The Marin County Sheriff’s Office held a meeting last week, one required by state law to inform the public how it uses military equipment and weapons. Other than the sheriff and his team, a single person attended—me.
Sheriff Jamie Scardina delayed the start of the Zoom meeting by a minute or two to see if more people would join. I watched the attendance counter. It didn’t budge.
Where were the activists who follow this issue? How about the nine-member Civilian Oversight Commission, a county-appointed group tasked with strengthening transparency, accountability and public trust in the sheriff’s office? Did the newly hired inspector general, who provides independent oversight of the department, know about the meeting?
California’s AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies to hold an annual “well-publicized” meeting to disclose their use of military equipment and allow for public discussion and questions. I wondered about the sparse attendance at a meeting covering the sheriff’s inventory, including a BearCat armored rescue vehicle, 9mm submachine guns, drone systems and diversionary devices such as flash bangs and tear gas.
To find out, I texted Tammy Edmonson, an activist who leads a local law enforcement watchdog group. “Are you in the sheriff’s meeting?” I asked.
Edmonson logged into Zoom. Though the presentation was over, she arrived just in time for public comment. She gave the sheriff an earful.
“I don’t think that the meeting has been publicized,” Edmonson said. “This doesn’t look like transparency from where I sit. You’re supposed to widely disseminate the fact that this hearing is happening so that the public can have a meaningful opportunity to participate.”
Sgt. Adam Schermerhorn responded that the sheriff’s office had met the state law’s requirements for notifying the public by posting on social media and the agency’s website.
Indeed, I saw the notice once while scrolling through Facebook a couple of weeks ago and jotted the date on my calendar. After the meeting, I found three Facebook posts and two on Instagram. The sheriff’s website contained a notice, dated July 1, the same day as the meeting.
Schermerhorn later confirmed in an email that he also posted a Facebook “story,” which stays at the top of the page for 24 hours. Scardina said the notice had been posted on the sheriff’s office website “multiple times.”
A member of the Civilian Oversight Commission, Sara McEvoy, hadn’t heard about the meeting.
“I’m not even on any social media,” McEvoy said.
Asked about the low attendance, Scardina wasn’t surprised.
“I believe last year there were three or four people,” he said. “The year we did an open house, there were two people who showed up.”
Although he said that he wouldn’t publicize the military equipment meeting differently next year, Scardina did ask for my suggestions.
I came up with a few, including sending a press release to the media, notifying the Civilian Oversight Commission and coordinating an email blast with the County of Marin, which maintains a database of people who want to know what’s happening in local government.
“I personally informed the inspector general of the meeting,” Scardina said.
John Alden, the new inspector general, agrees that Scardina told him about the meeting and mentioned that notices would “go out.” Alden left town before the meeting and didn’t inform the Civilian Oversight Commission because he assumed the sheriff’s office would do so.
“Obviously, I was wrong about that, because they didn’t,” Alden said. “Apparently the ways in which the sheriff’s office is communicating with the public and the way the commission is getting their information aren’t matching up. So, that communication channel, I think, could be improved.”
For now, the public has two more opportunities to weigh in. On July 13, the Civilian Oversight Commission meets. According to the sheriff’s office, the Marin County Board of Supervisors will vote on the military equipment report and inventory on July 14.
For information on the Civilian Oversight Commission meeting, visit bit.ly/4y7fgzc. The Marin County Board of Supervisors meeting information can be found at bit.ly/3R0B4Mq.
Thanks, Nikki. Shouldn’t members or at least some members of Civilian Oversight be on social media? Do they really trust the sheriff’s department to get info to them? I get notices from Civilian Oversight and didn’t see anything. Jeez!
The lack of notice of this meeting is disturbing but not surprising. Both the issue of the use of military equipment and the issue of lack of notice are of great concern. Thank you for attending the meeting and reporting on it—and for bringing this to the attention of Civilian Oversight, John Alden, and the public.
The Oversite Committee is not doing their job. The solution is the creation of an Oversight Committee to oversee the unelected Oversight Committee that oversees the Sheriff who was elected by the people.
Obviously, there was no attempt to UN-publicize the meeting, as “journalist“ Nikki Silverstein and others were well aware of it. It seems that the self described “activists” were too busy defending criminals’ rights, and failed to catch it. And of course, we can always count on Nikki to write anything that will make law-enforcement look bad.
Of course the County does not want people to know about war surplus being deployed by our own police departments to threaten us with massive deadly force in the face of uprisings against future oppression. Trump may have led Jan 6th but the Republican Project of a Imperial Presidency will tolerate no resistance. Not with ICE and not with a police force armed with armored vehicles, machine guns and RPGs. They’re already planning for a civil war, folks.
As far as I can tell, the intent of these meetings are only fair warnings. “We have military grade weapons and we will use them when necessary….and there is nothing you can do about it except pay your taxes.” Welcome to the abyss, Americanos!
Thanks Nikki! And to add insult to injury, I was prepared to give my two cents in Public Comments on this anemic notice when the BOS reviewed the report and renewed the ordinance. But the item came in on the Consent Calendar. So I pivoted to demanding it be taken off the consent calendar since it is hot and controversial issue. Of course, they all ignored me.