OAKLAND — More than a dozen years ago, civil rights attorney John Burris made a prophetic statement in one of his first addresses to the Oakland Police Department, after it was put under the thumb of a federal judge to right misdeeds highlighted in the Riders scandal.

“I said to them, ‘None of you will be here when this matter is finished.’ That’s actually true. Everyone who started with us is all gone,” recalled Burris, who along with attorney Jim Chanin represented residents who sued the city in that notorious police-misconduct case.

His statement underscores a reality for Oakland police: What was supposed to be at most seven years of oversight by a federal judge and a team of independent monitors has dragged into its 13th year, costing Oakland taxpayers $13.6 million, as a carousel of police chiefs, mayors and other civic leaders have entered and exited City Hall.

And now, despite recent strides in achieving required reforms, it appears the department’s latest black eye — investigations of several officers for sexual misconduct with the daughter of a police dispatcher — means the monitors aren’t relinquishing control any time soon.

While some city leaders welcome continued oversight of police, others question whether it will ever end. “I don’t believe there is an incentive with this current monitor to put the department in compliance, because that would be an end to their financial windfall,” said former Oakland police Chief Howard Jordan, who was pushed out by the federal overseers in 2013. “I think money has a lot to do with it. It seems like the goal line kept moving every time we got closer.”

Oakland is not alone. Los Angeles was under federal oversight for 12 years after the Rampart police scandal. In Detroit, a judge ordered the department’s oversight to end in 2016 after 13 years, ruling the department had met most of its reform requirements. Other examples include Cleveland, New Orleans and Ferguson, Missouri.

Of the $13.6 million spent to date for the federal monitoring program, about $6.2 million is going to the team run by the current monitor and compliance director, Robert Warshaw, according to city records. The rest has gone to other teams, equipment and audits of the department.

The program began as part of a settlement in the Riders civil case, in which 119 plaintiffs, all but one African-American, were paid $10.5 million after four rogue officers allegedly beat and planted evidence on them. As part of the negotiated settlement agreement, the department was given 51 tasks to complete — from documenting and reducing racial profiling in car and pedestrian stops, to tracking discipline of officers through internal affairs.

But the oversight is not limited to those tasks. For example, the monitors were critical of the department’s handling of Occupy Oakland protests in fall 2011, which led to a report questioning the use of force and internal investigations of officers involved.

Oakland has had two monitor teams since 2003. In addition to them, Thomas Frazier, a former Baltimore chief and San Jose deputy chief, served for nearly a year as the compliance director. ﻿They work alongside U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson and﻿ are mostly unseen by Oakland residents, largely working outside of the city and issuing quarterly reports on the department’s progress.

At least one member of Warshaw’s group works in Oakland, Jordan said, but Warshaw’s firm is based in Dover, New Hampshire. Frazier worked in an office at 1970 Broadway.

They are not embedded with the department, but they wield great power here. After Occupy, and after the department failed to make significant progress on the agreement, Burris and Chanin in 2012 urged Henderson to expand the monitor’s powers by creating the compliance director position. Warshaw, who holds the titles of monitor and compliance director, has the ability to demote or fire a police chief and has influence on new chief hires.

Police chiefs Anthony Batts, Jordan and recently Sean Whent each were either forced to resign or pushed out after clashes with the federal overseers. Most recently, Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa was tapped to serve in an interim position but stepped down after two days. In all, there have been eight police chiefs, four mayors and many city administrators since the monitors arrived, creating an environment of instability, and making it difficult to recruit a qualified leader who can effectively work under the federal microscope, according to sources.

“The existence of a monitor with the power to dismiss a police chief means that our city government and our people are not really in control of what happens with the police department,” said Joe Tuman, a professor of political and legal communications studies at San Francisco State University who has run unsuccessfully for Oakland mayor.

Finally, with the department in compliance with all but two tasks, Chanin and Burris in December began drafting paperwork to wind down the oversight, citing progress under Whent. During Whent’s time as chief, use-of-force complaints dropped by 75 percent, according to Mayor Libby Schaaf, and officer-involved shootings declined.

“We were within striking distance,” Burris said. “You could see the ending.”

That changed in March after the monitor learned of allegations of sexual misconduct against young officers. In March, Henderson took control of an investigation of several officers who allegedly had sex with the teenage daughter of an Oakland dispatcher, some while she was underage. The fallout has resulted in the departure of Whent and expanded the monitor’s power to help audit and reform the department’s recruitment and training.

“It’s a huge setback in rebuilding community trust,” Schaaf said this week. “It really has been heartbreaking for me to feel like all of the good progress has been completely overshadowed by this horrible scandal and what is an inexcusable breach of trust with the public.”

Oakland is now without a police chief, as City Administrator Sabrina Landreth oversees the administrative duties of the department and Schaaf searches for a permanent chief who can guide the department out of its problems — and pass muster with the monitors.

Tuman, an Oakland resident, said the current environment in his city could make it difficult to find a qualified chief.

“The existence of a monitor is going to be a real factor. Why would somebody want to come here knowing they are stepping into a situation where several years of their tenure they will have this oversight?” he said. “Who wants to step into that?”

David DeBolt covers Oakland. Contact him at 510-208-6453. Follow him at Twitter.com/daviddebolt.