Bob Jonsen is known for many things — among them appearing as an actor in the movie “The Return of the Jedi” playing a stormtrooper who smashes into a redwood tree on a speeder bike. In a galaxy not so far away, he was recently elected sheriff of Santa Clara County and is celebrated for an entirely different reason: He embraces sheriff oversight. As Palo Alto police chief from 2018 through 2022, his department was overseen by an independent police auditor, in place since 2006. Sheriff Jonsen recognizes oversight as fundamental to community trust, stating, “Transparency is huge ... it’s very, very important and they need to know what’s going on.”
Our San Mateo County supervisors should also embrace oversight of the Sheriff’s Office by creating an independent, empowered and funded community board and inspector general.
A basic concept in our democracy, that all government entities have oversight, instills trust in our government and provides transparency into how our taxes are being put to work.
Oversight becomes even more vital with law enforcement due to the potential for violent encounters, loss of life and loss of freedom inherent in the administration of law enforcement. This important form of accountability can help ensure people are treated fairly and that our officers have our trust.
Following the passage of Assembly Bill 1185 in 2020, a local grassroots organization, Fixin’ San Mateo County, conducted extensive research and drafted an oversight model with provisions proven most effective in other communities. Essential elements include independence from the Sheriff’s Office, a community board and inspector general, both with subpoena power, and adequate funding.
Independence ensures arms-length checks and balances on an agency whose impacts are profound and, sometimes, life and death.
Subpoena power ensures the oversight board and inspector general can obtain documents and information to perform their duties. Our elected supervisors would vet and select the oversight board members and the inspector general who would use subpoena power responsibly in the public interest. Should the Sheriff’s Office have objections, any subpoena is subject to review by the courts.
Taxpayers in communities with oversight spend less on civil penalties for excessive force, misconduct and wrongful death lawsuits. In February 2023, San Mateo County paid $4.5 million to the family of Chinedu Valentine Okobi, a Black man killed by San Mateo County Sheriff’s deputies who used Tasers, batons and pepper spray on him for allegedly jaywalking. From 2015 to 2020, San Mateo County paid $2.4 million to resolve wrongful death and excessive force cases. Oversight also addresses and prevents violence and loss of life, providing an immeasurable benefit to the community.
People of color are killed by law enforcement at disproportionately high rates. A Bay Area News Group investigation in 2020 showed Black residents made up less than 7% of the Bay Area population, but 27% of those killed by police. In San Mateo County, Black people were nine times more likely to be arrested than white people, and Latinx people were twice as likely to be arrested, according to a 2018 report by the Public Policy Institute of California. The vast majority of fatal use-of-force incidents in San Mateo County have not led to charges against officers involved. These systemic issues can be effectively addressed through oversight.
Oversight has broad support. Along with Fixin’ San Mateo County, local ACLU chapters and more than 30 organizations formed the “Coalition for a Safer San Mateo County” to advocate for this addition to our community. Like San Mateo County, Alameda County elected a new sheriff last fall. In September, their county supervisors voted to create an oversight board and inspector general, joining San Francisco, Sonoma and Sacramento in embracing oversight aligned with AB 1185.
Despite this broad support, San Mateo County’s Oct. 24 study session on oversight revealed officials’ bias toward law enforcement and skepticism of the community’s perspective. A troubling narrative arose of an “us versus them” mentality, which ignores that the community and law enforcement want the same thing: public safety. We must reject the fallacy that we can have accountable transparent policing or safety, but not both.
As Sheriff Jonsen’s embrace of oversight shows, there should be no hesitation in creating empowered, proactive bodies that include diverse community perspectives. The supervisors appear poised to create an advisory group without any of the hallmarks of effective oversight. Can the Board of Supervisors summon the empathy and courage to pass meaningful oversight? Safety, lives and the fair administration of justice are at stake. As Yoda once said, “Do or do not, there is no try.”
Yedida Kanfer and Chowning Poppler are volunteers with the ACLU of Northern California — North Peninsula Chapter.
(11) comments
Dogs that are most likely to bite humans include123:
Rottweilers
Chihuahuas
Cocker Spaniels
Tosa Inus
German Shepherds
Terriers
Pit Bulls (and other similar breeds)
Bullmastiffs
Akitas
Huskies
According to one study, dogs with short, wide heads who weigh between 66–100 pounds are most likely to bite. The three breeds with the highest percentage of reported dog bites in this study were Pit Bulls, mixed breeds, and German Shepherds
Not all breeds of dogs have the same temperament , and perhaps not all races have the same temperament.
The ACLU could be one of the most hypocritical organizations on planet earth. Truly disgusting and fake.
Thank you for this article. It is so great that reform Sheriff Bob Jonsen embraces oversight, and considers it integral to the Sheriff’s Department. Our own Sheriff Christina Corpus was elected in a landslide on a reform platform of transparency, integrity, and community engagement, and is doing a wonderful job; she has the support of most of those who support oversight. Independent civilian oversight is important regardless of the office holder - it is a common sense, good government way to ensure checks and balances.
And oversight has broad support. Fixin’ San Mateo County has made 60 presentations to cities, community groups, faith communities and more and built a coalition of 37 groups representing more than 5,000 residents. Five city and town councils - East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Portola Valley , Redwood City, and San Mateo - as well as the North Fair Oaks Community Council - have voted for oversight - together these are the elected representatives of one third of the county’s residents. We are glad that the Board of Supervisors is taking steps to create a civilian oversight body.
