Thank you for covering the objections to the new civilian advisory — not oversight — commission created by the Board of Supervisors. In response to public pressure in favor of independent civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Office, the board on Dec. 12 passed a resolution setting up what they call an “Independent Civilian Advisory Commission.” This resolution does not create oversight. It is not independent, with the sheriff appointing one of just seven total members. The commission has no powers and no enforcement mechanism; the resolution says the commission can “request” information from the sheriff, but there is not even a mention of the sheriff being obligated to actually respond to those requests. There is no inspector general. There is no subpoena power, a shortcut that both Santa Clara and Sonoma counties tried only to find it necessary to later grant subpoena power to their oversight bodies.
Multiple supervisors voted for this resolution while noting that it was only a starting point and could be improved in the future. The need for oversight is not abstract; it has been made clear in our county by deaths in our streets and in our jail. It has been highlighted by the $5.4 million in county settlements last year. How many more deaths will it take before real oversight replaces this weak and ineffective resolution? Who will pay the price for that delay?
Good morning, Carina, and thank you for writing about the Supervisors’ recent decision to create a law enforcement advisory commission.
I appreciate you stating a case for an oversight commission. When I look at what commission advocates have proposed, I see serious flaws in implementing such a system.
Oversight commission advocates have stated that an independent commission would not be tasked solely with investigating perceived misdeeds or be hostile to law enforcement, but their rationale for instituting an oversight commission suggests otherwise.
Transparency is good… and I believe folks on both sides of this debate would like to see serious questions about what our law enforcement officers do during the course of carrying out their duties subject to review when it is necessary. However, an independent panel of citizens, without training and experience, would not guarantee the transparency advocates are seeking. The commission would expect non-investigators to act as investigators. They’re not equipped to act as investigators. Now, could a panel of citizens review a professionally prepared investigation and decide if a county deputy acted wrongly? Yes! We call those panels… juries. If a deputy violates the law, he or she can be criminally charged or sued civilly in the most transparent of venues… a courtroom. An independent oversight commission cannot be empowered not should it be empowered to sit in judgment on any real or perceived misdeeds.
We both agree that every person’s civil rights should be protected… regardless of race, ethnicity, citizenship or any other status they may enjoy. I have asked throughout this debate why commission advocates feel our District Attorney is unable to protect those rights. No response. But it gets better… on the unlikely off chance the District Attorney would either decline or fail to protect those rights, we have an AG who can step in plus the DOJ. These are protections that go well beyond the scope of anything an independent oversight commission can offer.
Let’s not forget… oversight really means hindsight. If an independent oversight commission made recommendations to change policy or procedure, those suggestions would not be binding. How could they be, especially if they conflict with state standards? Changing how law enforcement operates based on the recommendations of persons without training and experience in law enforcement can open the county up to huge liability.
On the subject of liability… the WSJ reported a couple of years ago that 20 cities paid out $2 billion due to police misconduct over a period of five years. That’s a huge WOW factor. While the major cities in that report all had oversight commissions, they still paid millions and millions of dollars for misconduct. Our county paid out 4.5 million recently. You and I can agree that is $4.5 million too much. However, can our country potentially spend more than twice that amount every two years on a commission and guarantee the county will not have to pay an aggrieved party for misconduct? No… there are no such guarantees. So, perhaps the creation of an oversight commission is something that should be decided by voters and not the Board of Supervisors.
The advocates’ oversight commission would submit regular reports concerning the status of its investigations. Would those reports also include information uncovered about complainants? If the commission will lay bare a deputy’s history and a step-by-step breakdown of that deputy’s actions, will we see the same transparency regarding the complainant’s actions? The District Attorney, state AG, and the DOJ are not only quite capable of investigating use of force and rights violations complaints… they are much, much better equipped to do so. As an aside, do you think complaints are ever submitted by persons just looking for notoriety or a big payday?
The last issue that has not been fully addressed by commission advocates is what effect the creation of an independent commission would have on law enforcement personnel. Will they refrain from taking action for fear of drawing the scrutiny of a commission even though they are legally authorized to act? What effect will a commission have on retention and recruiting. Sheriff Corpus is concerned about these issues. Are commission advocates also concerned?
Ray, You still seem rather stuck in an incorrect assumption of the purposes of Sheriff oversight. Let me provide you with a few additional examples.
