Public money pays for county memberships in the Sonoma County Alliance, records show

At least nine top Sonoma County government officials, including the elected sheriff and district attorney, have relied on public funds to pay for their membership in a politically influential business group under fire for what critics say is a history of problems with diversity and inclusion, newly obtained county records show.

The membership dues for the Sonoma County Alliance start at $250 and rise to nearly $1,500 for “sustaining” members, and have been covered for the group of government officials by taxpayer or ratepayer funds since at least 2014, records indicate.

The payments for individual memberships show up as reimbursements to those county officials. They came to light following a public records request by The Press Democrat after the Sonoma County Alliance became a flashpoint last month over its makeup and message following inflammatory written comments by its then-president Doug Hilberman.

Hilberman resigned in the ensuing outcry, and key members of the Alliance, including health care giants Kaiser Permanente and Sutter Health, have pulled out of the group, saying its values did not match theirs.

The public spending on county memberships for the private business group caught some officials by surprise this week, while critics said it raised questions about potential conflicts and undercut the county’s own initiatives to support diversity and inclusion in civic life.

“I think it’s totally inappropriate that ratepayer or taxpayer funds are being used to subsidize membership,” said Susan Gorin, chair of the Board of Supervisors.

Gorin and several of her board colleagues said they were unaware of the county’s policy for reimbursement of dues to the Sonoma County Alliance, which has an influential political action committee that endorses in local elections and funnels money to candidates and ballot measure contests. It has tended to favor more centrist and conservative candidates and political causes.

Herman G. Hernandez, a rising leader in the Latino community and member of the county Board of Education, was surprised to hear of the extent of the county’s involvement with the organization. He said the revelations made sense for those like him who have sought to highlight the longstanding power structure in the area.

“It’s kind of the good old boys’ way of running government and business,” said Hernandez. “This is one of the things that makes the Sonoma County Alliance so powerful — its big membership base.”

The Alliance had 355 members last year, including a long list of government executives and business leaders.

Until recently, at least 15 county officials, including two county supervisors, Shirlee Zane and James Gore, have been paying members of the group, according to records provided by the county.

Zane and Gore have paid for their own memberships out of campaign funds, an allowed practice.

At least nine of the 15 county officials have regularly had their membership dues covered by public funds, county records show and new reporting uncovered.

In addition to Sheriff Mark Essick and District Attorney Jill Ravitch, the group of beneficiaries includes: Erick Roeser, the county’s elected auditor-controller-treasurer-tax collector; Tennis Wick, the director of Permit Sonoma, the county’s planning and building department; Karlene Navarro, director of the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach; Jon Stout, the Sonoma County Airport manager; Becky Bartling, CEO of the Sonoma County Fairgrounds; Kate Kelly, spokeswoman and marketing director for Sonoma Clean Power, the public electricity supplier; and Misti Wood, the Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman.

Two county agencies, Sonoma Water and the Economic Development Board, also are members of the alliance under dues paid for by public funds, records show. Until its recent pullout, Sonoma Clean Power, the county chartered public utility supplier, was also a member, and its annual dues were covered by agency funds, according to Kelly, the spokeswoman.

Some members’ names and affiliated departments surfaced in a roster provided by the county of department heads who had professional affiliations or memberships paid for by public funds. Separately, The Press Democrat reached out to other county employees not named in records but listed as members in a 2019 Sonoma County Alliance publication.

The documents provided by the county do not show how much money was spent, or for how long the affiliated employees have had their memberships reimbursed.

Gorin said she has already instructed County Administrator Sheryl Bratton to provide an accounting of the public costs for Alliance memberships, and she said the county should stop those payments immediately.

“I absolutely see a problem with this,” said Gorin. “We cannot on one side condemn racist and sexist behavior, and on the other hand support an organization that lacks diversity on their board and certainly in their public messages to the community.”

The public spending on dues for professional organizations is common for public officials, who belong to a wide range of trade and accrediting groups as part of their jobs. For example, the county’s top civil attorney, County Counsel Bruce Goldstein, has four memberships paid for by the county, including the California Bar Association and the Sonoma County Bar Association.

But Ann Skeet, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, drew a distinction between public-sponsored professional affiliations and memberships in groups like the Alliance, with longstanding ties to particular interest groups and a large political footprint.

“To say the least, it’s not ideal. It is taxpayer money,” Skeet said. “When joining as an individual, unless being required to do that by your job or your role — and requiring and desiring are different things — it would be better for individuals that are joining to pay for that themselves.”

As the county’s preeminent business networking and political advocacy group, the Sonoma County Alliance has spent nearly $250,000 in the past five years to influence local politics. It endorsed four of the five incumbents on the Board of Supervisors.

In response to the revelations about county spending on Alliance memberships, Gorin, who has never received the group’s endorsement, along with Zane and Gore, called for an immediate board discussion of the issue, citing the business group’s current public relations crisis.

