Board directs inspector-general contract, opens path to end SCAP reimbursements and asks staff to draft outside‑employment policy

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors on July 7 moved decisively on sheriff oversight and federally linked jail reimbursement funding after a daylong presentation and extensive public comment.

The board unanimously directed staff to pursue the ad hoc committee’s recommendation to contract for an independent inspector general to provide external oversight of the sheriff’s office. Staff estimated an initial contracted inspector-general plus administration might cost in the low hundreds of thousands annually and asked the board to authorize development of a scope of work and a contract procurement process.

The board also debated the county’s participation in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAP), a federal reimbursement program that pays localities for incarceration costs tied to certain qualifying detained non‑citizens. Staff described SCAP as an arrears‑based reimbursement program administered by a contractor (Justice Benefits, Inc. or JBI) that compiles millions of records and submits them to the Department of Justice. Supervisors and many public speakers raised concerns that SCAP reporting could be used — or perceived to be used — to support immigration enforcement and erode community trust. The sheriff's office said SCAP is a reimbursement mechanism that does not provide ICE with real‑time biometric data and that previous reviews found no documented cases of SCAP submissions leading to ICE detentions in Monterey County.

Given the policy sensitivity, the board directed the CAO to analyze what ending SCAP participation would mean for the sheriff’s budget and to propose timing and backfill options. Staff noted the county budget had included SCAP revenue in the sheriff’s revenues (approximately $625,000 last year and an estimated $1.2 million for a subsequent year depending on federal funding levels), and ending participation would require replacing that revenue or adjusting budgets.

The board further directed staff to draft a county policy prohibiting future outside employment by county employees that would create a conflict with county values, specifically work with federal immigration enforcement agencies, and to proceed through required meet‑and‑confer steps with employee unions. Supervisors stressed confidentiality limits under POBAR mean the county cannot simply publish personnel moonlighting records, but the board can change county employment policies going forward.

Finally, the board authorized use of public‑defender funding to place an on‑site immigration advisor in the jail (a new deputy public defender with immigration expertise was introduced during the meeting), and directed continued progress on a financial audit of the sheriff’s office being conducted by GPP Analytics, with a target for a public report later in the year.

The motions were adopted unanimously (recorded 5–0 vote). Board members asked staff to return with detailed scopes, budget impacts and proposed ordinance or policy language.