When Chinedu Okobi died during an encounter Sheriff deputies in Millbrae, there was public outcry and calls for investigation. The department did an "internal review" and found that there was no wrong doing on the part of the deputies. What then were the conditions that allowed this incident to occur? Was it a lack of deputy training in use-of-force or deescalation techniques? Was there a use of force policy and did it allow for tasing a person for the crime of jaywalking and then peacefully walking away rather than talking to deputies? When asked whether there was a use of force policy, what that policy was, and what the training for deputies consisted of, Sheriff Bolanos refused to provide any responses whatsoever. Is there any training for deputies to instruct them of the maximum recommended number of times a person can be tased without severe risk of harm? It is three times! NOT 7. No one should ever be tased 7 times, the fact that this happened indicates something is wrong. If the deputies themselves were not at fault, then what was and how can this be prevented in the future? Is there a use of force policy, was it followed, does it need to be amended in order to prevent further deaths? None of these questions were addressed. You say you think oversight is hindsight, however the opposite is true. I am confident that our current Sheriff is capable of addressing these particular questions, however there is no guarantee we will always have a good Sheriff.
And there needs to be a means to provide the community with trust in law enforcement.
Oversight is about taking proactive measure to ensure the safety of our community.
Where there is no public outcry, such as a death or the ridiculous Batmobile incident, then we do not even hear cursory mumblings of an internal investigation. Chinedu's family did prevail in their multi-million dollar lawsuit, but what they want more are changes to ensure this doesn't happen to the next family.
Another example: there are conditions in our jails that need to be addressed. There are community organizations working hard to raise awareness of the deaths in custody, restrictions on inmates receiving mail, restrictions on in-person visitation, etc. These issues do not get addressed because the people in our jails are there primarily because they do not have money to post bail--they do not have the means to fight for their rights. An INDEPENDENT oversight board could investigate and make recommendations. This would be an assist to the Sheriff, and should not be viewed as an imposition.
An oversight board with no subpoena power and with members of the board being appointed by the Sheriff will have no power to address these kinds of questions.
Again, I encourage you to look at the existing Sheriff Oversight models that are working and making their communities safer, such as that of Santa Clara County.
We disagree… and we are disagreeing civilly. The way it should be.
My reasons for opposing an oversight commission are not based on incorrect assumptions. Perhaps oversight commission advocates could provide some clarification on reasons they are lobbying for an oversight commission.
The Okobi incident is beyond sad. With respect to that tragedy, it is an incorrect assumption to suggest the Sheriff’s Office has a use of force policy that allows the deployment of a taser for jaywalking or any other traffic enforcement. If a lawfully detained person physically resists deputies or becomes combative, the deputies are authorized to use a variety of different means to gain compliance. It is an incorrect assumption to suggest Sheriff Bolanos refused to provide any response whatsoever. He presented a revised use of force policy patterned after the policy adopted in San Francisco.
It is an incorrect assumption to suggest the installation of an oversight commission will eliminate the possibility of persons filing lawsuits. My comments included reference to a WSJ report concerning millions of dollars paid by jurisdictions with oversight commissions already in place. Those other commissions did not prevent lawsuits and large payouts from going forward.
Our county’s jail facilities are evaluated on an annual basis by the civil grand jury. They have subpoena power, and their recommendations have been implemented in the past. Instead of spending millions of county taxpayers’ money on a new commission, perhaps we can find ways to improve the current method for reviewing jail conditions.
When it comes to staffing the new advisory commission, it is an incorrect assumption to claim the commission members will be Sheriff appointees. The Sheriff will appoint one out of the seven members installed on the advisory commission.
It is not incorrect to assume that our District Attorney, the state AG, and the DOJ are best equipped to investigate misconduct involving civil rights violations and improper use of force. It is not incorrect to assume an independent oversight commission will negatively affect recruiting and retention. Sheriff Corpus said as much earlier this week at the Board of Supervisors meeting. It is not incorrect to assume that voters, and not the Board of Supervisors, may be better suited to decide whether our county needs an oversight commission.
Good morning, Carina, and thanks for writing about the Supervisors’ recent decision to create an advisory commission.
I appreciate you stating a case for an oversight commission. When I look at what commission advocates have proposed, I see serious flaws in implementing such a system.
Oversight commission advocates have stated that an independent commission would not be tasked solely with investigating perceived misdeeds or be hostile to law enforcement, but their rationale for instituting an oversight commission suggests otherwise.
