I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

for Tuesday, December 16th, 2025.

Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll and establish a quorum?

Certainly.

Supervisor Kennedy.

Here.

Supervisor Desmond.

Here.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

Here.

Supervisor Hume.

Here.

And Chair Serna.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Can you please read our statement?

This meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors is live and recorded with closed

captioning.

It is cablecast on Metro Cable Channel 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and DirecTV U-verse cable systems.

It is also live streamed at metro14live.saccounty.gov.

Today's meeting replays Friday, December 19th at 6 o'clock p.m. on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at youtube.com forward slash metro cable 14.

The Board of Supervisors fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages the public to participate, civility, and use courteous language.

The Board does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed toward any meeting participant.

Seating is limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Each speaker will be given two minutes to make a public comment and are limited to making one comment per agenda, off-agenda item.

Please be mindful of the public comment procedures to avoid being interrupted while making your comment.

Comments made by the public during Board of Supervisors meetings may include information that could be inaccurate or misleading,

particularly concerning topics related to public health, voter registration, and elections.

The County of Sacramento does not endorse or validate the accuracy of public statements made during these open public forums.

The recordings are shared to provide transparency and access to the proceedings of public meetings.

To make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker request form and hand it to clerk staff.

The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda off-agenda item and direct the clerk to call the name of each speaker.

When the clerk calls your name, please come to the podium and make your comment.

If a speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of public comments,

the speaker waives their request to speak and the clerk will file the speaker request form in the

record. The clerk will manage the timer and allow each speaker two minutes to make a comment. Off

agenda public comments will take place for a maximum of 30 minutes. The remainder of the agenda

comments will take place at the conclusion of the timed matters in the afternoon. As a reminder,

rule of procedure 10b allows the chair to establish uniform time limits for people addressing the

board in relation to a particular matter. Such limits may be announced at the beginning of each

matter posted on the agenda and can include setting a specific amount of time devoted to

public comment for a particular item, announcing cutoff times for receipt of request to speak forms,

reducing the amount of time per speaker, or other reasonable and content neutral measures.

You may send written comments by email to boardclerk at saccounty.gov. Your comment will

be routed to the board and filed in the record. If you need an accommodation pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act or for medical or other reasons, please see clerk staff for

assistance or contact the clerk's office at 916-874-5451 or by email at board clerk at

sackcounty.gov. Thank you in advance for your courtesy and understanding of the meeting

procedures. Great, thank you. Mr. CEO, will you please do us the honor of leading us in the

CLEAR THIS MORNING.

I WANT TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO THIS MORNING'S BOARD

proceedings. This is our last meeting of 2025. In fact, it's my last meeting ever as chair of the

board. So without further ado, Mr. Clerk, please give us our first item. Our first item, public

comments relating to matters not on the posted agenda. And at the moment, we have no off agenda

speaker requests. Very good. Next item then.

Alright, next on the list we have

our consent calendar

items 2 through 39 and I have clerk notes.

First we have an addendum agenda

that was published with two items on it. First, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

Supervisor Rich Desmond of the 3rd Supervisorial District traveled to Santa Clara

California on December 1st through 5th 2025 for the California State Association of Counties

annual conference and the second item on the addendum agendas Sacramento County Board of

Supervisors Supervisor Rosario Rodriguez of the 4th Supervisoral District traveled to Santa Clara

County California on December 1st through 5th for the California State Association of Counties

131st annual meeting. And on our regular agenda, item number two, introduce an ordinance of the

Sacramento County Code amending sections 2.145.082 and 2.145.085 relating the Sacramento County

Employees Campaign, waive full reading, and continue to January 13, 2026 for adoption.

We have item number three, adopt an ordinance amending sections 2.115.300, 2.115.310, and 2.115.320

relating to contribution limits for on election years and an aggregate limit pursuant to the

review of biannual contribution limit adjustments.

Wave full reading and continued from December 9th, 2025, item number seven.

We have item number 11.

and continue to January 13, 2026 for adoption.

Item 15, adopt an ordinance to establish the fee schedule for voter registration

and elections for calendar years 2026 and 2027,

waived full reading and continued from December 9, 2025.

Item number 18.

And we also have a note on number 37,

request from Supervisor Rodriguez to introduce an ordinance amending chapter 9.120

to Title IX of the Sacramento County Code Relating to Camping.

Waive full reading and continue to January 13, 2026 for adoption.

Those are all the notes.

Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

I see that Supervisor Hume is in the queue.

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to make some brief comments on Item 27 and Item 33, please.

Item number 27 for the record.

authority to execute an expenditure agreement with Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District in

the amount of $575,000 for the term beginning January 1st, 2026 through November 30th, 2027

to expand the mobile integrated health program with the goal of improving patient outcomes

by increasing accessibility and utilization, reducing delays in appropriate care,

unnecessary emergency department visits, and hospital readmission rates.

Great, thank you

Regarding MIH

I just wanted to hold up

what a great program this is

the last time I was out at a metro fire station

receiving a presentation

they had gone out on four MIH calls that day

one of which they had actually

provided sutures to the patient

in the field and released them right there

and so it just keeps them out of the system

it's one of the ways that we're bringing down

APOT times, ambulance patient offload times

in Sacramento County

I want to thank staff, including Tim Lutz and our EMS director, Tom McGinnis, as well as our chief medical director for EMS, Dr. Greg Kan and Dale Ainsworth, as well as all of our partners with the hospitals, the fire districts for doing this.

I think it's a critical piece, and I'm glad to see this extra funding.

I know that I just took some of my remaining TOT funds and directed $20,000 toward Kisuma CSD for them to continue their MIH program.

So I think between this and triage to alternate destination, those are critical tools in bringing down our APOC time.

So I want to thank staff for providing this funding.

And item 33, authorization to apply for the fiscal year 2026-27,

Boating Safety and Enforcement Financial Aid Program funding

and the amount of $287,451 from the California Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Boating

and Waterways and Authorization to participate in the program.

And so staying on the theme of public safety,

I just wanted to thank Sacramento Sheriff's Office Marine Enforcement Sergeant Sam Flores

for all of the work that his department does on the Delta.

I had the opportunity to go out and join them on their joint enforcement day

with all of the counties that touch the Delta.

They all go out and kind of do a shock and awe

in order to make sure that everybody has their life preservers

and that they're not imbibing too much

and that they're being safe on the water.

And, you know, my wife has an aversion for boating

because just like when you're in an airplane,

if something goes bad while you're out on the water,

it has the potential to go really bad.

And so marine enforcement is not just about penalizing,

but it's about making sure that everybody's out there safe

and that everybody makes it home.

And so I just want to thank Sergeant Flores

and all the work that he does out on the river day in and day out.

All right, very good.

Thank you, Supervisor Hume.

Any other of my colleagues wish to pull an item from consent for discussion?

Separate votes.

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to speak on consent matters?

We have nobody signed up to speak on consent matters today.

I'll go ahead.

Oh, second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Please vote.

The consent calendar passes unanimously 5-0 with all members present.

Very good.

Thank you.

Next item, please.

All right.

Next item on the agenda, we have nominations, item number 43.

and today we will be continuing the following to january 13th

2026 the adult aging commission the cemetery advisory commission

consume cosume's area community planning advisory council orangevale community planning advisory

Council, and South Sacramento Area Community Planning Advisory Council. And the following

items will be continued to January 27, 2026. We have the Local Child Care Planning and

Development Council. We have the Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Advisory Board.

We have the Natomas Community Planning Advisory Council, the Public Financing Authority of the

County of Sacramento Metro Air Park Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, and the

Sacramento County Behavioral Health Youth Advisory. And the items we will be talking about

today. First we have the Carmichael Recreation and Park District item and Supervisor Desmond

has one seat. Please continue to January 13th. Thank you very much. We also have the Equal

Employment Opportunity Advisory Committee and Chair Cerna there are three citizen member seats.

Chiefs are recommending the nomination of Maisha Roberts and please continue the remainder until January 27th, please.

Thank you very much.

We have the Fair Oaks Community Planning Advisory Council.

Supervisor Desmond, there are three seats.

Please continue to February 10th.

Thank you.

We have the Health and Human Services Coordinating Council.

There are ten community member seats.

First off, we have Chair Cerna, two seats.

For the first district, please continue until January 27th.

Thank you.

And Supervisor Kennedy, two seats.

Please continue to January 27th.

Thank you.

Supervisor Desmond, two seats.

Continue to January 27th, please.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Rodriguez, two seats.

Please continue the seats until January 13th.

Thank you.

