Public, commissioners debate San Mateo County’s on‑call inspector‑general bench and calls for a permanent office

San Mateo County staff described the current process for engaging on‑call inspector generals and the firms under contract, while public commenters and some commissioners urged the commission to recommend a permanent inspector general with subpoena power.

At a commission meeting, Dr. P. Haney of county staff said the Board of Supervisors authorized a bench of on‑call inspector generals after reviewing models from other jurisdictions and soliciting national and local experts. The county issued a request for qualifications in 2024, selected five qualified proposers and expects to activate specific firms by task order when work is needed. Haney said the board — or the County Executive Office acting under board authorization — would vote to authorize any activation and that task orders would be negotiated for each assignment.

The county presented the names of firms and individuals on the bench and said the RFP procured a mix of law firms and investigators, including the law offices of John Alden, Andelson, Loya, Rood & Romo, Integra Assure, Oppenheimer, and the Rene Law Group. Haney said the model was chosen so the county could match expertise to a matter and run multiple investigations concurrently if necessary.

Public commenters argued the bench model does not meet community needs. Bill Newell of community groups including the Coalition for a Safer San Mateo County and Fixing San Mateo told the commission: "The importance of a permanent inspector general with subpoena powers is a model that has been striven for in other oversight models in other counties." Newell urged the commission to press for a permanent, proactive office that could issue subpoenas when materials are not produced voluntarily.

Other public speakers echoed that view and cited local advocacy and national examples. A representative of Peninsula Anti‑Racism Coalition said the county should adopt a permanent inspector general so oversight bodies can subpoena records and testimony; Drew (public commenter) criticized the investigation by Judge Cordell, saying there was "a lot of opinion in the conclusions" and arguing a permanent office would reduce incentives for outside investigators to overstate findings.

Commissioners and staff clarified distinctions between the bench and a permanent office. One commissioner noted the bench model is what the Board selected after years of study and public testimony, while others said the commission could recommend the board consider establishing a permanent inspector general specifically assigned to the Sheriff's Office. County staff said what the bench provides today is an established contracting mechanism and that the commission can recommend further steps.

The commission did not adopt a formal motion to change the inspector‑general model at this meeting; members directed the transparency/accountability subgroup to review prior reports (including the Cordell work) and the county's existing procurement and contract processes and return with a researched recommendation.

Many public commenters urged that, regardless of structure, the county ensure a clear public complaint route outside the Sheriff’s Office so people who fear retaliation can report misconduct. Commissioners asked staff to prepare guidance on how the public should be referred when they bring complaints to individual commissioners so citizens know what procedures exist and what bodies investigate alleged misconduct.