Close to Home: Supervisors must support Measure P

In November, the voters of Sonoma County overwhelmingly passed Measure P, a measure to strengthen civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Department. To no one’s surprise, the Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association opposed the measure. They did so using deceptive tactics such as falsely claiming the measure would “defund the police.”

The associations adopted another strategy, too. They claimed that the Board of Supervisors had to “meet and confer” with the associations prior to placing Measure P on the ballot. The state Public Employees Relations Board adopted their argument, stretching their authority beyond its limits to reach that conclusion.

In order for PERB to even rule on the issues raised, it had to conclude — as it did — that “the benefits of collective bargaining outweigh the County’s interest” in “increasing transparency and fostering community trust in policing and correctional services.”

Read that again: the board found that the public’s interest in increasing transparency and oversight of law enforcement was not as important as the sheriff deputies’ rights to “meet and confer.” That is an outrageous conclusion reached by a group of four unelected white men with no connection to Sonoma County.

Having almost completely undermined the will of 65% of the voters, the deputy sheriff’s association now asserts that the “association is not, and never has been, opposed to oversight of the Sheriff’s Office.” That would be laughable if it were not so dangerously disingenuous.

The deputy sheriff’s association, the law enforcement association and the sheriff himself have opposed civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Office ever since Andy Lopez was shot and killed by Deputy Erick Gelhaus in 2013. They have attempted to impede every effort to create an oversight agency, to allow the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Oversight to do its work unfettered and, now, to strengthen IOLERO’s ability to conduct oversight and increase transparency.

The targets of their opposition are not limited to Measure P. During this past year, they opposed AB 1421 which increased the public’s access to law enforcement misconduct and disciplinary records, and AB 1185, which permitted county boards of supervisors to delegate their subpoena power to civilian oversight boards. Meanwhile, the sheriff is in a legal battle over the public’s right to learn the results of the investigation into Supervisor Lynda Hopkins’ allegation that he threatened her.

The deputy sheriff’s association urges the supervisors not to spend taxpayer money pursing the voters’ right to oversee law enforcement. Their concern for your tax dollars rings hollow when they have shown no concern about the tens of millions of tax dollars used to pay legal settlements for sheriff deputies’ misconduct. Nor did they display any concern when the county insisted on pursuing the lawsuit filed by Andy Lopez’s family up to the U.S. Supreme Court instead of settling immediately.

The Board of Supervisors needs to take the legally necessary step of appealing the PERB decision to ensure that our rights to police accountability and transparency are fully recognized and protected.

Herman G. Hernandez is a member of the Sonoma County Office of Education. He lives in Santa Rosa. Kirstyne Lange is an equity consultant. She lives in Santa Rosa.

You can send letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com.