|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
San Mateo County needs — and taxpayers deserve — meaningful, independent oversight of the Sheriff’s Office, including a permanent Inspector General.
Supervisor Ray Mueller has questioned whether a full-time Inspector General would be worth the cost.
I believe taxpayers should ask a different question: What has the lack of effective independent oversight already cost us — and how much more are we willing to pay?
Consider the record.
San Mateo County has already paid approximately $13 million in major settlements and faces more than $48 million in additional claims for lawsuits involving the Sheriff’s Office. The county also incurred substantial additional costs for outside investigations and related legal proceedings. Those are millions of taxpayer dollars that could have been invested in other public priorities.
Against that backdrop, arguing that an Inspector General costs too much misses the larger point.
The real cost comes from inadequate accountability.
Our California Legislature enacted AB 1185 specifically to give counties stronger tools for independent civilian oversight of sheriffs, including the authority to establish an oversight board and an Inspector General with meaningful investigative powers.
Several counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Marin, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma and Monterey, have recognized the value of independent oversight. Why should San Mateo County, with its recent history of controversy, litigation, leadership turmoil and millions of taxpayer dollars at risk, settle for less?
The ombudsperson, proposed by Sheriff Ken Binder, focuses primarily on jail complaints and is not the same as an independent Inspector General who oversees systemic issues across the Sheriff’s Office.
An Inspector General can examine patterns, policies, management practices, use of public funds, complaints, and systemic failures — and recommend corrective action before problems become scandals, lawsuits and multimillion-dollar settlements.
And now, our county leaders are discussing how to address our challenging situation of expenses exceeding revenues for the coming fiscal year, including the possibility of asking taxpayers for additional revenue through a sales tax increase.
Residents have every right to ask: “How can the Board of Supervisors argue that it cannot afford independent oversight while taxpayers are already paying millions of dollars in settlements, litigation, investigations and legal costs?”
Supervisor Mueller and every member of the Board of Supervisors should answer a straightforward question:
Do you believe the people who elected you deserve truly independent oversight of one of the county’s largest, most powerful, and most consequential public agencies, the Sheriff’s Office?
The events of the past several years have made one lesson unmistakably clear: Accountability cannot depend on the character, judgment, or leadership style of any one sheriff. It must be built permanently into the structure of the Sheriff’s Office.
All voters should ask each candidate for supervisor one simple question before the next election:
Will you vote yes or no to establish a permanent, independent Inspector General for the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office?
Not “maybe.” Not “let’s study it.” Not another substitute that falls short of truly independent oversight.
Yes or no. Every voter deserves to know where their supervisor stands — and then hold him/her accountable for that answer.
When tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, public trust, and the integrity of our Sheriff’s Office are at stake, doing nothing is not the less expensive option.
It is the most expensive option of all.
Jim Lawrence is the chair of Fixin San Mateo County and former mayor of Foster City.