Transparency is good… and I believe folks on both sides of this debate would like to see serious questions about what our law enforcement officers do during the course of carrying out their duties subject to review when it is necessary. However, an independent panel of citizens, without training and experience, would not guarantee the transparency oversight supporters are seeking. Why? Non-investigators would be asked to act as investigators. They’re not investigators. Now, could a panel of citizens review a professionally prepared investigation and decide if a county deputy acted wrongly? Absolutely. We call those panels… juries. If a deputy violates the law, he or she can be criminally charged or sued civilly in the most transparent of venues… a courtroom. An independent oversight commission would not be empowered nor should it be empowered to sit in judgment on any real or perceived misdeeds.
We both agree that every person’s civil rights should be protected… regardless of race, ethnicity, citizenship or any other status they may enjoy. I have asked throughout this debate why commission advocates feel our District Attorney is unable to protect those rights. No response. But it gets better… on the unlikely off chance the District Attorney would either decline or fail to protect those rights, we have an AG who can step in plus the DOJ. These are protections that go well beyond the scope of anything an independent oversight commission can offer.
Let’s not forget… oversight really means hindsight. If an independent oversight commission made recommendations to change policy or procedure, those suggestions would not be binding. How could they be, especially if they conflict with state standards? Changing how law enforcement operates based on the recommendations of persons without training and experience in law enforcement can open up the county to huge liability.
On the subject of liability… the WSJ reported a couple of years ago that 20 cities paid out $2 billion due to police misconduct over a period of five years. That’s a huge WOW factor. While the major cities in that report all had oversight commissions, they still paid millions and millions of dollars for misconduct. You wrote that our county paid out $4.5 million as a result of a lawsuit. You and I can agree that is $4.5 million too much. However, does our country potentially spending more than twice that amount every two years for a commission guarantee the county will not have to pay an aggrieved party for misconduct? No. So, perhaps creating an oversight commission is something that should be decided by voters and not the Board of Supervisors.
An oversight commission would submit regular reports concerning the status of its investigations. Would those reports also include information uncovered about complainants? If the commission will lay bare a deputy’s history and a step-by-step breakdown of that deputy’s actions, will we see the same transparency regarding the complainant’s actions? The District Attorney, state AG, and the DOJ are not only quite capable of investigating use of force and rights violations complaints… they are much, much better equipped to do so. As an aside, do you think complaints are ever submitted by persons just looking for notoriety or a big payday?
Another issue that has not been fully addressed by commission advocates is what effect the creation of an independent commission will have on law enforcement personnel. Will they refrain from taking action for fear of drawing the scrutiny of a commission even though they are legally authorized to act? What effect will a commission have on retention and recruiting. Sheriff Corpus is concerned about these issues. Are commission advocates also concerned?
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.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(6) comments
OOPS! My error. I posted a response to Carina's LTE twice. Sorry.
Ray,
Not to worry. A good comment is worth reading twice. Thanks.
Good morning, Carina, and thank you for writing about the Supervisors’ recent decision to create a law enforcement advisory commission.
I appreciate you stating a case for an oversight commission. When I look at what commission advocates have proposed, I see serious flaws in implementing such a system.
Oversight commission advocates have stated that an independent commission would not be tasked solely with investigating perceived misdeeds or be hostile to law enforcement, but their rationale for instituting an oversight commission suggests otherwise.
Transparency is good… and I believe folks on both sides of this debate would like to see serious questions about what our law enforcement officers do during the course of carrying out their duties subject to review when it is necessary. However, an independent panel of citizens, without training and experience, would not guarantee the transparency advocates are seeking. The commission would expect non-investigators to act as investigators. They’re not equipped to act as investigators. Now, could a panel of citizens review a professionally prepared investigation and decide if a county deputy acted wrongly? Yes! We call those panels… juries. If a deputy violates the law, he or she can be criminally charged or sued civilly in the most transparent of venues… a courtroom. An independent oversight commission cannot be empowered not should it be empowered to sit in judgment on any real or perceived misdeeds.
We both agree that every person’s civil rights should be protected… regardless of race, ethnicity, citizenship or any other status they may enjoy. I have asked throughout this debate why commission advocates feel our District Attorney is unable to protect those rights. No response. But it gets better… on the unlikely off chance the District Attorney would either decline or fail to protect those rights, we have an AG who can step in plus the DOJ. These are protections that go well beyond the scope of anything an independent oversight commission can offer.
Let’s not forget… oversight really means hindsight. If an independent oversight commission made recommendations to change policy or procedure, those suggestions would not be binding. How could they be, especially if they conflict with state standards? Changing how law enforcement operates based on the recommendations of persons without training and experience in law enforcement can open the county up to huge liability.