And Supervisor Hume, two seats.

I would like to continue to January 27th, please.

Thank you very much.

In-home Supportive Services Advisory Committee.

Chair Serna, there are 10 seats.

Chiefs are recommending the nomination of Michelle Stewart.

Please continue the remainder to January 13th.

Thank you.

Sacramento County Youth Commission.

There are two seats.

And Chair Serna, you have one.

I'd like to nominate Julianne Hill.

Thank you.

And Vice Chair Rodriguez, you have one seat.

Please continue to January 13th.

Thank you very much.

Sheriff Community Review Commission, Supervisor Hume, you have one seat.

Please continue to January 27th.

Thank you.

And those are all the nominations for today.

All right.

Very good.

Next item then.

So our options are moving on to county exec comments and supervisor comments or taking a break because we cannot take our hearings until 10 o'clock.

Okay.

Then I suspect we will probably just stand in recess until 10 o'clock.

Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to call back to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors for Tuesday, December 16th, 2025.

Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll and reestablish a quorum?

Certainly. Supervisor Kennedy.

Here.

Supervisor Desmond.

Here.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Here.

Supervisor Hume.

Here.

And Chair Cerna.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Very good. Next item, please.

Next item on the agenda is number 40, adopt a resolution to vacate, abandon a portion of March Smith Way right of way in the Fair Oaks community and reserve certain public utility easement for continued access.

Good morning.

Before presenting, I need to, I'm sorry, I'm Jody Hashigami-Contreras with Department of Community Development County Engineering.

Before presenting, I need to update the recommended actions to the record.

So to the two recommended actions, I need to add,

one, open the public hearing on proposed vacation,

and number two, close the public hearing after considering all public testimony

for and against the proposed vacation.

Okay.

Okay.

So the item we have before you is a request to abandon the northwesterly portion of the right-of-way of Martsmith Way and to reserve the underlying public utility easement.

Can I use this? Sorry.

Sorry.

As you can see, there are two properties that front the 20-foot right-of-way along the portion of Martsmith Way that is the subject of the abandonment request.

The 20-foot right-of-way was initially acquired as an irrevocable offer of dedication, or IOD, recorded on July 2, 1992, in Book 1992-0702, page 1117.

Subsequently, the IOD was accepted and recorded on October 17, 2016, in Book 2016-1017, page 1823.

The property owners of 4832 Mart Smith Way, identified as Parcel 3, and 4838 Mart Smith Way, identified as Parcel 4,

contend that the right-of-way is not designed for public street purposes and creates unsafe ingress and egress concerns,

and thus this portion should be vacated and returned to an IOD status for when future development on the south side of this portion of Mart Smith Way occurs.

approval of the abandonment would relinquish the right-of-way along this portion of mart smith way

additionally the existing public utility easement would be reserved and excluded from the vacation

letters are on file from the utility purveyors from the sacramento area sewer district and

departments of planning transportation and water resources indicating that these departments have

reviewed and do not object to the abandonment therefore staff recommends that the board

recognize the exempt status of this abandonment and adopt the attached resolution. So this concludes

my presentation so I can try to answer any questions that you may have and we also have

Department of Transportation present if needed. Thank you. All right very good thank you very much.

Any questions for staff? Supervisor Hume. Thank you chair I do just have one question and I think

I heard you cover it. We do retain the IOD so that if the parcel is below or to the south I don't know

what that would be those four skinnier parcels if they were to split and develop in the future

we would be able to come back in with a right-of-way? That's correct. Okay great. Thank you.

In that case I'd move the item. Okay

we have a motion to second. Do we need to open the public hearing? Yes. Everyone give me a chance.

Alright so we'll open the public hearing. Mr. Clerk do we have anyone sign up to speak?

We have three speakers currently signed up. First up is Stephen Anderson.

Thank you board of supervisors. My name is Steven Anderson. I am one of the owners of parcel number

four 4838 Mark Smith way. The reason first we didn't know that there was ever an IOD that was

accepted in 2016 the county's website always showed that the roadway was

private which benefited us because we could control parking as it's only 20

feet wide if certain vehicles of a certain size park being at the dead end

I could not get out obviously if there were a fire or another kind of emergency

and somebody were parked back there I would have a difficult time getting my

family out secondly there is no turnaround there's no way that an

ambulance or a fire truck my driveway has to be used to turn around back there

that has caused damage from public coming back there they've backed into

the fence there my driveway is very steep and any roadway repairs because it

was accepted as a right-of-way, but it doesn't meet any roadway standards.

Any right-of-way is, or I'm sorry, any repairs are on me.

So we have to take care of that.

And there is an ADU that has been built in the rear of 87 to 87 Sunset.

He has access from the front.

He's choosing not to use it.

he the person who owns this right away we've dealt with constant construction and harassment from

anything from attorneys to construction workers blocking the road so we thank you for your

consideration take care thank you thank you

And our next speaker is Megan Anderson.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Megan Anderson.

Along with my husband, we own 4838 Mark Smith's Way.

Both of the houses are owned by Anderson families.

So we have our, just to avoid any confusion on that.

I want to thank mostly and firstly I want to thank Jody and the other people and individuals that we have worked with with the county.

This resolution represents a compromise that we were able to reach with the guidance of individuals from the county.

Initially, we had filed an application for abandonment, and they recommended to us that we incorporate the IOD that Supervisor Hume brought up, which would allow future development of the properties to the south of that parcel of roadway.

This compromise and our ability to work out a solution that benefits everyone is supported by the entire neighborhood with one exception.

and that exception is the property owner and his attorney on one of the properties mentioned by my husband, the ADU owner,

because he wants to access his property from the rear,

which would create significant safety concerns for our family as well as our neighbors.

The entire neighborhood is for this application, and so we ask that you grant it today.

but I do want to mention in anticipation of the third speaker that all we are asking from our

neighbors is that they abide by the legal process and follow the law and follow the rules that the

county has. The county has graciously given them many options in order to access the property in

the way they want to do that and they can file to split their lot to access the property from the

and this IOD will allow them to do that if they follow the legal process.

And so far they haven't been willing to do that.

So I just want to say those words in anticipation of the third speaker

and I thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you.

All right.

Our third speaker is Mark Lees.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Mark Lees.

I'm the attorney for John

Chewy and Mr. Chewy is the

owner of the property located

at 8787 and 8791 Sunset

Avenue.

First of all Mr. Chewy wanted

to be here today to address the

issues but he has a work

obligation out of town and he

did not receive the notice of

the hearing in the mail, the letter dated December 9th which was a week ago

today until Saturday. So he contacted me and asked me to appear on his on his

behalf. This property, Mr. Chewy's property consists of a of a primary

residence and an accessory dwelling unit situated in the back. The ADU was

was constructed by the prior owner to Mr. Chewy in approximately November of 2024,

and Mr. Chewy acquired the property in January of 25.

The property is bordered on the north side by Mark Swift Mithway,

a public road owned by the county through the irrevocable offer of dedication recorded in 2016.

There is an access gate from Mark Smith Way at the rear of the property.

Mr. Chewy purchased this property and intended to use the gate at the back of the property

bordering Mark Smith Way to access the ADU.

Mr. Chewy retained an engineering firm to discuss with the county his plan for rear access to the property of Martsworth Way

and was informed by the county that they would require further additional dedications

and right of way to have the road widened and improved.

We're at three minutes if you could conclude your remarks.

All right.

We're requesting that at a minimum the board of supervisors continue this hearing to allow us to provide additional information given the notice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone else sign up to speak?

There are no other speakers signed up for this matter.

Okay, very good. Then I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board.

Any interest in a motion?

My motion stands.

Okay.

Okay.

It's been moved in a second.

Please vote.

This item passes unanimously 5-0 with all members present.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Next item, please.

Next item is number 42, Sheriff Community Review Commission Annual Update.

Actually, my apologies.

I flipped the wrong page.

We are on item 41.

George Hill Company, Inc.

Annual Report, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2025.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm going to spend hopefully just a couple minutes going through a bunch of numbers

that we do this every year.

and let you know how we did last year, the last fiscal year.

The first slide.

You'd think I'd know by now.

First slide is the liability claims filed and closed by fiscal year.

if you may remember in the past we only tend to focus on like the past three years

and there was a request several years ago to expand the display of these numbers.

So we with the help of risk management actually with a lot of help from risk management

they produced a bunch of numbers for you.

AS YOU'LL SEE LAST YEAR, THE NUMBER OF OPEN CLAIMS INCREASED FROM 745 TO 877.

