Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Icac Priorities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ICAC adopts priorities, outlines workplan steps and asks staff to clarify complaint routing
Summary
The Independent Civilian Advisory Commission adopted three priorities — community and staff engagement; transparency and accountability; and improved communication for incarcerated people — and discussed next steps, timelines and how public complaints should be routed to avoid confusion and protect complainants.
The Independent Civilian Advisory Commission (ICAC) voted to adopt a set of priorities and discussed concrete next steps, draft timelines and a public complaint routing protocol for San Mateo County.
Commission Chair Kalima Salhuddin opened discussion of priorities and thanked members for meeting on a Saturday. Commissioners then described three workstreams the commission will pursue: community and staff engagement; transparency and accountability (including post‑Measure A planning and further study of an inspector general model); and improved communication between incarcerated people and their families.
On community engagement, commissioners said the plan is to identify three neighborhoods for public forums based on service calls, complaints and incarceration rates; develop three open‑ended questions and an exit survey; and hold a minimum of three meetings with at least 25 residents each. Commissioners described timelines for initial outreach and forum scheduling in spring months.
The transparency and accountability subgroup said it will focus on clarifying the county’s post‑Measure A process (if Measure A passes), public communication and options for inspector‑general structures. Chair Salhuddin presented an early draft communication plan that recommended a public website with timelines and candidate materials if the Board of Supervisors leads an appointment process after Measure A. The commission discussed using community input for candidate attributes and establishing a timeline for board updates.
Commissioners also discussed operational complaints that come to individual commissioners or to the commission email. County counsel and staff advised that allegations of misconduct by a specific officer should be directed to existing complaint channels (the Sheriff's Office citizen complaint form, HR for employee issues, or the county whistleblower hotline), and that the commission itself is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and not a separate investigatory office. Commissioners asked staff to draft standard referral language and an intake protocol so members can forward public inquiries without implying the commission will investigate matters that require statutory channels.
The commission adopted the priorities by voice vote. Members asked staff to prepare a template for each subgroup’s work plan with timelines and to bring first‑draft workplans to a future meeting (commissioners suggested April for subgroup draft presentations). The body also reviewed and cleared a mission statement revision clarifying the commission provides recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Sheriff’s Office.
Public commenters encouraged the commission to press the Board of Supervisors to expand the commission’s statutory duties and to consider a permanent inspector general regardless of the Measure A outcome. Community members also urged independent intake mechanisms so people who fear retaliation do not have to file complaints internally with the Sheriff’s Office.
