###

Should the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office be subject to additional oversight through an independent, civilian-led system? If so, to what degree? And is it appropriate for the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to seek increased oversight over another independently elected official?

The Board of Supervisors pondered those questions during a nearly three-hour discussion that stretched well into Tuesday evening. The board considered several strategies aimed at increasing accountability and fostering public trust in the department — which Sheriff William Honsal said was at an “all-time high” — including the development of a ballot measure that, if staff could meet the fast-approaching deadline, would be put to voters during the general election in November. 

Ultimately, the board wound up voting 4-1, with First District Supervisor Rex Bohn dissenting, to form an ad hoc committee that will work with staff to research and develop an ordinance that would create a civilian-led oversight system that would operate independently, but report to the Board of Supervisors. 

The ad hoc committee, made up of Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell and Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo, was instructed to return with a draft ordinance by the end of September. 

Why does HCSO need oversight now?

This latest push for independent oversight over the HCSO began about a month ago when a group of community members showed up to non-agenda public comment to urge the board to draft a ballot measure that would establish an independent oversight committee to oversee independent investigations into the department.

During a 15-minute opening statement, Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone, who sponsored the agenda item, explained why he thought additional oversight was needed. He recalled two years ago when the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury issued a report urging the county to increase independent oversight over the HCSO, which Honsal deemed unnecessary, asserting that he and his office had measures already in place to handle allegations of misconduct.

The board decided to form an ad hoc committee to look into it, but nothing ever came of it. 

Madrone | Screenshot

“I think a lot of the reason why communities have developed these oversight committees … has been because there’s a lack of trust when law enforcement does all of their reviews of everything in-house,” Madrone said. “And my focus here is to actually build trust in our law enforcement. … I believe that as we improve that trust, it increases the number of people that want to become deputies … because they’re more trusted in the community.”

On top of that, Madrone felt additional oversight, even if it involved paying an independent auditor or an inspector general, could actually save the county money in the long run.

“When we look at the cost [to] the county over the last 10 years, there’s been … almost $14 million in legal expenses and another $14 million in settlement costs,” he said. “The top two [county departments] on the list are social services and the sheriff’s department. Together, they account for $8 million of that $14 million … so they’re by far the largest proportion of our legal settlement costs.”

About ten minutes into his statement, Madrone described an incident that came to his attention involving two deputies and a “known person that does drugs” during a traffic stop in the Garberville area. The man was pulled over and asked to roll his window down, but he refused to comply and locked his door, prompting one of the deputies to smash his window and “put glass into the person’s eye.” 

“[It] really escalated this situation very rapidly,” Madrone said. “Luckily, there was another deputy there on the scene who was really good at deescalation. I will say, it’s been my experience that the vast majority of the deputies are incredibly responsible, dedicated individuals that do good stuff. But every now and then, there’s one person that maybe isn’t along with that.”

“As I understood it, you told us that the response to that critical incident — [which is what] I would call it, because it led to a lawsuit — was that that deputy was put in charge of deescalation training as a response to that situation,” he continued, speaking to Honsal. “I don’t know what reasonable person would think that taking a person that escalates a situation like that so quickly would be a good person to be training others. … There are many other cases I could point out that I thought that things were not handled well and were not really reviewed by anybody [outside of] law enforcement.”

About 30 seconds later, County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes interrupted Madrone and asked the board to take a quick recess. Madrone asked if he could finish his comments, to which Hayes responded, “That’s our concern. We’d like to talk with you, please.” 

He reassured Hayes that he wouldn’t wade into legal territory, and wrapped up his statement by outlining potential next steps for the board. He reiterated that there was a group of community members “ready to bring a ballot measure forward,” adding that the board could either work with the group to place an item on the ballot or staff could draft a county ordinance.

Following a 20-minute break, the board returned to the dais as though nothing had happened and continued its discussion. 

Arroyo acknowledged the recent “groundswell of interest” among community members, but felt interest in a civilian oversight committee for the HCSO has bubbled up off and on since the Civil Grand Jury report came out two years ago. She acknowledged that the ad hoc committee that was created in response to the report had only met once in that time.

“We have had prior conversations about this and, to be totally frank, it’s it puts us in an awkward situation when community members want us to have oversight of a very large, very complex office headed by an elected official who we are peers with,” she said, later adding that it’s a “little awkward” to “work with the sheriff on oversight for the sheriff.”

Arroyo said she would be “open to putting this on the ballot,” but emphasized that doing so was not intended as an attack on Honsal.

“[This] isn’t a statement of anything to do with our current sheriff,” she said. “I see this as an opportunity … to have some more transparency and trust developed in what [HCSO’s] processes are, and for folks to ultimately have more confidence in the systems that we have in place.”

Bohn | Screenshot

Bohn felt the whole proposal was completely unnecessary, given that Honsal’s “governing body” are the voters of Humboldt County. “If he’s not doing it right, he’s not staying, and I have full faith in that system,” he said. “We’ve got good people doing it, and I’m not gonna blow smoke up their heinies on that, but we’ve got good guys, and they’re led by good guys.”

Going back to the critical incident Madrone referenced earlier in the meeting, Bohn said, “[The driver] didn’t do what he was directed to do, and it escalated. Do what they ask, and it won’t escalate.” 

Bushnell asked if the call for independent oversight was triggered by a recent event. After being told that it hadn’t, she said she would be more comfortable with a signature-gathering campaign to put a measure on the ballot. “Those signatures [would indicate that] yeah, there’s 9,000 folks out there in our community of Humboldt that want this, and that’s really glaring,” she said.

Board Chair and Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson said he could understand concerns around transparency in law enforcement, noting that he had poor experiences as a younger person. “That was a long time ago, though, I want to just be really clear, I also have some very positive experiences with law enforcement as well.”

Wilson felt, if a measure were to appear on the ballot, that it would be very likely to pass. “My caution on that is when we go through that process and we create an ordinance through a ballot measure, it becomes very inflexible, and it becomes hard for us to manage [and] to make changes,” he said. “I would prefer that we do an ordinance through this board so that it allows us to amend it in the future in a much better, easier way.”

‘The sheriff is the subject matter expert’

Honsal delivered his own 20-minute statement after the board’s initial remarks. With Undersheriff Justin Braud seated at his side, Honsal emphasized that a sheriff is not beholden to a board or council. “The sheriff works for the people,” he said.

Honsal | Screenshot

“By electing the sheriff, the community ensures this role is directly accountable to the people they serve,” Honsal continued. “The electoral process allows residents to influence who manages our local law enforcement and how their concerns are addressed. The sheriff is the subject matter expert. The sheriff is the one that’s elected to oversee and have oversight over the sheriff’s office. … I’m the person that the people trust to oversee the sheriff’s office.”

Honsal also disputed the notion that “there’s some kind of mistrust” in his department. “I believe that the trust this community has with the sheriff’s office is at an all-time high, and I ask each one of you to prove me wrong,” he said.

Gesturing to two stacks of books and binders, Honsal emphasized that all of the HCSO’s policies and procedures can be found online, and said that anyone who has questions or concerns about the policies can request review. “Anyone can critically review these policies — you don’t have to be on an oversight committee,” he said. “We don’t necessarily advertise that this is going on because this is stuff that people do every day.”

Honsal also detailed how the sheriff’s office responds to critical incidents, which, depending on the severity, may be subject to review by the county’s Critical Incident Response Team (CIRT), including representatives from the local police departments, the District Attorney’s Office, the California Highway Patrol, and, in some cases, the Humboldt County Coroner’s Office and the California Department of Justice. 

For example, following an officer-involved shooting, the HCSO will issue a press release announcing a CIRT investigation. Once the investigation is complete, the DA will make a determination in the case. “The DA has not been opposed to criminally charging anyone with the sheriff’s office,” he said. “We’ve had cases and where, where sheriff’s office employees have been prosecuted under the law and convicted.”

As he concluded his statement, Honsal emphasized that “there is no evidence to support that this current system is not working.” He added that a civilian-led oversight committee, if it were formed, would serve as an advisory body to the board, but that’s where it’s power would end.

“They have no inherent authority over the office of the sheriff, and I think that’s very important,” he said. “This is the difference between what the City of Eureka has and what you’re proposing here. This committee … can’t institute or make the sheriff’s office do anything. … The county would waste time and money and resources in a difficult budget time to prove what we already know: the sheriff’s office is committed to serve our community [and] to earn the public’s trust through compassion and accountability.”

[It is perhaps worth noting that there are about a dozen California sheriff’s departments have adopted additional oversight measures, according to the California Coalition for Sheriff Oversight (CCSO).]

‘This isn’t about fixing anything, it’s about enhancing what already exists.’

Of the 20-odd people who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting, the majority of speakers advocated for additional oversight of the sheriff’s office, many of whom emphasized that calls for transparency should not be taken as a criticism. (“This isn’t about fixing anything, it’s about enhancing what already exists,” as one person put it.) 

Going back to Honsal’s previous statement about trust in law enforcement being at an all-time high, Eureka resident Dan Rathbun said “this is the perfect time to establish an oversight committee.”

“Honsal has been elected over and over again — good for us and good for him — but who knows what the next sheriff is going to bring,” he said. “One thing I can tell you is that democracy makes mistakes. The People elect crooks. The People elect horrible people, and when those people are in office, we are going to wish we had more checks and balances. … And now is a time we can do it without friction, when there’s no there’s no problems in the sheriff’s office when we don’t have to fix a bunch of shit.”

Eureka resident Margaret Dickinson echoed the previous speaker’s comments, emphasizing that Honsal has done “an excellent job” in his role and thought it was unfortunate that he felt so “strongly about defending [himself].”

Dickinson | Screenshot

“I don’t think you need defending. … I’ve only had one unfortunate encounter with the sheriff’s deputy many years ago — it was over a dog — and I really would like you to think about the fact that we’re all here temporarily,” she said, noting her “advanced age.” “We don’t know what the future holds … and I think that it is important to think about the structure of government and what we’re leaving behind. I think it is important that citizens have the opportunity to function as part of the government, and I think it’s a real opportunity to set up something that would be effective.”

Several other speakers, many of whom were family members of or associated with law enforcement in some capacity, felt the creation of an oversight committee was redundant, if not insulting to the department. HCSO deputy Julian Aguilera questioned how the formation of an oversight committee would impact morale, emphasizing that he has “never given a reason for a citizen not to trust me or the ability to perform my duties.”

“We’re not doing anything wrong, but it’s going to be an extra layer of stuff that we have to think about,” he said. “I fully support our sheriff [and] I trust his administration. He has never steered us wrong, and there’s a reason why he’s getting reelected every time [he] runs.”

Destry Henderson, president of the Humboldt Deputy Sheriff’s Organization, argued against the proposal, noting that civilian-led oversight committees don’t have a “meaningful understanding of how policing works.”

Henderson | Screenshot

“It appears to be designed as another opportunity to bash the hard-working, low-paid deputies who serve our community with honor and second-guess their fellow elected representative, the sheriff,” he said. “Transparency and community relationship has greatly improved in the last decade and continues to yearly.”

‘This is about an office that has a very different type of power’

Following public comment, the board spent another 45 minutes hashing out next steps for a ballot measure and asked Juan Pablo Cervantes, the county’s clerk-recorder and registrar of voters, to explain the process for a county-sponsored ballot measure versus a citizen-led initiative. 

Cervantes said the cost of placing a measure on the November ballot would be a “negligible addition … especially since we’re not likely to have a one-card ballot.” As far as logistics go, staff would need to submit the ballot text and question by Aug. 7 at the latest. He added that it would be near-impossible for community members to gather the required number of signatures — somewhere around 5,000 — before the deadline.

Asked how drafting a ballot measure would impact staff time, CAO Hayes said her staff would “wring her neck” if she gave OK’d the proposal, noting that staff is still working on the county budget and has a tremendous workload to get through before the fast-approaching summer break.

After a bit of back and forth, Wilson reminded his peers that the board was being asked to “investigate the formation of a civilian-led oversight system for HCSO,” not to place a measure on the ballot. Going back to his previous statement, he suggested that the ad hoc work with staff to draft an ordinance that would establish civilian oversight committee, which would give the board the option to make changes to the document down the line. 

Arroyo reiterated her previous point about the “awkward” nature of working with the sheriff about increasing oversight over his department.

Arroyo | Screenshot

“I don’t disagree that we should communicate with the sheriff about this,” she said. “It’s just … a little awkward to say, like, ‘Oh, can you oversee yourself?’ I think the point that we all could use some input and oversight is well-taken, but this is about an office that has a very different type of power than we have, and that’s why people are asking for it. It’s incredibly different type of power and organization.”

After some additional conversation, Wilson made a motion to form a new ad hoc — comprised of just Arroyo and Bushnell — to research potential oversight systems and work with staff to come up with a draft ordinance for review by the end of September. Bushnell seconded the action.

The board approved the motion in a 4-1 vote, with Bohn dissenting. Before casting her vote, Bushnell noted that she was voting yes on the item because, if she didn’t, was was worried that it would “go in a different direction.”