AND LOOKING BACK AT THAT, THERE REALLY WASN'T ANY PARTICULAR REASON FOR THAT.

I'M GOING TO TALK IN A FEW MINUTES ABOUT THE CONTINUING ASSEMBLY BILL 218 CASES,

with which are the alleged abuse of minors because those continue to come in.

But generally speaking, there wasn't really any kind of trend that I saw that would contribute to the increase.

It's interesting to note that the closed files were 588.

And you always search for 100% closing ratio every year.

And, of course, the higher the new increase or the higher the new claims that come in,

it is somewhat difficult to continue to close cases because you're working on the new cases that are coming in,

make sure those are up to speed, and sometimes the closings suffer.

So it was a difference of a couple hundred, 300, close to 300 difference,

which is not the trend we like to see.

but in past years as you will see that trend is more than 100% closing ratio.

So there's just a lot of factors that contribute to whether you can reach a 100% closing ratio every year.

I know I talked about this last year but that huge spike in 22-23 as you recall that was a really wet winter

and we had potholes and we had trees coming down and we had all kinds of things happening which is why we had that spike.

George Hill's administration fees,

these were down just a little bit from the previous year.

If you look at the 10-year average,

because most of these slides are 10 years,

the average actually over those 10 years is $770,000 a year.

THE LAST THREE YEARS,

THE LAST YEAR, AGAIN, IT'S

TICKED UP TO THE LAST THREE

YEARS BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER

BECAUSE OF THOSE AB 218 CASES.

NOTHING REALLY MORE THAN THAT

IN TERMS OF THINGS OTHER THAN

THE AMOUNTS THAT YOU CAN SEE

THAT THEY HAVE INCREASED OVER

THE LAST 10 YEARS.

THERE'S RATE INCREASES IN

THERE.

THERE COULD BE STAFFING

DIFFERENCES.

SOMETIMES YOU GET LARGER

THERE'S NOT ANY ONE THING THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THESE TYPES OF

INCREASES. BUT I'LL HAVE TO SAY I THINK OUR

THE AMOUNT THAT WE CHARGE IS AGAIN CERTAINLY WITHIN LINE WITH THE

NUMBER OF CLAIMS THAT WE HANDLE PER YEAR.

THE CLAIM PAYMENTS BY FISCAL YEAR YOU'LL SEE LAST YEAR OR THIS LAST

FISCAL YEAR 20,000, CALL IT 21

MILLION, SORRY, 21 MILLION FOR

OUR FEES.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S ALL TOTALLY

DEPENDED UPON THE TYPE OF

CLAIMS THAT COME IN.

AND I'M GOING TO SHOW A SLIDE

SHORTLY THAT SHOWS THE BREAKDOWN

IN TERMS OF SMALL CLAIMS VERSUS

THE REALLY LARGE CLAIMS.

AND I THINK THERE MAY BE A

LITTLE SURPRISE IN THAT.

BUT AGAIN, THAT SPIKE WAS 60

PERCENT, 66 PERCENT OF THAT 88

MILLION WAS ONE CLAIM.

IT WAS ACTUALLY ONE INCIDENT,

TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THAT.

BUT THAT'S WHY THAT SPIKE AND OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T SEE THAT

ANYWHERE ELSE IN ANY OF THESE OTHER YEARS.

THERE'S A 30 MILLION, THERE'S A 20 MILLION,

BOTH OF THOSE, THERE WERE SEVERAL LARGE EMPLOYMENT CASES

AND DEATH CASES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THOSE NUMBERS.

ATTORNEY'S FEES, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED BY THIS

THAT IT ACTUALLY WENT DOWN BECAUSE AGAIN THE AB 218

cases again the alleged child abuse cases now that they have I will use the term ripened over the

last couple years when they first came in there wasn't a lot to do for our attorneys in terms of

trying to do the necessary discovery to get the information to know whether in fact anything ever

happened well since they've been around now for a year or two there's more discovery being done

IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO HANDLE THOSE CASES.

SO I WAS EXPECTING THE ATTORNEY FEES LAST YEAR PROBABLY TO BE

SOMEWHAT EQUAL TO THE PRIOR YEAR BUT IN FACT IT WENT DOWN A LITTLE

BIT.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A HUGE AMOUNT BUT ANY TIME YOU SEE COSTS GOING

DOWN THAT'S A GOOD THING.

ATTORNEYS FEES BY FIRM.

THERE ARE TWO FIRMS THAT HANDLE THE AB 218 CASES AND THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE AMOUNT

SPENT IN 2425, THE PORTER SCOTT FIRM AND THE RIVERA HEWITT PAUL FIRM.

WE JUST STARTED WITH ONE FIRM BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF SIMILARIES IN EACH OF THE CASES

WHERE THE ABUSE IS ALLEGED AND SO WE WERE HOPING THAT WE COULD JUST HAVE IT HANDLED

THE CASE AS THEY GET CLOSER TO

EITHER A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE OR

TRIAL, THERE'S MORE ACTIVITY DONE

WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE AN INCREASE IN

THOSE AMOUNTS SPENT.

THE NEW ASSIGNMENTS BY FIRM,

UNFORTUNATELY THE LAWSUITS KEPT

COMING IN SO WE HAD TO ADD AND

THESE ARE ALL DEFENSE FIRMS ON

OUR PANEL BUT WE HAD TO ADD A

SECOND FIRM TO HANDLE THESE, THE

THE NEW ASSIGNMENTS BY FIRM,

THE LARGEST AMOUNT THAT WE'VE

HAD IN 10 YEARS, 121 NEW.

AGAIN, AND I HATE TO KEEP

REPEATING MYSELF, BUT IT IS

WHAT IT IS.

THESE NEW MOLEST CASES,

ALLEGED MOLEST CASES KEEP

COMING IN.

THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY

DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF THE

NUMBER OF LIKE EMPLOYMENT

CASES OR SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

CASES.

IT REALLY AGAIN SEEMS TO BE

TRIGGERED BY THESE AB 218 CASES, WHICH THEY'RE JUST TERRIBLE CASES

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MANY OF THESE HAPPENED 20, 30, 40 YEARS AGO.

AND ARE THERE RECORDS? PROBABLY NOT.

ARE THERE EVEN EMPLOYEES AROUND THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS?

PROBABLY NOT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF

YOU SAW, OH, I THINK IT WAS IN THE LAST YEAR, THERE HAVE BEEN HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS

AND EVEN LARGER VERDICTS IN THESE CASES WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN VIRTUALLY NO RECORDS.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, THE VERDICT, DEPENDING ON THE LIKABILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF WHO'S BRINGING

THE SUIT, THEY MAY BUY INTO THE ALLEGATIONS WHEN, IN FACT, THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF EVIDENCE

TO SUPPORT IT.

SO THERE ARE DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS CASES.

FORTUNATELY, SO FAR, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SETTLE.

WE'VE GOTTEN ONE, I BELIEVE THERE'S NOW 46, I WANT TO SAY, LISA.

IT MAY BE CLOSER TO 50 NOW.

AND WE'VE HAD A COUPLE SETTLED

FOR 50,000 OR LESS.

WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF THEM

DISMISSED.

WE'VE GOT SOME COMING UP FOR

TRIAL NEXT YEAR.

IN FACT, I THINK FOUR OR FIVE

COMING UP FOR TRIAL NEXT YEAR

ASSUMING THEY DON'T SETTLE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT OUR

BEST SHOT WHEN WE EVALUATE THE

CASE AND DETERMINE WHAT'S THE

LIKELIHOOD OF BEING ABLE TO

SELL THE CASE THAT WE DIDN'T

EITHER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO

WITH IT BECAUSE THERE WAS

ANOTHER AGENCY INVOLVED OR

OR THERE'S JUST NOT DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS.

AGAIN, YOU TAKE A BIG RISK WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE TO TRIAL BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT A JURY'S GOING TO DO.

THIS SHOWS A SUMMARY BY FISCAL YEAR AND WHEN I SAY THAT THESE ARE FOR INSTANCE 2015,

THESE WOULD BE LOSSES THAT

OCCURRED DURING 2015, 2016,

ALL THE WAY DOWN ON THE LEFT

SIDE OF THE PAGE.

SO A LOT OF THESE, THERE ARE

STILL OPEN CASES.

SO THIS DOCUMENT WILL SHOW AN

INCREASE IN THE AMOUNTS NEXT

YEAR.

