PD Editorial: What’s the next step on oversight for Sheriff’s Office?

Sonoma County supervisors have a conundrum.

Their constituents, in a landslide vote, gave some added bite to the county’s law enforcement watchdog agency. But the state’s Public Employment Relations Board said Measure P went too far.

On Tuesday, the supervisors will consider whether to appeal the decision in court.

The legal issue is all about process, but the practical impact is all about content.

Let’s start with a little background. After the Andy Lopez shooting in 2013, the supervisors created the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach. The scope of its authority was relatively limited: reviewing internal investigations of sheriff’s personnel for thoroughness, fairness and timeliness, and making recommendations for possible policy changes.

Measure P authorized IOLERO, as the agency is known, to initiate its own investigations, subpoena records and witnesses, sit in on interviews during internal affairs investigations and recommend discipline. To ensure that the agency had the resources to conduct investigations, the measure also fixed a threshold for its budget at 1% of the sheriff’s budget. It was approved by 65% of the voters in November.

The unions representing sheriff’s deputies and correctional officers challenged Measure P, contending that the Board of Supervisors violated collective bargaining law by putting it on the ballot without negotiating with employees.

The state labor board, whose members are appointed by the governor, concurred. If its decision stands, many of IOLERO’s new powers will be rescinded. The decision reflects California’s permissive labor laws, which allow public employees to negotiate practically every aspect of their employment.

Measure P supporters are skeptical, with some justification, of union offers to negogiate an oversight program. But overturning the labor board decision in court could prove difficult if a recently concluded legal fight over a San Diego ballot measure is any guide.

In 2012, San Diego voters replaced pensions with 401(k) plans for most new city employees via a ballot initiative sponsored by then-Mayor Jerry Sanders. It passed by the same 65%-35% margin as Measure P.

Even though Sanders placed the measure on the ballot by gathering voter signatures, the state Public Employment Relations Board ruled that, as mayor, he had “meet and confer” obligations, meaning his proposal had to be negotiated with employee unions.

After winding through the lower courts, the labor board decision was unanimously upheld by the state Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. Earlier this year, a San Diego judge formally invalidated Measure B, and the city is restoring pensions for all its employees.

Measure P started as an initiative drafted by local activists. Hobbled by the pandemic lockdown, supporters ran out of time to gather signatures. They turned to the county supervisors, who put it on the November ballot.

Had the sponsors of Measure P been able to collect enough signatures, they might have a better shot at overcoming the union’s challenge.

While we aren’t aware of California courts deciding an analogous case, state courts have ruled that ordinary citizens have more flexibility than elected officials, at least when it comes to taxes. A special tax placed on the ballot by citizens requires a simple majority vote for approval. The same measure placed by elected officials requires a two-thirds majority.

If the courts applied a similar principle to collective bargaining issues, a renewed effort by Measure P’s sponsors to place invalidated portions of Measure P on the ballot might stand a better chance than a costly legal challenge to the labor board ruling.

However, some of the invalidated provisions were included in Assembly Bill 1185, which was signed into law last year by Gov. Gavin Newsom. AB 1185 authorizes counties to establish oversight agencies, with subpoena power, to investigate sheriffs. AB 1185 makes no mention of oversight being subject to collective bargaining.

Oversight of law enforcement remains a worthy goal, with the backing of two-thirds of Sonoma County’s voters. The question for Measure P supporters and the supervisors is how to get there without a long and costly legal fight.

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