Deputies union fights measure on oversight in Sonoma County

A union representing sheriff’s deputies in Sonoma County is fighting to invalidate a vote by the Board of Supervisors that authorized a November ballot measure asking voters to strengthen the county’s civilian law enforcement watchdog group.

The Sonoma County Deputy Sheriff’s Association filed a formal complaint with the county, saying the board’s Aug. 6 decision failed to follow basic meetandconfer negotiation processes before placing the measure on the ballot. The conflict comes as cities and counties across the country look to revise police funding and policies on use of force, body camera footage and civilian oversight powers.

Sonoma County supervisors voted unanimously to create the ballot measure, which will ask voters to increase funding and strengthen the powers of the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Out

reach. The civilianled group was formed five years ago following the 2013 killing of 13yearold Andy Lopez in Santa Rosa by a sheriff’s deputy.

The measure would give the watchdog group greater access to Sheriff’s Office personnel records and bodyworn camera footage, as well as allocate 1% of the sheriff’s $184 million budget to fund those efforts. If it passes in November, the group’s current $590,000 budget would roughly triple.

The measure was first written last fall by a group of local criminal justice advocates, including the former head of the auditing group, but it failed to gain enough signatures to place it on the ballot.

Following nationwide protests sparked by the May 25 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the group appealed to the Board of Supervisors to take up the measure, saying the pandemic had stymied efforts to get signatures before the May 11 deadline, in spite of overwhelming community support.

“We are in support of efforts to increase the public’s confidence in the Sheriff’s Office and the law enforcement services it provides,” sheriff’s association President Mike Vail said in a statement Monday. “However, it takes both parties’ willingness to communicate for a workable partnership and make this mutuallydesirable goal a reality. We were never given any formal notice prior to the Board’s passage of this ordinance.”

The association’s attorney, Rocky Lucia, who also represents police unions in Berkeley, San Francisco and Oakland, said that he has successfully negotiated several police reform bills, including a similar July ballot measure to strengthen the Oakland Police Commission. He said those who interpret this dispute with Sonoma County as “antireform” are overlooking basic legal requirements.

“I think that what happened was that in their haste to instill and construct oversight, they rushed to judgment,” Lucia said. “Now I’m in the very awkward position that we have to file a legal claim because the county failed to abide by the law.”

Lucia’s written complaint was sent to the county Monday, and he said he is in the process of formally submitting a complaint to the Public Employment Relations Board, the state body in charge of adjudicating labor disputes.

Sgt. Juan Valencia, a Sheriff’s Office spokesman, echoed concerns about the bill’s legality.

“We’re still talking to our attorney about the process moving forward and taking every possible opportunity to educate the community about what this means,” he said. “We’re not opposed to change, we’re always open to better ourselves. We just want to make sure it’s done the right way and legally.”

Board of Supervisors spokesman Paul Gullixson declined to comment on the ongoing legal dispute, but he said the board was aware of potential concerns “both about the board’s action and the measure itself.”

During last Thursday’s meeting, County Counsel Bruce Goldstein raised concerns about the legality of the measure, citing a state law that does not allow voters to set minimum annual budgets through ballot initiatives.

Supervisors discussed potentially amending the measure with a provision allowing them to modify it in the future, leading community members to push back. Supervisors ultimately voted to put the measure on the ballot as originally written.

“Overall, the board believes that this is an issue that was drafted by the public and should be decided by the public,” Gullixson said. “The board felt that it should be left to voters to decide.”