FOR INSTANCE, THE MOST CURRENT

YEAR, 24, 25, THERE'S STILL A

LOT OF CASES THAT ARE STILL

OPEN AND THAT ARE GOING TO

CONTRIBUTE TO THOSE NUMBERS

BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEY MAY STAY

OPEN FOR TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS,

four years, and every year the amounts are going to increase. But again, this is really just a

snapshot of those occurring in that particular fiscal year, which is what this represents.

$180 million, that's a lot of money.

This is an interesting chart. As you will see, the zero to $7,500 claims represent 88% of all the

CLAIMS. SO WE OFTEN HEAR ABOUT ALL THE MONEY WE'RE SPENDING, WHICH IS TRUE, BECAUSE

CLAIMS ARE OUT THERE AND WE HAVE TO SETTLE THEM. BUT FORTUNATELY, 88% OF THEM ARE BETWEEN

$0 AND $7,500. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT THE VERY BOTTOM COLUMN, 10 CLAIMS OVER 2

MILLION IN TEN YEARS, THAT'S ONE A YEAR.

THAT'S NOT A LOT.

UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE IT'S OVER TWO MILLION, A LOT OF

THOSE WERE WAY OVER TWO MILLION.

BUT AGAIN, THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE EVERY YEAR, I

THINK IT'S PRETTY GOOD FOR A COUNTY OUR SIZE.

AGAIN, WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT OTHER

THAN DOING THE NECESSARY RISK MANAGEMENT WITHIN EACH

INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT TO TRY AND PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING

IN THE FIRST PLACE.

YOU KNOW ANYBODY CAN FILE A

LAWCITING CLAIM FOR ANYTHING

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TO DO WHAT

YOU CAN TO TRY AND SETTLE IT OR

HOPEFULLY SUCCESSFULLY REJECT

IT IF THERE'S NO BASIS FOR THE

CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE

FIRST PLACE.

THESE WERE ADDED THE LAST COUPLE

OF YEARS WITH THE REQUEST OF

YOUR BOARD SHOWING THE TOP 7

DEPARTMENTS IN TERMS OF HOW

THINGS BREAK OUT WITH THEIR

PARTICULAR CLAIMS.

I MENTIONED IN THE PAST THAT

TRANSPORTATION STILL REMAINS AT

THE TOP BECAUSE THERE WERE A

NUMBER OF YEARS WHERE

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT HAD

THE MOST CLAIMS OF ANYBODY,

EVEN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

BUT IN RECENT HISTORY, I WOULD

SAY WITHIN THE LAST FOUR OR FIVE

YEARS, THEIR NUMBERS HAVE GONE

WAY DOWN.

BUT AT ONE POINT THEY WERE SO

HIGH THAT IT'S TAKING TIME TO

WORK THAT NUMBER DOWN.

AGAIN, IN THE NEXT SLIDE YOU'LL

SEE EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE THE

NUMBER ONE PRODUCER OF THE

THE CLAIMS, WHAT THEY ACTUALLY

PAY OUT, PALES IN COMPARISON TO

LIKE THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

AND TRANSPORTATION, THAT CAN BE

A TRIP AND FALL, THAT CAN BE A

DANGEROUS CONDITION, POT HOLES,

TREES, THAT'S THE VARIETY OF

THINGS WE SEE FROM THE

TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

AND THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE

SHERIFF NO JAIL, 1348, THOSE

CAN BE, AGAIN, AUTO ACCIDENTS

WHEN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

THE DEPARTMENT IS DOING SOME ON-SITE PERHAPS SERVING

SEARCHING WARRANTS OR ARRESTING PEOPLE AND THEY HAVE TO GO IN.

THERE MIGHT BE DAMAGED PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE TO PAY.

UPON ARREST, A LOT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY CAN BE CONFISCATED, IF

YOU WILL, AND THEN WHEN THE PERSON GETS OUT, THE PROPERTY HAS

DISAPPEARED AND SO THERE'S MANY TIMES WHEN WE HAVE TO PAY THAT.

Excuse me. Yes, Vice Chair Rodriguez. So I have a question about the previous slide.

Sure. Transportation. So when we look at claims that are coming in, do we do sort of a mapping to find out where some of these claims are coming so that we can make some improvements to those particular roads?

THE CLAIM SYSTEM WHERE THESE CLAIMS ARE HOUSED, THERE'S A NUMBER OF FIELDS THAT ARE

FILLED OUT SO WE CAN IDENTIFY IF IT'S A ROAD CASE, WHAT TYPE OF CASE IT IS AND LOOK

FOR THE TRENDS TO WHERE THE BIGGEST NUMBER OF CLAIMS ARE COMING FROM.

I KNOW SARAH AND HER GROUP HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION AND WE COULD CERTAINLY, THAT'S

AGAIN CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD PROVIDE.

YEAH, I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT.

ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU.

SO HERE'S THE COST SLIDE.

AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT

TRANSPORTATION WAS THE LEADING

CONTRIBUTOR TO THE CLAIMS, AND

YET THE AMOUNT PAID OUT ON

THEIR BEHALF IS NOT EVEN CLOSE

TO SEVERAL OTHERS THAT ARE IN

THE TOP.

OH, I'M SORRY.

THERE WE GO.

THANKS DAVID.

AREN'T EVEN CLOSE TO SOME OF

THE TOP THREE.

SO AGAIN THAT INDICATES WHAT

IS HAPPENING IS THE NUMBER OF

CLAIMS HAS GONE DOWN

SIGNIFICANTLY AND THAT'S WHY

THAT NUMBER EVEN THOUGH THE

AMOUNT OF CLAIMS IS THE

HIGHEST THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER

IS DECREASING AND HAS

DECREASED.

SHERIFF DEPARTMENT NO JAIL

AGAIN THAT'S THINGS THAT

OCCUR OUT IN THE FIELD

THE FIELD, PARTICULARLY, WELL, PARTICULARLY EXCESSIVE FORT CASES THAT TYPICALLY WOULD HAPPEN OUT IN THE FIELD, DEATH CASES, EITHER OFFICER-INVOLVED SHOOTINGS OR OTHER TYPE OF DEATHS THAT MAY OCCUR BY THE ACTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT.

AND, OF COURSE, EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES CLAIMS WHICH AREN'T NECESSARILY OUT IN THE FIELD BUT THOSE WOULD BE YOUR WRONGFUL TERMINATION, DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT TYPE CLAIMS.

So we separate all claims by bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage.

Bodily injury is kind of what it sounds like.

You broke something, you sprained something, you severed some type of injury that required treatment.

Those will be loaded into the bodily injury.

And as you'll see, the auto is $48 million.

All others are $26 million.

again this is over 10 years so you're talking 7.5 million a year roughly

personal injury would be your wrongful death your employment practices again

discrimination harassment that sort of thing and property damage again kind of

self-explanatory

subrogation there's kind of two forms of subrogation this particular one is

DAMAGE TO COUNTY PROPERTY,

COUNTY VEHICLES, COUNTY

BUILDINGS, WHATEVER.

SO WE HAVE A SEPARATE

DEPARTMENT THAT HANDLES

THESE.

RISK MANAGEMENT WILL SEND

THEM TO US.

WE HAVE A SUPERVISOR AND I

BELIEVE THREE TECHNICIANS WHO

WILL GO OUT AND GO AFTER AN

INDIVIDUAL IF THEY'RE

UNINSURED.

WILL GO AFTER THE INSURANCE

COMPANY.

YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WAS THE

BANNER YEAR, ALMOST $1.1

MILLION IN RECOVERIES.

LAST YEAR $816,000 IN RECOVERY, MONEY ALL COMING BACK TO THE COUNTY.

AND THERE'S PLENTY OF ENTITIES THAT DON'T REALLY HANDLE

SEBRAGATION, AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT OTHERS DO,

BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE STAFF, AND TYPICALLY IF THEY HAVE A TPA

LIKE GEORGE HEALS, THEY WON'T USE THAT TPA TO DO IT.

THEY'LL TRY AND HAVE SOMEBODY, A CLERK OR SOMEBODY,

WITHIN THE PARTICULAR ENTITY TO HANDLE THESE.

AND OF COURSE THEY MAY SEND OUT A LETTER AND SOMEBODY WILL SAY GO

POUND SAND AND THAT'S THE END OF IT.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PURSUE IT.

WE'LL PURSUE IT AS FAR AS WE CAN AND AS LONG AS WE CAN UNTIL IT

LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT COST EFFECTIVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.

SO I LIKE TO THINK THAT WE CAN GET IT BACK UP OVER A MILLION

DOLLARS NEXT YEAR, THIS CURRENT YEAR I SHOULD SAY.

