County counsel says deleted language removes OIG's power to investigate specific incidents; supervisors and residents urge stronger oversight

Alameda County's chief assistant county counsel, Andrea Weddle, told the Public Protection Committee on July 24 that an amendment adopted during the ordinance's first reading removed the provision that would have explicitly allowed the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate specific incidents involving sheriff's personnel.

"That provision provided that the OIG shall investigate specific incidents involving sheriff's office personnel," Weddle said, describing the deleted subsection and adding that, as drafted now, the OIG retains authority to monitor and review incidents and to conduct systemwide investigations and policy recommendations but not to conduct investigations focused on individual personnel.

The distinction matters to supervisors and several public commenters. Supervisor Miley said she favors adopting an ordinance rather than placing the issue on the ballot and expressed reluctance to delegate authority the Board already holds, saying it is important "to limit [the inspector general's] authority to what we have passed when we advance the first reading of the ordinance." She argued an ordinance lets the Board amend delegation more easily than a ballot measure would.

Two members of the public who addressed the committee urged stronger independent review. Mike Chase, an ACLU volunteer from District 2, said the deletion "reduces sheriff oversight to weak and ineffectual oversight" and called the moment critical for the Board in deciding whether it will back effective oversight. Bruce Schminken, a resident of Oakland, said he had been told the subsection was deleted because it was redundant but that the counsel's presentation made clear the purpose of the deletion was to prevent the OIG from having full investigative powers; he said the delete "handcuffs the board" and removes an important tool for gathering information on alleged abuse in the jail.

Weddle cautioned the committee that AB 1185 itself does not create an independent source of investigative authority. She said state law requires the Board to identify and delegate the specific powers it intends the oversight bodies to exercise and noted labor-law constraints: second-reading and adoption of the ordinance remain deferred pending completion of required meet-and-confer with impacted employee organizations.

Margarita Zamora, director of Human Resource Services, described the county's meet-and-confer process, noting the county initiated that outreach in November 2024 to six impacted employee organizations and that the process can include mediation and fact-finding if the parties reach impasse. She said one affected union chose not to meet, while the county is conferring in good faith with the remaining groups.

The committee received clarification from counsel that previous litigation in other counties (including Sonoma) and PERB decisions underscore the need to complete meet-and-confer before implementation, and supervisors discussed how long implementation has taken elsewhere (Sonoma roughly three years was referenced).

Next steps: staff will continue meet-and-confer with impacted employee organizations, return to the Board with updates, and bring any ordinance amendments back for formal consideration after the labor process is resolved. No formal vote on the ordinance was taken at the committee meeting.