Court rules Sonoma County investigation of alleged bullying by Sheriff Essick can be released

A California appellate court on Wednesday sided with the public’s right to know about the behavior of its elected officials, ordering the release of a taxpayer-funded investigation into allegations that Sonoma County Sheriff Mark Essick bullied Supervisor Lynda Hopkins during a heated conversation in 2020.

The ruling, which Essick can still appeal to the California Supreme Court, represented a second court loss for the now-outgoing sheriff in his legal bid to keep details of a fight between two elected officials secret.

Barring any appeal, the investigation documents could be made public in 30 days — nearly two years after the phone call in which Hopkins alleges Essick threatened and bullied her. The August 2020 call came as the Walbridge Fire burned in her west county district, forcing thousands of people to evacuate their homes and businesses.

Essick, who has denied the harassment allegations, said Wednesday in a text message that he was reviewing the latest ruling with his legal team to “determine next steps.” He did not offer additional comment or answer other questions.

Another appeal could keep the records under seal until any ruling from the state’s high court.

Essick has argued the county documents are personnel records and ought to be exempt from public disclosure under the same laws giving privacy to some misconduct investigations into peace officers.

But the appellate court’s three-judge panel unanimously ruled that Essick is an elected official and voters deserve information about his behavior.

“The county sheriff is a public official elected by Sonoma County voters, and as such, is ultimately responsible to them — not to the Board of Supervisors or anyone else in county government,” the order said.

Hopkins cheered the ruling in favor of greater transparency.

“That’s ultimately what this is about, who hires and fires an elected official,” Hopkins said. “I’m very clear I have 100,000 bosses in Sonoma County who I report to, and I agree they deserve to know who I am. Sonoma County deserves to know who Mark Essick is.”

The appellate court upheld a ruling by Sonoma County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Dollard.

It found Essick was an elected official before he was a peace officer and county employee.

The laws, “properly read, provide no shield against embarrassment to an elected official who also happens to be a peace officer,” the 18-page ruling said.

Essick can’t be considered a county employee, the court ruled, because the Board of Supervisors and the county administrator did not hire him and cannot fire or discipline him. Only voters can take those actions.

“Ignoring the overarching governance and free speech aspects of the situation here, Sheriff Essick urges us to treat him as a subordinate of the Supervisors, subject to their charge,” the order said. “But he overlooks something basic about a system of divided government in which there are checks and balances.”

Scrutiny of the conduct of elected officials cannot be defined as “discipline,” the court ruled, saying that if it were, “our democracy would function rather differently than it does.”

Essick announced in September 2021 he would not run for a second term. His successor, Eddie Engram, an assistant sheriff, won outright a three-way race for the post in the June 7 primary.

“I just feel like its time to put this matter behind us,” Hopkins said, “and I hope that he sees that and doesn’t continue to fight the inevitable.”

Hopkins filed a formal complaint against Essick with Sonoma County Administrator Sheryl Bratton in August 2020.

The judge’s order contained redacted descriptions of text messages between Essick and Hopkins and redacted statements both officials made to investigators. A new version of the order will be published without redactions in 30 days, barring any intervention from the California Supreme Court.

The Aug. 20 exchange between Essick and Hopkins began following a livestreamed public meeting during the Walbridge Fire where Essick appeared with county supervisors and fire officials. During the meeting, Essick gave updates on evacuations and took questions from the public. He declined a request from evacuated residents to enter mandatory evacuation zones to feed pets and livestock.

Hopkins sent Essick a text message following the meeting, which led to an exchange of texts and then a phone call, according to Wednesday’s court ruling, which findings from the investigation. Hopkins and Essick offered different recollections of that call to investigators, according to the order, though their statements are redacted.

Hopkins brought her complaint to Bratton “immediately after the phone call,” according to the order. The complaint was then sent to the county’s human resources director, who interviewed Hopkins. In September 2020, top county officials including Bratton and then-Board of Supervisors chair Susan Gorin, opted to retain an outside law firm to investigate. That firm, Berkeley-based Oppenheimer Investigations Group, concluded its investigation in December 2020.

The same month, The Press Democrat filed a public records request for the investigation report. Essick sued in Sonoma County Superior Court to stop its release after county lawyers informed him they intended to fulfill the newspaper’s request. That case was decided in June 2021, when Judge Dollard issued a ruling that was largely echoed by the appellate court Wednesday.

Essick appealed Dollard’s order, and the appellate court took up the matter the same month with a fresh ban on releasing the records while legal arguments were heard. The appeal took just over a year.

Hopkins on Wednesday said she felt “a sense of relief that hopefully we are near the end of a very long process.”

“Being threatened by the head of law enforcement in Sonoma County was extraordinarily unsettling and left me feeling unsafe,” Hopkins said. “Because, ultimately, elected officials are only accountable to the people, not being able to share precisely what transpired frankly has been frustrating. I honestly felt like I was under a gag order. It’s gratifying to have the court’s support that sunshine is the best medicine, that transparency and accountability can still move forward.”

“The decision is important for all local governments because it promotes transparency for elected officials,” Sonoma County Counsel Robert Pittman said in a statement.

Staff Writer Colin Atagi contributed to this report.

You can reach Staff Writer Emily Wilder at 707-521-5337 or emily.wilder@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @vv1lder.

You can reach Staff Writer Andrew Graham at 707-526-8667 or andrew.graham@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @AndrewGraham88.