BUT THAT'S ANYBODY'S GUESS.

So questions, comments, anything else I can add?

Any other type of information going forward next year you'd like to see?

Great.

We have a few supervisors in the queue here.

We'll start with Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

I had a question, the incurred costs by the top seven departments for the past 10 years.

Do you have a comparison that shows the actual liability exposure compared to the incurred costs?

because the incurred costs are what we will end up paying out.

We maybe haven't paid it all yet,

but we will be paying out on each of these.

Is that correct?

Not totally because the incurred is paid plus reserves.

Right, right, right.

Technically, if you've overreserved it,

then, of course, that incurred number may come down.

Got it.

But yes.

Is there a comparison that shows what our potential liability was

and what the total incurred?

I'd just be curious.

Is that a report?

I'm sure that's probably a report.

Just to compare, hey, we were sued for $2 million

and it ended up, you know, that might be helpful.

And then the other thing with the AB 218,

that has engendered a lot of discussion at CSAC

and at the urban counties of California.

You know, the county of L.A. is really facing a serious fiscal cliff

with exposure from liability from AB 218 cases,

and everybody's really struggling with how do you make sure

we compensate victims of child sexual abuse,

but we're also facing much greater pressures to preserve precious general fund dollars,

obviously, in the wake of some things we discussed at our last meeting.

Do you have anything that's kind of tracking maybe what potential liability is?

So I guess in relation to my first question, I'd really like to see post-AB218 how we've seen liability exposure increase.

that would be helpful to me to see that and be able to even share at some of these

tables, some of these discussions with some of our urban county counterparts

at both UCC and CSAC. I'm sure we can prepare something like that. Thank you.

Yes. Senator Biser-Kennedy.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to, you know, as somebody who's as guilty as

anybody up here for making your presentation longer every year,

I want to thank you. This is very, very

transparent and I mean it for the public it it just gives more information than we used to have and

I really appreciate you doing that. And again you're also mostly thanking risk management for this

because they produced all this for me so. Thank you risk management. She's right there.

All right I don't see any other of my colleagues in the queue I'll just conclude by saying that

While the report given orally and in writing is less than inspiring in terms of what would otherwise be the festive atmosphere of the approaching holiday,

It is nonetheless, as my colleagues have iterated here, very important, I think, for us to understand trends, understand where we are in terms of our overall liability and risk.

And I'll just note too that, you know, after each of these open meeting proceedings that we have twice monthly,

we go into what many probably are less aware of, something called closed session.

And in closed session, this is when the members of the board along with our executive staff

and certainly county counsel as well as other associated outside legal counsel on occasion

get into the details about specific cases and lawsuit activity, threats of litigation.

So my point here is that this is kind of the public's one opportunity each year to get some insight

about generally about those difficult things that we hear, the five of us hear in sometimes

excruciating detail in closed session.

And I think it's really very important from a transparency perspective that the public

almost more so than the board be given this information so they can understand what goes

into some of the very difficult decision making that goes on literally behind closed doors for

legal reasons during closed session proceedings. So this is a receive only. So again, we appreciate

you giving us the report and wish you happy holidays. Thank you. Thank you. Same to all of you.

All right. Mr. Clerk, now on to the next item.

All right. Number 42, Sheriff Community Review Commission Annual Update.

Paul, good to see you.

Good to see all of you. Good morning, Chair Serda and fellow members of the board.

It's a pleasure to be here again. My name is Paul Curtis.

I'm chair of the Sheriff Community Review Commission, and joining me is Michael Whiteside, who's our vice chair.

So we produce, as you probably all know, we produce an annual report each year for the fiscal year.

this fiscal year into June 30th of 2025.

This report was previously shared with all of you on the board

and it's included in today's materials.

We had delayed this presentation

because I wanted to be able to include

some critical recommendations from the ad hoc committee

that addressed the mental health policy changes

within the sheriff's office,

which has taken a large amount of our time this year.

And those recommendations are critical.

It felt as important that we be able to present them now

and not wait a whole nother year to do so.

So we're excited to be here and present.

Great.

So a little bit of the timeline

about how this all came about.

In 2020, the legislature did AB 1885,

which gave the county's ability

to create sheriff oversight boards with subpoena power.

Before that, counties had no opportunities

for providing oversight at the sheriff's office.

in 2021 this the board established the community review commission about after a number of meetings

and discussions with community partners across the board i know supervisor kennedy led a lot of

those discussions in implementing this policy and i think it was really critical also want to know

when this commission was created we were one of only three commissions in the entire state with

all the counties that was created at that time.

It showed this county was taking leadership at a critical level, and I really appreciate

that at a personal level.

So, and our mission is to improve transparency and accountability with respect to the Sheriff's

Office and provide greater community interaction and communication with the Office of the Inspector

General.

And also note the Inspector General is here, Kevin Gardner, sitting back there, and I

also want to recognize Laura Foster, who's our analyst and supports our commission, who our commission couldn't do the work without her.

So the membership consists of two members appointed by each supervisor from their districts onto our board, plus a county executive member, which is Eric Jones, as our ex-officio member.

So we have on District 1 myself as chair and John Stoller.

District 2 is Bishop Chris Baker and Michael Whiteside as vice chair.

District 3 is William Cho and Ted Walter.

District 4 is Paul Bonaventure and Sam Summers.

District 5 is Teresa Riviera.

And we have a vacancy at District 5 and, again, with our county executive appointee as well.

So it's really members serve at two-year terms.

we really look ourselves as being the conduit between the the public and the sheriff's office

to really encourage accountability transparency as well and to have open lines of communication

going back and forth and that's really a big focus for us overall

so our ongoing activities you know what do we do as a commission we we hold meetings here in this

facility to provide a public space for us to hear from community members with their concerns

about the sheriff's office policies procedures and operations when I talk to people in the public

about the work that we do I always try to differentiate we look at policies and procedures

the inspector general looks at individual cases and I think that's a great model to work from

I personally wouldn't want to be part of a commission looking at individual cases I don't

think that some of I don't personally have that level of expertise where I'd feel comfortable

doing that but having an individual like kevin gardner is our inspector general gives us that

checks and balances and it works really really well so each month we check in with the inspector

general he presents his report talks about the the claims that he gets and we hear we're back

from that we get periodic updates and provide input on the may's consent decree which i know

takes a lot of your time and ours as well and as it relates to the sheriff's office and on jail

system facility planning projects and we hear from our ad hoc committees that conduct in-depth

reviews or evaluations of specific topics that have been identified as areas of concern or

opportunities for the sheriff's office the ad hoc committees are where the real work of the

commission takes place these small groups of commission members no more than for each to

be careful of the brown act meet with various stakeholders and ultimately produce a report

with recommendations, some of which you're going to hear about today.

The commission then considers those recommendations and votes

whether to move them forward.

The approved recommendations are then included in our annual review reports

and shared with the Sheriff's Office via the Inspector General.

Great.

So the first ad hoc we had was over this past year

is the outreach and community engagement ad hoc,

which wrapped up its work earlier this year led by commissioner william cho of district three who's

also in the back there as well and this committee focused on developing a brand identity for the

commission improving public facing materials and enhancing internal and external communications

the commission ultimately approved 15 of the 19 recommendations two of which pertain to the

sheriff's office the commission seeks to encourage the sheriff's office to send a representative to

each of our meetings so that they can hear community concerns directly and i share that

because the sheriff's office did not send a representative to our meetings from july

to october they did send a representative to our november meeting but it's really my personal hope

and wish and i think for all of us on the commission to have a representative for the

sheriff's office attend each of our meetings. It allows for that transparency and that ability to

build a level of trust back and forth that they know their concerns are also being heard by the

sheriff's office as well besides just us. So we're hoping that representatives will continue to attend.

Paul, before you leave that slide, and I know supervisor Rodriguez is in the queue here, but I'm

to ask you because you and I have had some conversations this year about the lack of

participation in attendance by a sheriff's representative which is concerning to me

and I've expressed that to you but when there has been a sheriff's representative

in attendance at the commission meetings is it typically the undersheriff that would would be

there or has it been different individuals at different dates that has attended?

Over the past couple of years, it's typically been the undersheriff, Mike Ziegler.

And then if his schedule is busy, he sends another representative.

For the meeting last month in November, it was another representative and not the undersheriff

who attended.

