The Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a controversial and long-awaited ordinance last week to initiate independent civilian oversight of the sheriff’s office.
On Nov. 5, the supervisors gave a final nod to the ordinance and adopted it, which seemed a fait accompli despite some members of the public urging the board to reject it.
The ordinance establishes a nine-member civilian oversight commission that will work with an inspector general employed by the county to oversee the sheriff’s office with the “goal of cultivating trust, transparency, and accountability.” The ordinance provides mechanisms that allow the commission and inspector general to keep tabs on the law enforcement agency.
The oversight entities will develop a process for the public to submit complaints about the sheriff’s office, including privacy protections and a way to handle anonymous complaints.
Additionally, the ordinance allows the commission and inspector general the authority to issue subpoenas to produce documents and testimony. When the commission believes that an internal affairs investigation completed by the sheriff’s office is deficient, they can authorize the inspector general to launch an independent investigation, under certain circumstances.
While Assembly Bill 1185, state legislation enacted in January 2021, allows counties to establish an oversight commission, an inspector general position or both, the sheriff, an elected official, has no obligation to implement any of their recommendations.
Those who spoke during the public comment period when the ordinance was introduced at the Oct. 29 meeting were split on whether the board should pass it. Most who opposed it are in favor of oversight, but say this ordinance is flawed. They pointed to the county’s concessions to appease two labor unions representing sheriff’s office employees.
Indeed, Marin’s county counsel spent about six months with the unions in a confidential “meet and confer” process. While it is required by state law, critics say the county had far too many meetings with the unions, resulting in an ordinance that replaced robust oversight with a watered-down version.
“The devil is in the details and the draft ordinance in front of you. It contains four provisions that aim to put law enforcement in the driver’s seat and allow the sheriff’s office to disempower the civilian oversight commission,” Tammy Edmonson, a retired attorney and member of Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity & Empowerment (MVFREE), said in the supervisors meeting.
Several members of the county-appointed civilian working group that developed the oversight structure encouraged a yes vote by the supervisors. However, they admitted the ordinance does not include all the elements in their recommendation.
“Let not the wish for a perfect ordinance get in the way of one that will get us started,” Heidi Merchen, a working group member, said at the board meeting. “We are just getting to the starting line. It is all of our jobs to make sure that we have accountable oversight in our county.”
One of the few people attending the meeting who didn’t voice an opinion was Marin County Sheriff Jamie Scardina. Earlier this year, Scardina told the Pacific Sun that the ordinance is “a step in the right direction” for the community and sheriff’s office.
After the board approved the ordinance, Edmonson explained why she believes it won’t provide true oversight of the sheriff’s office in an interview with the Pacific Sun. The ordinance, she said, keeps the oversight commission from having access to the complaints about the sheriff’s office.
Worse yet, under the ordinance, the commission and inspector general are potentially prevented from ordering an independent investigation because of time constraints, according to Edmonson.
The sheriff’s office must first complete an internal investigation before the oversight commission can order an independent investigation, as provided in the ordinance. But there’s another impediment, too. The ordinance states an independent investigation can’t be launched if “doing so would violate the time limits set forth in the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act [POBR].”
A review of POBR, state legislation enacted to protect the rights of sworn law enforcement officers, reveals that it contains only one time limit. It precludes punitive action from being taken against an officer unless the investigation is completed within one year of the discovery of alleged misconduct.
“Obviously, if the sheriff’s office just dragged its feet on the initial investigation, that can prevent an independent investigation from ever happening,” Edmonson said. “Sheriff’s oversight is not about giving the sheriff the benefit of the doubt. It is for the worst-case scenario.”
Edmonson cites that of about 60 complaints filed with the sheriff’s office over the last eight years, only one was partially substantiated. And the public has no information about that one complaint because the sheriff’s office is “secretive,” she said.
A working group member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they fear public backlash, has a different perspective of the ordinance.
“I would say there is consensus among the working group that we achieved what we wanted to achieve,” they said. “We wanted independent investigations and to ensure that there was subpoena power built into the ordinance. We wanted funding to have an inspector general and staff. The things that we were able to move the needle on are all the building blocks for an effective ordinance.”
Acknowledging that the group had an uphill battle getting to this point, the member said they believe sheriff’s oversight will evolve over time. An operating agreement between the inspector general and the sheriff’s office must still be developed, and the member sees this as an opportunity for the oversight commission to help identify some of those policies and procedures.
But Edmonson argues that the current ordinance does not actually provide the necessary foundation to be effective.
“The only power that civilian oversight ever has is to bring transparency for the purpose of building trust,” Edmonson said. “The ordinance should allow the oversight bodies to oversee the law enforcement investigation. They need to be aware. What are the complaints? Tell us what’s going on. Who are you? Who are you interviewing? What does the investigation look like? Well, in our system, the commission doesn’t have the right to do any of that.”
At the end of the lengthy process to pass this sheriff’s oversight ordinance, not everyone is pleased with the outcome. Others remain hopeful.
The county’s schedule has the oversight commission seated and meeting by spring of 2025. By the summer, the county will have appointed an inspector general, and the operating agreement with the sheriff’s office is expected by early 2026.
Time will tell if the sheriff’s oversight ordinance brings transparency and trust or if Marin residents will still be looking at the sheriff’s procedures through opaque glass.