On the subject of liability… the WSJ reported a couple of years ago that 20 cities paid out $2 billion due to police misconduct over a period of five years. That’s a huge WOW factor. While the major cities in that report all had oversight commissions, they still paid millions and millions of dollars for misconduct. Our county paid out 4.5 million recently. You and I can agree that is $4.5 million too much. However, can our country potentially spend more than twice that amount every two years on a commission and guarantee the county will not have to pay an aggrieved party for misconduct? No… there are no such guarantees. So, perhaps the creation of an oversight commission is something that should be decided by voters and not the Board of Supervisors.
The advocates’ oversight commission would submit regular reports concerning the status of its investigations. Would those reports also include information uncovered about complainants? If the commission will lay bare a deputy’s history and a step-by-step breakdown of that deputy’s actions, will we see the same transparency regarding the complainant’s actions? The District Attorney, state AG, and the DOJ are not only quite capable of investigating use of force and rights violations complaints… they are much, much better equipped to do so. As an aside, do you think complaints are ever submitted by persons just looking for notoriety or a big payday?
The last issue that has not been fully addressed by commission advocates is what effect the creation of an independent commission would have on law enforcement personnel. Will they refrain from taking action for fear of drawing the scrutiny of a commission even though they are legally authorized to act? What effect will a commission have on retention and recruiting. Sheriff Corpus is concerned about these issues. Are commission advocates also concerned?
Ray, You still seem rather stuck in an incorrect assumption of the purposes of Sheriff oversight. Let me provide you with a few additional examples.
When Chinedu Okobi died during an encounter Sheriff deputies in Millbrae, there was public outcry and calls for investigation. The department did an "internal review" and found that there was no wrong doing on the part of the deputies. What then were the conditions that allowed this incident to occur? Was it a lack of deputy training in use-of-force or deescalation techniques? Was there a use of force policy and did it allow for tasing a person for the crime of jaywalking and then peacefully walking away rather than talking to deputies? When asked whether there was a use of force policy, what that policy was, and what the training for deputies consisted of, Sheriff Bolanos refused to provide any responses whatsoever. Is there any training for deputies to instruct them of the maximum recommended number of times a person can be tased without severe risk of harm? It is three times! NOT 7. No one should ever be tased 7 times, the fact that this happened indicates something is wrong. If the deputies themselves were not at fault, then what was and how can this be prevented in the future? Is there a use of force policy, was it followed, does it need to be amended in order to prevent further deaths? None of these questions were addressed. You say you think oversight is hindsight, however the opposite is true. I am confident that our current Sheriff is capable of addressing these particular questions, however there is no guarantee we will always have a good Sheriff.
And there needs to be a means to provide the community with trust in law enforcement.
Oversight is about taking proactive measure to ensure the safety of our community.
Where there is no public outcry, such as a death or the ridiculous Batmobile incident, then we do not even hear cursory mumblings of an internal investigation. Chinedu's family did prevail in their multi-million dollar lawsuit, but what they want more are changes to ensure this doesn't happen to the next family.
Another example: there are conditions in our jails that need to be addressed. There are community organizations working hard to raise awareness of the deaths in custody, restrictions on inmates receiving mail, restrictions on in-person visitation, etc. These issues do not get addressed because the people in our jails are there primarily because they do not have money to post bail--they do not have the means to fight for their rights. An INDEPENDENT oversight board could investigate and make recommendations. This would be an assist to the Sheriff, and should not be viewed as an imposition.
An oversight board with no subpoena power and with members of the board being appointed by the Sheriff will have no power to address these kinds of questions.
Again, I encourage you to look at the existing Sheriff Oversight models that are working and making their communities safer, such as that of Santa Clara County.
Hello, Westy
Thanks for posting a response to my comments.
We disagree… and we are disagreeing civilly. The way it should be.
My reasons for opposing an oversight commission are not based on incorrect assumptions. Perhaps oversight commission advocates could provide some clarification on reasons they are lobbying for an oversight commission.
The Okobi incident is beyond sad. With respect to that tragedy, it is an incorrect assumption to suggest the Sheriff’s Office has a use of force policy that allows the deployment of a taser for jaywalking or any other traffic enforcement. If a lawfully detained person physically resists deputies or becomes combative, the deputies are authorized to use a variety of different means to gain compliance. It is an incorrect assumption to suggest Sheriff Bolanos refused to provide any response whatsoever. He presented a revised use of force policy patterned after the policy adopted in San Francisco.