So I did have an opportunity to chat with the sheriff, Cooper, recently at another holiday

event and just we talked about that a little bit encouraged him to continue to send representatives

and why i feel that it's so critical to our overall operations and showing that level of

again transparency and accountability um it uh continues to be of great concern to me that um

uh it seems to be uh and i'm being generous here uh pretty ad hoc that um that you have a sheriff's

representative there. I'm looking to our county council. I don't know if there's anything that

we can do differently to compel participation or attendance at least, but it seems to me that

this is extremely unfortunate that we have, as was stated at the introduction of the presentation,

a great deal of interest in this community, in this county, and we're taking advantage of

of somewhat recent state law that, you know,

does compel all of us with this interest to, I think,

be that much more transparent as it relates

to the relationship and the goings-on between the community

and the sheriff's department through our commission work.

So my question to county council,

is there anything that we, the board,

could consider maybe to strengthen or underscore the need to have sheriff's office participation?

Well, as the chair knows, the sheriff is an independent elected official, so there's nothing

that you could legally do to compel his attendance or his subordinates' attendance. Again, I think

continuing to work on the relationship between the two, the board and the sheriff and staff,

and would be a way to do that.

Certainly you could pass a resolution.

Again, it wouldn't have the force to compel him to attend

or send someone to attend, but that is a possibility.

If you wanted to, I guess, amend the resolution

creating that community review commission.

So now I'm looking to our county CEO or Mr. Jones.

What I would like to do,

hearing what I just heard from county council,

And I know today we're just receiving the annual report, which is critical.

But what I would like to have prepared, I think by the end of January, I think is fair,

is that very resolution that I would like to carry.

And we'll find the right words to craft the reso,

but I think it needs to be formalized in the form of a resolution.

expressing our, I presume, our collective interest up here

for the sheriff's department to more actively participate

with the commission.

So I see Mr. Jones taking copious notes here.

And I don't know if you want to comment,

or David, if you'd like to comment,

but that's something that I'd like to pursue

at the beginning of the year.

Yes, Supervisor.

I think my comments would be around,

I know Deputy County Executive Jones has worked very closely with the undersheriff on that relationship that the county council has mentioned.

And we can absolutely bring something by the end of January.

Okay.

And it's not intended to be punitive.

I don't want to leave that possible notion with anyone.

it is to remind the sheriff's department,

not just Sheriff Cooper, but the sheriff's department,

of the import of the commission,

why it really depends upon their participation

to be as helpful and valuable to the public

and to the board when they are participating.

And so it continues to be of concern to me

that I hear that it's been since the summer

that the under sheriff or a representative from the sheriff's department last attended

the commission meeting.

So I look forward to working with staff during the new year to get that before us, like I

said, hopefully by the end of January.

Mr. Jones.

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry, David.

Did you have something else?

It's hard when I'm right behind him.

No, I understand.

He needs a side view mirror.

Yes, so this has been part of the ongoing discussion I have with Under Sheriff Ziegler,

and we've had several conversations about the desire for the commission for there to be sheriff's office representative,

not for back and forth dialogue at the meeting, for example, the public,

but to be present and to hear the concerns and hear the commission.

I'll just say the undersheriff and his staff do have told me they watch the meetings and then respond accordingly,

but also that he would start sending representatives again,

and that's why I think it was November, as Commissioner said,

that they have begun to show to those again.

Okay.

Well, again, I don't think there's any downside to the resolution.

I just think it helps us speak with a unified voice, all five of us,

presuming there's interest by all five of us,

but I think there probably would be.

So Mr. CEO, you look like you have something.

I was just going to add,

we'll work very closely with county council also

to pull that together.

Very good.

Vice Chair Rodriguez.

Thank you, Paul.

So my question was really alongside of

if you get somebody from the sheriff's department here,

what is the expectation of the information

is to go back to the sheriff's department

and make improvements to processes?

Is that ideally what the expectation is?

That is, and it's more of a two-fold process.

One eye and others on the commission feel it's critical

to have somebody in the audience from the sheriff's office

listening to the concerns or whatever we're discussing.

Yes, they can watch the meeting remotely,

but that doesn't show the same level of transparency back and forth.

The other part of it is when we do these ad hoc recommendations,

We make our formal recommendations.

Those go to the inspector general who then passes them on.

We follow up on those.

We don't just pass them on and kind of forget about them.

We want to know what's happened, what's been implemented.

If it hasn't, why?

We don't expect necessarily all of our recommendations to be accepted, but at the same time having that level of transparency again back and forth.

And open communications is just critical, not just for us as a commission, but to show to the public, to the citizens of this county that that level of transparency is there and that their concerns are being heard as well.

It's not just about us hearing them.

It's about the sheriff's office hearing the concerns.

So I guess my question now is for Eric.

So it's a commission of five individuals.

No, 10, right?

11.

Oh, 11.

Who's the 11th?

With the ex officio.

Ex officio.

And so wouldn't it be best to add a seat that would be a sheriff's office representative to the commission?

You can't?

Yeah, by, again, Eric Jones, Deputy County Executive, Public Safety and Justice.

Yeah, by the way it was formed, they are not a member.

It's two appointees from each of you as board supervisors and the one ex officio,

as far as the actual makeup of the board.

So here you have a commission who is making recommendations to the sheriff's department, but there is no one from the sheriff's department engaged in these conversations on the dais.

So wouldn't it be a best practice to include someone from the sheriff's department on the commission?

I would have to defer to county council as to what the best practices would be around that.

but I will say they do interact with the,

they being the commission and many of their ad hoc committees will have

dialogue with the subject matter experts within the sheriff's office to make

sure they're involved and are part of the,

part of the discussion.

If I can add in on that as well,

I think that's a critical part to note and that they do come up and when we

make these recommendations or we,

we will sometimes send them specific questions we want to address with

whatever we're looking at they'll come up and present and it is a dialogue back and forth

which i think is critical again it's not just a one-way street so to speak so we do have that

dialogue at times what i hope we could have more yes but a step at a time supervisor canny thank

you chair um just so when we very thoughtfully uh formulated the makeup of the board we did so

with the hope that the sheriff would participate as Paul is asking for.

We did so by adding Eric and his position on,

and also that the IG be a part of that conversation.

We specifically did not put a member of the sheriff's department on this

because it's the sheriff's community oversight commission.

And to put someone in charge of their own oversight

was something that we didn't want to go down that road.

no offense to the sheriff's department at all but it would lack that independence if we had a member

representing the sheriff's department on its own oversight commission right i will also note as

well we have members on our commission who come from law enforcement backgrounds and understand

kind of that side of the picture so to speak so i think that's an important part of the

considerations as well. Including an ex-officio member that used to be a chief of police. Exactly.

And we have a former Sacramento police chief, Sam Summers, who sits on the commission. And Bonaventure.

Who sat on the... And William Cho. Yeah. Yep. Thank you. All righty. Moving on. So next is,

and it's up, this is one that's most critical to me at a personal level and took up a lot of

time this year. This was the second ad hoc committee that was formed after the sheriff's

office made a policy change at the beginning of this year. Many of you are very familiar

with what happened with all of that. When they stopped responding to calls for service

involving a mental health component where no criminal activity has occurred or is expected

to imminently occur. This attracted a lot of attention, including from first responder

partners like SAC Metro Fire. We also heard from community groups as well. The ad hoc committee was

led by Commissioner Ted Walter from District 3. To evaluate this issue, we met with representatives

from the Sheriff's Office, from Metro Fire and Behavioral Health Services. Also, again, with

community groups. It was really critical for us to hear from members of the community about this as

well. We also looked closely at the litigation that originally sparked this issue, Scott V. Smith,

and I've learned a lot more in that time than I ever thought I would,

but it was important to understand that and the extent to which this has been implemented elsewhere.

I will note that since this first happened, this change in the policies for the Sheriff's Office,

only three counties, including Sacramento, have implemented such a policy change.

Sac Police did not. Others have not.

It's an interpretation of how you're looking at Scott V. Smith.

I'll leave it at that.

So again, with this ad hoc committee, it's about a 45-page report.

We put a lot of time and effort into it.

We came with seven recommendations, all of which the commission approved unanimously.

The first two recommendations were to improve external and external engagement for future policy changes.

As the commission felt the process for implementing the policy change,

caught service partners and the community off guard

and did not allow for time to address the service gaps that change created.

For example, when someone calls 911 about something that involves a behavioral health issue

but not an active or imminently anticipated crime,

the caller will be transferred to 988.

If needed, 988 can refer to the county who can dispatch the community wellness response team.

However, when the policy change was implemented preemptorily by the sheriff's office with no notice to anybody else,

there was no interoperability between 911 and 988.

