The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors established the panel in 2008 with members chosen from a list of specific categories. On Tuesday, the board will consider adding another category — private citizens.

Board President Mark Church suggested the change to add even more transparency to the process and get residents involved, according to his office.

Church and Supervisor Rich Gordon, members of the board’s Finance and Operations Committee, agreed at its Oct. 21 meeting that any such panel, if needed, would benefit by adding people outside the already established categories.

Currently, a panel of three, five or seven members will be called when necessary from a pool including retired judges, former county or city administrators, former civil grand jury foreperson and former county counsels, city attorneys and district attorneys. The proposed change holds that any three- or five-member board will include one private citizen and any seven-member board will involve two members.

How those individuals are chosen is less defined than the others. A list of possibilities will be compiled by the board at the time each panel is convened but the code doesn’t spell out any particular process, said Chief Deputy County Counsel Brenda Carlson.

“Hypothetically, the board will decide how they want to do it ... on a case-by-case basis,” Carlson said.

Some possibilities include each member suggesting a certain number of names or asking constituents to submit their own names for consideration.

Members can live in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco or Santa Clara — either because former county residents have moved to provide greater independence, Carlson said — but a quorum must reside in San Mateo County.

Whatever its makeup, the review panel will be charged with planning and conducting an investigation, submitting written findings of fact and making recommendations for action to the Board of Supervisors, Carlson said.

The ordinance was sparked by the April 2007 detention of Sheriff Greg Munks and Undersheriff Carlos Bolanos in an undercover brothel sting in Las Vegas. The pair were in town for a law enforcement race and told police they mistakenly went to the raided home because they thought it was a legitimate massage parlor.

Neither was charged with a crime and the supervisors said they had no discipline authority. Approximately a year later, then-supervisor Jerry Hill and Supervisor Adrienne Tissier suggested an independent ethics committee as an alternative to less viable oversight ideas such as letting the Board of Supervisors remove fellow elected officials. The county charter does not gives the board authority to remove an elected official and the state Constitution doesn’t allow the board to discipline an official to any less degree. The civil grand jury, however, does have the authority to recommend an official’s removal.

The ordinance allows the board to determine an allegation of serious official misconduct is unfounded before calling together the panel to decide.

Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.  

 mugs: Rich Gordon, Mark Church

Info box: The Board of Supervisors meets 9 a.m. Tuesday, Dec. 1 in Board Chambers, 400 County Government Center, Redwood City.