“I think in the past you could justify it,” Zane said of the county memberships. “It’s an opportunity to network and work with people and further our cause and our mission of serving Sonoma County residents. I don’t see that as having been a conflict, but it is now. Was it a problem all along? Yeah, probably. But a lot of stuff is being exposed right now.”

The Alliance was thrust into the center of controversy after the letter last month from Hilberman, posted on the group’s website, which sought to respond to weeks of civil unrest in the county amid Black Lives Matter protests and calls for police reform. It led off with the inflammatory phrase “ALL lives matter” and went on to question the cost and purpose of protest movements across a half-century of American history.

Hilberman, owner of a Santa Rosa architecture firm, resigned days later after the letter was removed from the group’s website and an apology posted in its place. That did not quell the backlash from Alliance members and the wider community.

In the upheaval, at least two board members stepped down — Judy James, Kaiser Permanente’s public affairs director in Marin and Sonoma counties, and Kelly, the marketing and communications chief for Sonoma Clean Power, which also announced its pullout.

Other affiliated companies that have cut ties include Redwood Credit Union and the North Bay Business Journal, which is owned by Sonoma Media Investments, owner of The Press Democrat.

County officials, too, have renounced membership, including Ravitch; Deva Proto, the elected county clerk, recorder, assessor and registrar of voters; Wick, the Permit Sonoma director; and Navarro, the independent law enforcement watchdog.

“I spoke at length with another member about the need to be at the table to effect change, but from what I see, your table continues to include those who support the message that I reject,” Ravitch wrote in a July 8 letter to Alliance Executive Director Brian Ling, withdrawing her membership.

Hernandez said he welcomed Ravitch’s move to leave the group but voiced disappointment that she, Essick and Roeser used tax dollars rather than campaign funds to pay for their memberships.

Ravitch said she joined as a representative of the Family Justice Center last year. In her letter, she promised to reimburse the county for its payments on her behalf.

Proto and her top deputy, Amanda King, have always personally paid for their memberships, they said in interviews.

Two other officials who showed up as Alliance members but were not listed on the records produced by the county are Angie Dillon-Shore, executive director for First 5 Sonoma, which focuses on child care and education; and Simeon Walton, executive secretary for the General Services department. Neither returned emails or calls seeking confirmation of their membership status or whether they paid their own dues.

Stout, the airport manager, Bartling, the fairgrounds CEO, and Wood, the Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman, all get reimbursed by their respective agencies, as does the sheriff.

“Being a member gives me regular access, via meetings and events, to community members who are part of or related to these organizations,” Wood said. “That access helps me understand our community and build relationships.”

Essick is on vacation, according to Sgt. Juan Valencia, a department spokesman, and wasn’t available for comment.

Ling would not specify this week how many members and board directors the Alliance now has, nor provide details on what share of its ranks are government officials with memberships paid for through their employers or how many members have dropped out. He has said previously that the group lost less than 10% of its membership.

Zane, who gave up her membership just this week, said given the recent events and the broader national discussion on race and equity, it may be time for all of those associated with the county to consider the giving up their memberships, or at least paying their own way.

The optics of county-paid memberships to a group accused of systemic bias don’t align well with the county’s own equity goals, she said, citing a key reason she renounced her membership. Last week, Sonoma County supervisors appointed an interim director for the county’s newly created Equity Office, which will recommend new policies and programs to prevent disparate racial outcomes.

“I would say we’re all evolving, aren’t we?” Zane said. “Change is good. Change is good.”

Supervisor Gore has maintained his membership, preferring to wait and see how the Alliance addresses community concerns and its pledge to change.

“Everybody has to use what’s going on as a visceral gut check,” Gore said, referring to how entities like the Alliance and the county should move to address ongoing problems with diversity, inclusion and bias. “Our movement on the equity office is one example of that.”

Ling said the group has contracted with Inclusion, an international diversity consulting firm that has worked with such heavyweights as ExxonMobile, Halliburton and ESPN. The company’s Bay Area consulting team will work with the Alliance on a host of measures, including diversity and inclusion training for the board of directors and Ling, as well as a series of listening sessions.

Gore, meanwhile, said he would welcome a broader conversation about the county’s policies regarding publicly sponsored memberships in private groups, particularly those with a political bent. He acknowledged that the Sonoma County Alliance, and even Los Cien, aren’t the same as social clubs such as Rotary or Kiwanis.

“Obviously, in light of what the Alliance is going through, that’s a deeper level question,” Gore said. “I think that’s an important conversation to have. ... Anybody who lobbies us, we should have a conversation about what’s appropriate.”

You can reach Staff Writer Tyler Silvy at 707-526-8667 or tyler.silvy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @tylersilvy.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been revised to note that Ann Skeet is director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. A previous version misattributed her comments to another person.