That was a critical failure at the time.

It has been addressed since that time.

The sheriff's office did work to remedy this.

But there are other service gaps that still remain.

Our third recommendation is arguably the most important.

If someone calls 911 because they or someone they love are threatening self-harm and have a weapon, under the sheriff's office policy, they will no longer respond to these individuals.

It is our understanding that fire departments and the county's community wellness response team will also not send assistance in these incidents because the scene would be considered unsafe due to the presence of a weapon.

because of this we are recommending that the sheriff's office change its policy to respond

in these circumstances because the sheriff community review commission believes that it

is unacceptable that when someone is at their lowest level i want to emphasize that is at their

lowest level and actively threatening to harm themselves and has the means to do so

that no one is coming to help that one really bothers me we had a suicide earlier this fall

and the individual ultimately killed themselves

because no one responded.

It's not right in any way whatsoever.

We want to encourage responses.

It's not about, we're not in any way

encouraging deputies to put themselves in harm's way.

They're trained to handle situations like this

and de-escalate them.

And having the ability to have someone like

a sheriff's deputy with a mental health clinician

can really make a difference at a time.

And again, it's one of the strongest recommendations

from this ad hoc committee that I also served on.

Our fourth recommendation speaks to how this policy change impacted others,

such as the Co-Response Crisis Intervention Teams, CCIT,

formerly known as Mobile Crisis Support Team.

At the time of our report, we understood that the CCIT is supporting the Sheriff's Office,

which is a partnership between a sheriff's deputy and a behavioral health clinician

were all reallocated to serve other jurisdictions because of this policy change.

We think that is deeply unfortunate and is worth continuing to support these teams.

And I'll speak from a personal level on it.

About two years ago, we did another ad hoc committee that I served on

that looked specifically at how mental health calls are handled out in the fields.

We looked at these crisis response teams, their operations and their work.

They did incredible work and made a lot of difference in a lot of cases of de-escalating situations, encouraging individuals or helping individuals to get the help they needed.

They really made a difference.

And that coordination between a deputy and a clinician was a really remarkable thing.

For the clinicians, it takes a real special individual to do it.

so many individuals who encounter law enforcement including those who have committed a crime have

behavioral health needs and this program had excellent results at diverting individuals from

jail a key purpose and getting them to the appropriate treatment and care we would like

to see those teams restored our final recommendations five six and seven ask for regular data to be

provided to the commission so that we can continue to monitor the impacts of the policy change

and because of the identified service gaps still persist i think that's a critical part for us

going forward to get the data to really study it and make sure we're aware of gaps that continue

to persist and determine what recommendations recommendations we can do to address them

so we would like to see improved coordination and collaboration across the county on this issue

and for the Sheriff's Office to engage with us if additional policy changes are needed.

Paul, if I could interrupt.

And Supervisor Desmond, I know, wanted to ask a question or offer a comment before you leave the slide.

But I, too, share, and I don't think I'm alone here, a lot of concern about this interpretation of the law

and how it's almost uniquely been applied here in Sacramento County by the sheriff's department,

by the sheriff, to not respond to emergent calls when there is a threat or likelihood for someone to self-harm,

especially when it's reported that that individual has a weapon.

So I guess what I'd be interested to know, if you can recall or maybe summarize some of the debate or deliberation that the commission engaged in relative to this concern that I think we share.

Was there any discussion or mention of the concept of mutual aid and how that might be, I hate to put it this way, a workaround on such a critical issue?

I mean, you already mentioned that someone has passed away due to lack of intervention.

And what I mean about mutual aid, and I'm looking at both you, Paul, and you, Mr. Jones, is, you know, here in Sacramento County, if you look at just the geography of the county, we have seven cities within the county.

We have the largest single population is the unincorporated county.

We have different responsibilities shared amongst law enforcement agencies.

We have individual police departments in cities.

We have contract relationships with Sacramento Sheriff's Department for some of the work in some of those cities.

And then we have highway patrol, which serves basically to provide traffic oversight and enforcement within the unincorporated county.

So I guess where I'm going with this is, was there any discussion or is it even conceivable that there's an opportunity to explore how, I'll just say, CHP might be relied upon to help respond to those emergent self-harm with weapon scenarios if the Sacramento Sheriff's Department is unwilling to do it for whatever reason?

or even an affiliate sister agency, a municipal police department.

I'm just, this is forcing a lot of kind of creative thinking, I think, around this

because as far as I know, and I know the question has been asked of county council quite a bit

and in recent months about how much kind of unilateral control

the sheriff's department has to interpret the law the way he has

and therefore not respond.

But I don't know, maybe start with you, Mr. Jones,

to maybe have you respond to this prospect of maybe going down

a mutual aid path to satisfy the interest, I think,

FROM SOME OF US, MAYBE ALL OF US, THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DO, DOES PLAY THAT PART,

THAT INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT PART IN RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF SELF HARM.

YES, CHAIR. SO WEARING MY, I OFTEN HAVE TO SWITCH MY HATS WHEN I'M PART OF THE COMMISSION

AND THEN MY ROLE AS DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE. LOOKING AT THE SAME TOPIC, I DID HAVE DISCUSSIONS

EXPLORING THAT VERY ISSUE WITH CALIFORNIA HIGH PATROL AS WELL AS

SOME OF THE LARGE POLICE DEPARTMENTS.

AND THERE IS NO DESIRE TO, FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE OVER THAT

FUNCTION WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA WHERE THE SHERIFF IS NOT

RESPONDING TO SUCH CALLS.

PART OF IT IS JURISDICTIONAL.

WHEN IT COMES TO MUTUAL AID, THEY'VE ALL STATED, YES, WE

ABSOLUTELY, WHEN THEY CALL FOR HELP, WE WILL COME IN AND GIVE

AID.

that's always there. But if it's because of the sheriff's change in policy not responding to a certain type of call,

they are not interested in coming into their jurisdiction to take on that additional liability.

That's been just some preliminary conversations with a variety of law enforcement leads in the area.

Paul, I don't know if you wanted to add anything.

We did try to consider other options as well.

Well, for instance, like if, say, there's a suicide call and the fire department or the wellness response team show up, just having a deputy there.

I think the critical part that was really shown by the crisis response teams that were under the operation of the sheriff with a deputy and a clinician working together, they learned how to work together.

And I think in crisis situations, that's really important to have that level of trust and expertise back and forth.

And if we're throwing kind of unique different individuals together, especially when we go do it, that's a hard task.

And not one that would necessarily end on a good level all the time.

We're asking a lot of them when they haven't learned to work together in the first place.

So, again, our options were kind of limited.

It's also why we're focusing on really urging the crisis response teams within the sheriff's office to be re-implemented.

They just did incredible work.

And the sheriff's deputies partnered with the clinicians, did amazing work, and we're good teams together.

We met with some of them.

And I just think it was an important, important model.

As you know, Phil and others did.

I used to chair the Association of Behavioral Health Providers across the state.

And this is one of the issues I looked at.

I looked at other cities or counties that were implementing things.

And that partnership between clinicians, whether it's from a private nonprofit agency or wherever, with deputies is just a critical model that works well.

And I also want to restate we really would like to see the deputies respond to suicide calls.

But, again, we're not asking them to be put in harm's way.

The other thing I'll share real quick is my evolution and thinking on this over time.

I, like many of us, were really upset at the beginning with these policy changes and didn't understand them.

And Phil, you know me, and I try to look at all sides of the story before I make my own personal opinions.

I evolved over time as well about that.

I really felt that too often in the past.

Mental health calls just fell to law enforcement, period, and a story.

And that's not fair either.

Yes, they get training for it, but it's a high level of expectation, and it's taking a lot of their time.

This county has taken really critical steps to create the county wellness response teams in that level of work.

There's not a lot of counties that have done something similar, and I'm really proud of our county for taking a leadership on that.

But my thinking changes well to recognize that law enforcement shouldn't be expected to handle all mental health calls.

there's kind of a line there in understanding the difference and that was where i evolved on that as

well i appreciate you sharing that and we have uh some supervisors in the queue that want to

offer their comments real quick though again question for county council we just received

our annual george hills company report outlining all kinds of different aspects and trends relative

TO LIABILITY.

I SUSPECT THAT BECAUSE OF THIS

POLICY DECISION BY THE SHERIFF'S

DEPARTMENT NOT TO RESPOND TO

THESE TYPES OF CALLS THAT

CONCEIVABLY WE HAVE, WE THE

COUNTY HAVE AN ELEVATED

LIABILITY RISK SHOULD THERE BE

AN UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT AND

MAYBE A FAMILY MEMBER EMERGES

as a plaintiff challenging the fact that because of this policy something tragic has

occurred.

