Measure P: Judge denies Sonoma County sheriff’s request for outside review of oversight measure
A Sonoma County judge has rejected Sheriff Mark Essick’s bid to hire an outside lawyer to challenge a voter-approved measure that will make his department subject to stronger civilian oversight by the start of next year.
Superior Court Judge Jennifer Dollard ruled Thursday that Essick had not presented sufficient evidence to show that he needed independent counsel for the matter.
It was the latest blow to the sheriff’s monthslong stance against Measure P, which voters overwhelmingly passed last week, expanding the power and budget of the county’s law enforcement auditor.
The court ruling came more than two months after Essick first sought a legal order to supersede an Aug. 12 vote by the Board of Supervisors that blocked him from using up to $50,000 to hire an outside attorney.
Measure P, approved by voters at a margin of 65% to 35%, was opposed by Essick and allied groups representing county law enforcement officers. The sheriff has contended that the measure is legally flawed, saying it would interfere with his constitutional rights as the county’s elected sheriff to decide how his office conducts investigations, among other issues.
Dollard found Essick’s tentative challenge of the proposed initiative premature and said the request did not fall under the scope of his official duties as sheriff.
“Petitioner argues that the initiative might ’possibly’ interfere with his investigative functions and that several provisions ’appear likely’ to have a detrimental effect on his ability to fulfill his duties,” Dollard wrote in her ruling. “This is not sufficient for the Court to grant the writ.”
Essick could refile his request if he believes the changes required by Measure P interfere with his constitutional duties as sheriff once they are enacted, Dollard said.
Essick, through a Sheriff’s Office spokesman, declined to be interviewed Tuesday about the ruling and his next steps.
Sgt. Juan Valencia, the department spokesman, said Essick will “continue to evaluate his options” and has begun implementing the changes outlined in the oversight measure.
Measure P will grant the county’s law enforcement oversight office greater access to Sheriff’s Office files while auditing deputy misconduct investigations. It also grants powers to subpoena records and testimony, and boosts funding for the watchdog office by tying its annual budget to 1% of the sheriff’s budget.
The measure was supported by a majority of the county’s local, state and federal representatives and over 40 community organizations, who hailed its passage. It was opposed by Essick, two law enforcement unions who represent county sheriff’s deputies and the Sonoma County Farm Bureau.
Essick’s department is appointed two lawyers from the County Counsel’s Office to provide advice on legal questions related to his office. But soon after supervisors voted on Aug. 6 to place the item on the November ballot, then-County Counsel Bruce Goldstein announced that it would pose a conflict of interest to advise both the Sheriff’s Office and the board on the ballot question after learning Essick might file a lawsuit against the county over aspects of the initiative.
The opinion from the county’s chief civil attorney spurred Essick’s request for outside counsel.
County supervisors rejected Essick’s spending request during a public meeting on Aug. 12. Weeks later, the board approved spending up to $50,000 to defend their decision to take the proposed ordinance changes before voters.
Calls to Linda Ross, the attorney representing the Board of Supervisors in the case, and Denise Rocawich, the lawyer representing Essick, were not returned Tuesday.
You can reach Staff Writer Nashelly Chavez at 707-521-5203 or nashelly.chavez@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @nashellytweets.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: