes oversight, but actions illustrate the opposite,” Watson wrote.
Watson resigned Oct. 13, 2025, after Sacramento paid her roughly $271,000 under a separation agreement that ended pending personnel investigations involving her. Weeks prior, Watson had internally reported exclusion and mistreatment by city leadership.
Neither Watson nor city officials publicly explained what ultimately led to the separation.
Assistant Director Jody S. Johnson became acting director after Watson’s departure, but city sources told The OBSERVER that Johnson was let go over the summer. The city confirmed it no longer employs Johnson, but declined to confirm if he was terminated or resigned.
Brendan Smith replaced the office’s first inspector general, Dwight White, in February 2025 and he too has left the city. A primary duty of the city’s inspector general is to investigate officer-involved shootings and critical incidents
Then came the budget.
Facing a $66.2 million general fund deficit, the City Council eliminated four OPSA positions: executive assistant, assistant director, investigator, and inspector general. There is also a freeze on hiring the next OPSA director until next year.
These cuts gutted oversight infrastructure while city leaders protected police spending. The department’s budget has roughly doubled over the past decade from about $125 million to more than $250 million, even as sworn staffing declined and reported crime fell 23%.
The grand jury found the police review commission lacked adequate resources, mandatory training, a public tracking system, and a mechanism requiring officials to address its recommendations.
It recommended written police responses, formal City Council consideration of recommendations, public tracking of outcomes, commissioner training and action on outstanding audit recommendations.
At the Sept. 15 meeting, councilmembers Mai Vang, Lisa Kaplan, and Roger Dickinson questioned why the item was placed on the consent calendar rather than scheduled for full discussion, yet no member moved to pull it and the response passed unanimously.
The members had requested holding a public meeting before responding to the grand jury, something the city has never done.
McCarty said he would work with city leadership to improve the process while describing the commission’s scope as an unresolved question.
“I think the big issue here too, and the underlying thing about this audit is there’s some uncomfortableness about our boards and commissions,” McCarty said. Referring specifically to the police commission, he continued, “Do they craft policy? Do they run departments? Do they provide advice to us on our policies? It’s a little bit gray and murky, and so I think that is a lingering unanswered issue.”
But the city code is explicit about at least one part of that question: the commission exists to “advise and make recommendations to the city council regarding police policy, procedures, and best practices.”