Fight for stronger Sonoma County law enforcement oversight continues two years after Measure P approval

Nearly two years after Sonoma County voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to increase civilian oversight of local law enforcement, supporters are still fighting to implement it while opponents challenge it in court.

Measure P, passed by a 2-1 margin in November 2020, was designed to grant the county’s Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach, or IOLERO, broad new powers to investigate allegations of wrongdoing involving the Sheriff’s Office.

In recent weeks, Measure P supporters and the county’s own IOLERO advisory council have alleged that those powers were weakened after the county entered into agreements with two Sheriff’s Office employee unions that sought to have the measure tossed by a state labor board.

Police oversight advocates want the county to renegotiate.

“We're trying to figure out how to best see that Measure P is implemented as the voters intended and that’s what we want,” said Evan Zelig, a Santa Rosa attorney who chairs the watchdog agency’s Community Advisory Council. The panel’s next public meeting is Oct. 3.

Pressure to restore Measure P’s original provisions, which included subpoena power for the watchdog agency, has grown following the July 29 fatal shooting of 36-year-old David Pelaez-Chavez by sheriff’s Deputy Michael Dietrick.

The Santa Rosa Police Department is investigating, but Measure P supporters say the watchdog office should be conducting its own concurrent investigation — under the broader powers granted by voters in 2020.

“We had another killing and the entire campaign was so that if this were to happen, we would have immediate independent investigation,” a member of the North Bay Organizing Project, a social justice advocacy group, told the Board of Supervisors during a Sept. 13 meeting. “It’s unfathomable that this is happening after Measure P was passed so unanimously by the public.”

Supervisor James Gore, the board chair, said he believed the agreements with the two Sheriff’s Office unions kept Measure P intact.

“The agreements were signed in June and the assessment was that this was fully in line with Measure P,” Gore said. “That was the legal advice at the time.”

Still, the Board of Supervisors is under mounting pressure from Measure P supporters and the agency’s advisory council members to revisit its agreements with the Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association.

In an Aug. 2 letter to the Board of Supervisors, the council said the deals, announced June 23, “undermined the intent of Measure P and the will of the voters.”

Members of the public echoed that point in critical comments at the Sept. 13 board meeting and in emails to supervisors.

Gore called that criticism “complete crap.”

“I was one of the people who voted to put Measure P on the ballot and it’s absolutely ridiculous for people to come in and shout at us, ‘You people aren’t doing the will of the voters,’” he said in an interview.

The back-and-forth comes as county officials are holding “informal discussions” on how to move forward amid the pushback over the extent of the oversight agency’s powers, according to County Administrator Sheryl Bratton.

Two court decisions strengthening the legal ground for Measure P — and narrowing, at least for now, the case brought by the Sheriff’s Office employee unions — are in play in those conversations.

The first decision came in June, when the California 1st District Court of Appeals ruled that a state labor board had erred when it invalidated key components of Measure P, siding with the unions on the grounds that it violated collective bargaining rights.

The appellate court’s June 23 decision found the Public Employee Relations Board had no basis for that ruling. The labor board appealed, but on Sept. 14, the California Supreme Court declined to review the case.

The decision means the labor board must revisit complaints against the county and Measure P using a different legal analysis. That still leaves the door open for parts of the measure to be invalidated.

“It’s not over,” said Rick Bolanos, an outside attorney representing the county.

The case is being closely watched by powerful interests across the state, including the American Civil Liberties Union, a defender of voter-backed civilian police oversight, and law enforcement groups, many of which have opposed such oversight even in the wake of high-profile cases of police brutality.

Dispute over impact of union agreements

The county’s independent law enforcement watchdog office was set up in 2015 in the aftermath of the 2013 shooting of 13-year-old Andy Lopez by a sheriff’s deputy.

But it lacked the investigative powers, staffing and budget needed to hold the Sheriff’s Office accountable, supporters say. Measure P, which sprang from a yearslong grassroots campaign, sought to address both shortcomings.

It won nearly 65% of the vote despite opposition from Sheriff Mark Essick, the two Sheriff’s Office unions and allied interest groups, including the Sonoma County Farm Bureau.

Now, members of the public advisory council formed to work with the agency’s director and staff say those greater investigative powers have been stripped away by the county’s deals with the sheriff’s unions.

Community Advisory Council Aug. 2 Letter.pdf

The council’s Aug. 2 letter to the Board of Supervisors outlines its concerns.

