Critics fear fallout from Sonoma County sheriff’s defiance on public health order
With much of California racing toward reopening from shutdowns aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus, Sonoma County became an outlier as health officials hit pause on lifting restrictions that were growing unpopular as the weeks and months rolled by.
The county had been rolling on a reopening track until health officials found worrisome COVID-19 trends, including a doubling of new cases in the past two weeks, and called for a 14-day hold on additional relaxation of the stay-at-home order imposed in mid-March.
Just before the brakes were applied, the county had allowed restaurants, wineries and breweries that serve food to resume outdoor dining, provided they maintain public health protocols.
Before county Health Officer Dr. Sundari Mase hit the pause button on reopening, businesses and residents were hoping for more relief after Gov. Gavin Newsom cleared the way at the beginning of last week for counties such as Sonoma to push forward, if ready, with reopening shopping malls, barbershops, hair salons and in-person church services.
But the county’s social and political landscape was jolted as the sheriff and Santa Rosa’s bishop went rogue, forming a front line of opposition to Mase’s authority and the way in which she and other officials have managed the emergency and communicated with the public.
The stunning moves introduced a level of discord at the top of county government and, critics said, emboldened the public to flout rules aimed at protecting the community from the ravages of a virus that has infected 553 residents and left 327 currently active cases as of Saturday.
The bombshell was Sheriff Mark Essick’s announcement that deputies, effective Monday, would no longer enforce the March 17 stay-at-home order that constricted business, deepening massive job losses and restraints on education, recreation and daily life.
Longtime observers of local government said Essick’s surprise decision was without precedent and one said it had gender and racial overtones.
Tim Smith of Santa Rosa, who served for 20 years straight as a county supervisor and worked with four sheriffs, said none of them had done anything like it.
“This is, I have to say, extraordinary,” said Smith, who represented the Third District from 1989 to 2009. “I just can’t believe this is the action of a sworn officer of this county.”
Essick made a tough call in ordering a mass evacuation during the Kincade fire last year, Smith said, but set back the coronavirus campaign by encouraging noncompliance with the public health order that is grating on some members of the community and cost the county 47,800 jobs in April.
“Like throwing gasoline on the fire,” Smith said.
He also recalled that Bishop Robert Vasa said his inclination to reopen the Cathedral of St. Eugene for services on Sunday was influenced in part by the sheriff’s halt to enforcement of the order.
“This is exactly the problem,” Smith said.
Mase said the church reopening would violate the order, and Vasa on Saturday retreated from his plan to allow 100 people into the Santa Rosa landmark cathedral for Masses on Pentecost Sunday.
Essick, a 26-year Sheriff’s Office veteran who was elected to his job two years ago, said the rules in some cases seemed arbitrary. He complained that Mase and the health department had withheld information that might help the public understand the disease’s impact.
Essick did not return phone calls Saturday seeking comment for this story.
David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political scientist, said some of the sheriff’s complaints are legitimate, but faulted him for going public with his grievances.
“That doesn’t create solutions,” he said. “Good leaders provide solutions, they don’t exacerbate problems.”
The best way for bureaucrats to resolve their differences is “to do it offstage,” McCuan said.
The pandemic presents Sonoma County with a dilemma common to government: the need to make critical decisions without sufficient resources.
“Do you test or do you track (people possibly exposed to the virus),” he said. “You’re supposed to do both but can’t afford to do so. You end up making sub-optimal choices.”
Cynthia Boaz, an SSU professor of political science, said open disagreements among public agencies “undermine the stability of the community.”
Essick’s move, in particular, sends a message to the public that “maybe they don’t have to follow the law, either,” she said.
Boaz said it was troubling that both the bishop and the sheriff were “politicizing a public health crisis” in a way that could have “grave consequences to the county.”
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: