###

PREVIOUSLY

• Humboldt Supervisors Advance Proposal to Increase Civilian Oversight Over HCSO, Despite Pushback From Sheriff Honsal

###

Oopsie! 

Humboldt County appears to have violated California’s open meetings law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, somewhere around the 10-hour mark of Tuesday’s absurdly long Board of Supervisors meeting.

In order to remedy that apparent infraction, the board will be re-hearing the item that was under discussion at the time: whether or not to establish an independent, civilian-led oversight committee for the Sheriff’s Office. The do-over will be added to the agenda for the board’s May 12 meeting.

Why is this necessary? Well, the Brown Act has very strict provisions protecting the public’s right to participate in local government meetings. Since 2020, when COVID lockdowns temporarily prevented most in-person participation, many meetings have been held in “hybrid” form (in-person plus remote), and the law has evolved through statutes like AB 361 to allow remote access under certain conditions.

On Tuesday, both systems were interrupted. Late in the meeting, the Zoom feed started glitching. Third District Supervisor and Board Chair Mike Wilson tried to ask a question of Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Juan Pablo Cervantes, who’d been participating via Zoom, but he’d logged off. County Administrative Office Elishia Hayes explained why.

“We’re having a lot of audio troubles, and so Juan was driving down here,” she said. “Apparently it’s very difficult to hear in the public.” 

A moment later, Hayes said, “Oh, he’s here but the courthouse is closed.” Chuckling, she added, “So we need somebody to let him in.”

Here’s the meeting video queued up to the moment when Hayes explains the accessibility issues:

If you listen carefully, as attendees laugh about this comedy of errors you can hear First District Supervisor Rex Bohn say something about “having an illegal meeting.” 

Yesterday, the Outpost emailed the county to ask about this apparent Brown Act violation. Shortly after 6 p.m., Public Information Specialist Cati Gallardo wrote back, saying:

The county is aware of those concerns. To ensure all who wish to participate in the process have the opportunity to do so, the Board of Supervisors will be rehearing the item on Tuesday, May 12. Staff will be modifying the agenda item to reflect the discussion and recommendations from Tuesday’s meeting and public comment will be open for any community member who wishes to participate.

This is likely to be a bummer of a do-over for everyone involved — unless you happen to be a member of the public who was unable to participate. It’s a bummer because the first time around, this hearing alone lasted nearly two and a half hours, including the public comment period. And the discussion was often fraught, with Sheriff William Honsal pushing back against the proposed oversight committee while many members of the public urged the board to establish such oversight. (Read my colleague Isabella Vanderheiden’s full report of the hearing here.)

At the end of the meeting, the board voted 4-1 to have a two-member ad hoc committee start drafting an ordinance, with the goal of having it ready by September. A community group has also been advocating for a sheriff’s oversight board and reportedly has a voter initiative drafted and ready for inclusion on local ballots in November. The group is waiting to see what the board does before moving ahead with a signature-gathering effort.

We’ll have to wait to see if the supervisors vote the same way on May 12. If you’d like to weigh in, the public will now have the rare chance for a “second bite at the apple,” to employ one of the board’s favorite phrases.