Measure P was supposed to allow the watchdog agency to investigate whistleblower complaints. Under the existing agreements, any complaints must be forwarded to the Sheriff’s Office, which could discourage staff from filing complaints, the council said.

The agency also cannot conduct on-duty death investigations until the Sheriff’s Office has completed an investigation. Measure P would have allowed the office to launch independent investigations concurrently, the council said

The agency’s director may request access to Sheriff’s Office files during an investigation, but the law enforcement agency is not required to comply. Measure P directed both parties to cooperate, the council said.

“The county has done a grave disservice to the voters, to the communities most impacted by the Sheriff’s Department, and to IOLERO,” read the letter, signed by Zelig and Lorena Barrera, the vice chair.

But according to Bolanos, the county’s hired attorney, the agreements sought only to clarify how Measure P would be implemented — allowing the unions their rightful say in workplace conditions, a step they said should have come before the ballot measure went to voters.

“Measure P established authority for IOLERO to act as an investigative agency … but the ordinance does not address the procedure for how that authority would be exercised,” Bolanos said.

Bolanos further contended that the agreements restored the authority — including greater investigative powers — that the state labor board rejected in 2021.

“That was really the point, the objective for the county,” Bolanos said. “To not be subject to litigation and to get those provisions into effect so the will of the voters could be realized.”

However, Allyssa Victory, an ACLU of Northern California attorney, disagreed that the disputed powers granted by Measure P remain in place under the agreements struck by the county and unions. She’s urging county leaders to look into a new agreement.

“Contract negotiations are really just a matter of both sides being willing to come back to the table,” she said.

County eyes path forward

The tug of war over the oversight office’s powers comes at a time of transition in its leadership.

Its new director, John Alden, a former prosecutor, started his job Sept. 6.

Bratton, the county administrator, said county staff are bringing Alden “up to speed.”

“I am hopeful that we will be in a position by the end of next week to provide clarification on the issues raised by the CAC’s letter,” Bratton said in an email.

Alden, the third person appointed by supervisors to lead the agency since its formation, said in an interview that conversations to resolve questions about Measure P were in the early stages and no formal meetings have taken place.

For now, Alden said he’s keeping tabs on what the community wants and any direction that comes from the Board of Supervisors.

“From talking to them, I understand many in the public aren’t happy and we’re thinking carefully about what we can do to meet public expectations,” Alden said.

He would not comment on how he thinks the dispute should be resolved.

Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said the county never intended to “weaken or undermine” the measure, but thinks the county should sit down with the labor groups again to discuss concerns that the watchdog office’s investigative abilities have been hobbled.

Hopkins said she thinks the agency should be able to conduct a parallel investigation instead of waiting for the Sheriff’s Office to finish, providing it does not interfere with a criminal investigation. But she added she needs to learn more.

“I definitely think that it is worthy of further conversation,” Hopkins said.

Civil rights attorney Izaak Schwaiger, who represents Pelaez-Chavez’s family in a forthcoming wrongful death lawsuit, said full implementation of Measure P’s authority would have opened a different perspective on the case.

That said, he’s doubtful the Sheriff’s Office would have cooperated with the oversight agency.

“Frankly, we didn’t see a lot of — how should I say — we didn’t see the Sheriff’s Office listening to anything IOLERO ever said,” Schwaiger said.

In a recent interview, Essick, the outgoing sheriff, said he’d followed the current protocols for informing and involving the watchdog office with the Peleaz-Chavez shooting case.

“Under the agreement, he (the IOLERO director) is permitted to call, speak with the investigators and get verbal updates on what’s going on,” Essick said.

The director also would be entitled to sit in on interviews conducted by investigators in the case, but only as a monitor, Essick added.

“I’m pretty sure he has the authority to do that,” he said.

Hopkins said she understands the frustration felt by oversight advocates.

“I would say that I share their frustration,” Hopkins said. “And I look forward to ensuring that we fully implement Measure P.”

On Sept. 23, the labor board notified the county and two Sheriff’s Office unions that it would be reviewing the original complaints regarding Measure P and requested supplemental briefs.

Those are due by Oct. 24.

Gore stressed the county was committed to settling the different legal interpretations of Measure P.

But more lawsuits, he added, “might be what happens.”

Staff Writer Andrew Graham contributed to this story. You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com, and Staff Writer Colin Atagi at colin.atagi@pressdemocrat.com.