Sheriff oversight body approved in San Mateo County

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors maintains the ability to issue subpoenas but, based on the resolution adopted during Tuesday’s board meeting, the commission would not be granted such power and instead fulfill an advisory rather than investigative role.

The nonprofit Fixin’ San Mateo has been an ongoing proponent of an oversight board, initially proposing 11 appointed members and the formation of a new Office of the Inspector General. Executive Director Nancy Goodban stated to the supervisors during a public comment period that the resolution doesn’t go far enough.

“There are a couple of important things that are missing that all counties with oversight have, and I think we should have them here too. One is the counties … have a permanent inspector general or monitor with real duties and authority. They don’t just come out if the media notices a problem,” she said. “Second, all of the independent oversight bodies are authorized to not only ask questions ... but they’re authorized to get answers. It doesn’t have to be through subpoena power but at least written in that the sheriff would provide information.”

During previous conversations between San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus and the Board of Supervisors, Corpus maintained that the consequences of entrusting such powers to the commission would likely result in costly bureaucratic entanglements, structural tensions — especially if commission members do not possess deep law enforcement knowledge or background — and ultimately dissuade potential deputies from entering the field.

With some initial exceptions, the commission will comprise seven county residents serving three-year terms. The majority will be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, with the sheriff receiving one appointment. The commission will also be responsible for advising and providing recommendations to the board at least annually, and an inspector general could be available on an as-needed basis.

The board listened to numerous public comments, which mostly lambasted the proposed resolution and called on supervisors to defer the decision until more research is conducted. Several residents, including members of local organizations such as Belmont Neighbors Against Racism and Faith in Action, referenced Santa Clara County’s oversight body as an exemplary model for law enforcement accountability.

But supervisors agreed on adopting the proposed resolution, stating it is a necessary first step and one that does not etch the current structure in stone.

“I think why today I would go ahead and vote to move this forward is that I just want to start the work and go ahead and get it in place. Oftentimes, when you’re in a situation like this, people view it as a static decision, but it’s not,” Supervisor Ray Mueller said. “I’d rather, in this circumstance, start the work and then improve it over time. I think it was a long and arduous road for everyone to get to where we are now.”