An “unfortunate incident” happened between one of the activists and the Sheriff. Not sure but hope subject was arrested. Police Officers don’t need more oversight - CA passed many new oversight laws post Floyd. An oversight member in SF was just arrested for rape.
Here we go again… What are the qualifications of folks who serve on the oversight board? Will they go through police academy training/simulations? Will they take ride-alongs on a regular basis to experience what law enforcement experiences? Will they need a minimum of years working in a law enforcement field? Most importantly, should we be spending $3.5 million in taxpayer funds to pay for this oversight committee? I’d say the answer is a definite No.
A number of statistics are tossed out to justify an oversight committee but we need more context. Data shows Blacks/Latinos face higher death and arrest rates than White people. Of the people who were killed, were they in the process of committing a crime? Fleeing from a crime? Shooting at law enforcement? Are Blacks/Latinos committing more crimes than White people, resulting in higher arrests? Maybe there isn’t bias at all, just the appearance of bias. Regardless of who is being arrested, are these arrests resulting in less crime and more safety?
It’s reported that oversight has “broad support.” So an organization that wants to be paid from the public, a few ACLU chapters (which have their own questionable history, as an oversight commission could point out) and more than 30 organizations advocate for this committee, out of how many hundreds, or thousands, of organizations that don’t want the committee?
Meanwhile, in other news, the SF Chronicle reports that Newsom appointed Oscar Grant’s uncle to a police advisory board. Do we really think he's going to be objective? Just an indication of what may happen with any non-law enforcement experience committee. No thanks. I’d rather spend the $3.5 million on flood control and infrastructure projects.
Is recidivism taken into account now that our Socialists in government have decided not to incarcerate criminals?
Yedida and Chowning, thanks for writing an op-ed on oversight.
Why not put this issue on the ballot and let voters decide whether oversight is a good idea?
Great idea Ray. Contrary to the article's assertions, oversight is not something demanded by "the community", despite their parading out paid activists to create this impression. I doubt most residents are even aware of the oversight issue. Certainly those I speak with have never raised this as a pressing concern. To the contrary, residents are worried about rising crime and don't want to become San Francisco. Hamstringing police from doing their jobs and making it difficult to hire good officers is the last thing we need here. (London Breed even spoke out against the SF oversight commission.)
Hi, Michelle
This same topic was the subject of an op-ed in the DJ 26 days ago. A progressive reader spoke out in favor of creating a commission. That's OK. I responded to those comments with the following:
It's not likely an appointed group of folks living in our county would have sufficient knowledge and experience to provide credible oversight. What liabilities might be incurred if our county enacted recommendations proposed by such a group of civic minded but inexperienced folks?
Is our District Attorney capable of investigating circumstances that may involve local police departments and the excessive use of force or civil rights violations? Yes.
Are there safeguards already available that can promote transparency and accountability? Body cameras, data collection, and publishing the results of investigations of alleged wrongdoing that can be legally shared are available now.
Are there other negative side effects to creating an oversight commission? Such a commission could encourage law enforcement personnel to refrain from taking action to avert being judged by an oversight committee. That would negatively impact safety in the streets, the workplace, and our homes.
Our Sheriff is concerned about the effect of an oversight commission on recruiting. If law enforcement personnel become too concerned that they may terminated… not for a violation of the law but for drawing the ire of commission appointees… you won’t have to “defund the police.” No one will want the job.
I understand the passion and commitment that commission advocates bring to this conversation. However, there is an alternative point of view. So, let the voters decide.
Ballot initiatives are horrible way to enact laws. A system that funnels lots of issues, both big and small, directly to the voters leads to bad policy judgments, because under-informed voters don’t have time to research and form opinions on all the issues. That's why we elect the County Board of Supervisors.
Good morning, Westy
"Ballot initiatives are horrible"? I disagree. There are many DJ readers who are pro-choice until they think their choice may not line up with the choices of others. Asserting the people should not decide local issues because there may be some low information voters living among us is not a reason to ignore the initiative process.
With respect to the oversight commission issue, nothing would prevent its supporters from handing out pro-commission literature, speaking out in public forums or writing LTEs in favor of creating an oversight commission as a way to educate voters about this issue.
San Mateo is currently divided about whether to pursue a policy re: flood control that will affect all San Mateans. The issue is not being left up to locals who have already made a choice that changes to the city's flood control policy should happen just because that is their choice. The issue will be decided by the voters. Pro-initiative supporters now have the opportunity to convince others that their choice will better serve San Mateo. A benefit of the initiative process is that it will also allow us to hear from folks who do not support the initiative.
That begs the question... why shouldn't voters decide whether a law enforcement oversight commission will better serve our county?
Another good example why an oversight commission ballot initiative is not a "horrible" idea may be what has transpired over the past few months re: the county's purchase of the La Quinta Inn in Millbrae. A DJ survey showed an overwhelming majority of potential voters opposed the purchase. True enough, the survey was not scientific by any means but the results cannot be cavalierly set aside for that reason. If the Board of Supervisors doubted the accurateness of the survey, they certainly heard from a sizeable number of folks at Board meetings opposing the purchase. Now, Millbrae is seeking a way to have the courts set aside the Board's choice to purchase the La Quinta Inn. What would the city suggest in the alternative? A vote by the people on whether the purchase should go forward.
Again, I disagree that ballot initiatives are a "horrible" idea.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.