It is an incorrect assumption to suggest the installation of an oversight commission will eliminate the possibility of persons filing lawsuits. My comments included reference to a WSJ report concerning millions of dollars paid by jurisdictions with oversight commissions already in place. Those other commissions did not prevent lawsuits and large payouts from going forward.
Our county’s jail facilities are evaluated on an annual basis by the civil grand jury. They have subpoena power, and their recommendations have been implemented in the past. Instead of spending millions of county taxpayers’ money on a new commission, perhaps we can find ways to improve the current method for reviewing jail conditions.
When it comes to staffing the new advisory commission, it is an incorrect assumption to claim the commission members will be Sheriff appointees. The Sheriff will appoint one out of the seven members installed on the advisory commission.
It is not incorrect to assume that our District Attorney, the state AG, and the DOJ are best equipped to investigate misconduct involving civil rights violations and improper use of force. It is not incorrect to assume an independent oversight commission will negatively affect recruiting and retention. Sheriff Corpus said as much earlier this week at the Board of Supervisors meeting. It is not incorrect to assume that voters, and not the Board of Supervisors, may be better suited to decide whether our county needs an oversight commission.
Good morning, Carina, and thanks for writing about the Supervisors’ recent decision to create an advisory commission.
I appreciate you stating a case for an oversight commission. When I look at what commission advocates have proposed, I see serious flaws in implementing such a system.
Oversight commission advocates have stated that an independent commission would not be tasked solely with investigating perceived misdeeds or be hostile to law enforcement, but their rationale for instituting an oversight commission suggests otherwise.
Transparency is good… and I believe folks on both sides of this debate would like to see serious questions about what our law enforcement officers do during the course of carrying out their duties subject to review when it is necessary. However, an independent panel of citizens, without training and experience, would not guarantee the transparency oversight supporters are seeking. Why? Non-investigators would be asked to act as investigators. They’re not investigators. Now, could a panel of citizens review a professionally prepared investigation and decide if a county deputy acted wrongly? Absolutely. We call those panels… juries. If a deputy violates the law, he or she can be criminally charged or sued civilly in the most transparent of venues… a courtroom. An independent oversight commission would not be empowered nor should it be empowered to sit in judgment on any real or perceived misdeeds.
We both agree that every person’s civil rights should be protected… regardless of race, ethnicity, citizenship or any other status they may enjoy. I have asked throughout this debate why commission advocates feel our District Attorney is unable to protect those rights. No response. But it gets better… on the unlikely off chance the District Attorney would either decline or fail to protect those rights, we have an AG who can step in plus the DOJ. These are protections that go well beyond the scope of anything an independent oversight commission can offer.
Let’s not forget… oversight really means hindsight. If an independent oversight commission made recommendations to change policy or procedure, those suggestions would not be binding. How could they be, especially if they conflict with state standards? Changing how law enforcement operates based on the recommendations of persons without training and experience in law enforcement can open up the county to huge liability.
On the subject of liability… the WSJ reported a couple of years ago that 20 cities paid out $2 billion due to police misconduct over a period of five years. That’s a huge WOW factor. While the major cities in that report all had oversight commissions, they still paid millions and millions of dollars for misconduct. You wrote that our county paid out $4.5 million as a result of a lawsuit. You and I can agree that is $4.5 million too much. However, does our country potentially spending more than twice that amount every two years for a commission guarantee the county will not have to pay an aggrieved party for misconduct? No. So, perhaps creating an oversight commission is something that should be decided by voters and not the Board of Supervisors.
An oversight commission would submit regular reports concerning the status of its investigations. Would those reports also include information uncovered about complainants? If the commission will lay bare a deputy’s history and a step-by-step breakdown of that deputy’s actions, will we see the same transparency regarding the complainant’s actions? The District Attorney, state AG, and the DOJ are not only quite capable of investigating use of force and rights violations complaints… they are much, much better equipped to do so. As an aside, do you think complaints are ever submitted by persons just looking for notoriety or a big payday?
Another issue that has not been fully addressed by commission advocates is what effect the creation of an independent commission will have on law enforcement personnel. Will they refrain from taking action for fear of drawing the scrutiny of a commission even though they are legally authorized to act? What effect will a commission have on retention and recruiting. Sheriff Corpus is concerned about these issues. Are commission advocates also concerned?
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.