Sacramento needs accountability. It’s time for a community review of Sheriff’s Department

The friction between the Sacramento County Sheriff and the Office of Inspector General, as well as members of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, over the past couple of years is no secret.

As a result, as chair of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors in 2019, I authored a new job description for the Office of Inspector General that, among other things, enhanced the powers of that position while clearly maintaining the board of supervisors’ subpoena power.

I also negotiated a memorandum of understanding between the current sheriff and the board of supervisors requiring mediation before a retired judge should the sheriff fail to cooperate with the OIG or lock the OIG out of sheriff’s department facilities. These were important steps, but they are not enough. The public is calling for community oversight of the sheriff’s department and greater transparency and they deserve it.

Constitutional protections and case law make oversight of an elected county sheriff far more complicated than oversight of chiefs of police in cities. Chiefs of police are employees of the cities that employ them, typically reporting directly to a city manager or mayor and/or city council. A county sheriff does not report to the board of supervisors.

However, independent oversight is part of the system of checks and balances, and sheriff’s departments should absolutely be no exception to that.

That is why, after months of research, listening to the community and working with the National Association of Community Oversight of Law Enforcement, I introduced a proposal at a recent Sacramento County Board of Supervisors’ meeting to establish a Community Review Commission.

As proposed, the mission of this commission would be to improve transparency and public accountability with respect to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. Working with the OIG, who is independent of the sheriff and answers to the board of supervisors, the commission’s powers would include subpoena power, soliciting and reviewing community complaints, reviewing sheriff operations, policies and procedures and provide reports to the board of supervisors. They would be the OIG’s, and therefore the board of supervisors’, eyes and ears in the community.

By establishing the relationship between the OIG and the commission, we can avoid the very real possibility of a sheriff failing to cooperate with the commission, which has happened in communities like Los Angeles, where a sheriff’s Civilian Oversight Commission has seen limited success after being established through court order.

Of course the bylaws of a Community Review Commission and the manner in which they conduct their business would have to respect privacy laws of sheriff’s department employees and the public as well as provisions of collective bargaining agreements, as they should. To insinuate that the establishment of a Community Review Commission necessarily violates either is simply not true.

Establishing a Community Review Commission in an authentic way to establish a greater trust between Sacramento County’s Sheriff’s Department and the community. It will also provide an opportunity for the public to impact policing in our community by ensuring our values remain guiding principles with regard to the means and methods to keep our communities safe. It is a two way street.

It is time to stop talking about transparency. It is time for action.