Is that something that you foresee, Lisa, that could possibly plug this county?

Well, I mean, it is sort of speculative, but I do believe we might even have a case

or a claim right now similar to what you're outlining related to failure to respond to

a suicide claim.

And then, as you know, we also have claims related to mental health calls where the sheriff have gone out and unfortunately ended not very badly.

So there's sort of two sides of the story.

But, yeah, again, the actual liability question remains to be seen, but it certainly may increase the claims related to that.

Thank you.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the discussion, and I think this really illustrates that this requires a lot more discussion.

Paul, I want to start with thanking you.

Thank you for the report.

Thank you for your work.

Thank you for your passion for this topic in particular that shows through.

And I appreciate your circumspection about it.

You mentioned how it's kind of evolved.

As you've talked to more people, it would have been better to have those conversations at the outset, obviously.

A couple of questions about this.

I know your last bullet point here about ongoing coordination data collection analysis.

This has been, what, it's been 10 months since the sheriff implemented this.

I know we have that one case you mentioned.

Early January.

Since early January.

Do we have any other data or any indications that we've seen a different result or different disposition in these cases as a result of this change?

Do we have any sense of that yet at all?

Not yet.

We don't have any data yet.

Those were part of our recommendations that went to the Inspector General.

And it's something we'll be following up early in the new year on this

to see if we might be able to expect some data and take a look at it.

And that's certainly something that can be shared with all of you on the board as well.

Okay.

And I don't know if, Siobhan, did you have anything to add to that?

Are you hearing?

I guess it would be just anecdotal, really, at this case, if we really...

The teams at 988 and the CWR team are tracking data along with the Sheriff's Department,

so we can certainly come back with a fuller report on that.

Okay.

And thank you.

And the Metro Fire discussion about kind of the standby,

and I know the sheriff didn't agree to some of these things,

is that conversation dead or is that still occurring?

I think it's been put in the past.

They're working well together now from everything that I see and understand.

Mr. Jones could comment otherwise.

But I think it's a situation we have to deal with for now

and just focusing on the now and not what happened in the past.

And I'd like to, you know, when we do get some of the data back about this,

I think it would be helpful to really understand some of the nuances of a response in each case.

Because I know the sheriff, the way he characterizes it,

is extremely limited scope of cases that will be affected by this.

So I think it would be helpful for us to,

and maybe that has to be in a closed session because of confidentiality.

I don't know, but I think that would be helpful to us.

I do agree with you, Paul, 100% on the CRT, the crisis response.

team model. When I was in the CHP, I got heavily involved in a lot of CIT training and legislative

issues related to mandatory training for law enforcement or CIT and mental illness response

issues and de-escalation and all of it worked very closely with NAMI. I think that has always

been a gold standard. I feel like what has evolved over the past few years in the state of California

and in other places is you have the law enforcement side and the social services side kind of parted

ways, you know, and I don't think that's good. I mean, I get why that's happened because of some

of the tension and different ideologies, different approaches and stuff. But I agree with you. I think

having a clinician with law enforcement response is a much better response. So I look to Siobhan,

my understanding is there's only one left in the county or how many are there?

No, we had 11 originally. So there were two with the sheriff's department who Commissioner Curtis,

as he described, the sheriffs decided not to use them in that way on the CCIT.

We still have others deployed with other law enforcement agencies.

Okay, so did we have funding for two in the unincorporated area and the sheriff declined to use them altogether?

Correct.

Because I knew there was one, I remember a couple years ago, I know there was one for sure still,

there was a social worker who was deploying directly with the sheriffs and even that person is gone.

That's my understanding, yes.

Okay.

And they've been just redeployed to other crisis response, either jurisdictions or the CWR team.

So they're not gone.

They're just not working on the CCIT teams with the sheriff any longer.

Well, I, you know, and maybe Eric, in my discussions with the sheriff, I've never heard him, at least recently, been resistant to revisiting that.

And I'd like to revisit that with the sheriff and really kind of take his temperature.

hey, can we revisit this?

We're not in the same, I think, dynamic or paradigm

that we were in a few years ago in terms of,

I think there was a lot of tension between the social service side

and the law enforcement side.

I think people are willing to be more open to have those discussions again

and may revisit that.

We're happy to re-engage.

Thanks.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

And I apologize for the interruption,

but this has been such a big issue, certainly for your commission,

as well as like everybody's been in a little bit of reaction mode.

And I appreciate that the fact that the sheriff just implemented this is what we're going to do now was a drastic change.

But had he solicited input first, we could have been caught up in wordsmithing the document rather than, you know, seeing how the policy is going to play out.

So, you know, it's kind of a chicken and egg conundrum of that.

But I want to thank you, Chair Curtis, for what you just said about how you have sort of come to grips with the nuances of this issue.

And the fact that as you peel back the layers of this onion, it gets more and more complex as far as what is the appropriate response.

And the one thing that I think we can all agree upon is no response is the wrong response.

and so we're grappling with how do we adjust to what is a situation that in many cases,

and I think this is why the sheriff implemented this policy,

is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition for them

because if they show up and however it goes bad,

well, you did too much or you did too little or you did the wrong thing

and it's not just putting the officer in harm's way,

it's potentially opening them up for personal liability

from not just a career perspective, but also from a retirement perspective.

At least that's the case that the sheriff has put forward.

So that's kind of why they felt they needed to change their operations.

From my standpoint, and what I'm going to be leaning into in the next year,

is can we take that, and you heard me earlier lift up the MIH program

with our emergency medical responders.

Well, I think we can take our CCIT teams and our CWRT teams

improve the interaction between 911 and 988 so that that handoff is more smoothly,

and then the response from that, and I don't know how this would be funded

because it would require cross-agency and cross-jurisdictional agreement and support,

but to really have, like an MIH unit, which is essentially a modified suburban

that can respond code 3, anywhere within the county,

and I don't know what the right number of units would be,

whether it's one, two, three, five, that would have medical personnel, post-certified or other law enforcement-trained de-escalation personnel,

and social clinician, social worker personnel that can respond to these types of issues.

And that way they show up, they can assess, they can triage, they can treat, and they can also have the bat phone to say,

hey, we need more serious help and provide some sort of ramping up if it needs be.

And so whether that's housed within our LEMSA, whether that's housed in BHS specifically,

I don't know what the mechanism of it looks like, but I think we need to take what we're doing and bolster that

and re-engage with the sheriff and say, how do you want to play in this?

Because we understand your concerns, but not doing anything is not acceptable.

And so we're responding to the position you put us in.

Do you want to play a part in that?

So I appreciate everything that you've done.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Just offered, you make great points.

I think there's an example there where you're talking about that interdepartmental obligations back and forth.

Because with the crisis response teams we had in existence prior, it was a behavioral health clinician came from the behavioral health side of the county, separate from the sheriff's office.

Then you had a sheriff's deputy.

So I'm sure they had some kind of operational agreement of how that would work that could serve as an example for moving forward.

And those teams worked really well together.

And it's just why I really praise them and feel that it's such a critical part of our response in this county that should be implemented again.

But again, in terms of the legal aspects, there's good points that have to be looked at.

We've got some examples to look at.

BEFORE WE GET TO VICE CHAIR

RODRIGUEZ, I'LL JUST PUT A

LITTLE FINER POINT ON WHAT YOU

JUST MENTIONED, CHAIR CURTIS,

AND THAT IS HAVING HAD THE

EXPERIENCE THAT I DID, I WANT

TO SAY FIVE YEARS AGO, I DID A

RIDE ALONG WITH THE SACRAMENTO

SHARTERS DEPARTMENT.

ONE OF THE CALLS THAT WE

RESPONDED TO WAS A CALL, A 9-1-1

call that there was someone that was experiencing suicidal ideation and

had expressed that to dispatch. We arrived on scene and we were in, I

think we were in an unmarked car, but we did have the behavioral health

specialists arrive simultaneous. And not once did we, myself, and I think it was

lieutenant at the time, leave kind of the immediate location of the vehicle, and the

behavioral health specialist did all the interaction with the individual.

In fact, that behavioral health specialist actually went into that individual's apartment

and had a sit-down with him and de-escalated the situation.

And so the sheriff's lieutenant didn't have to really do much else

than kind of supervise from the parking lot

and have some radio contact, I think, with behavioral health specialists.

And so I actually saw for myself how that works, and it works well.

And so I think that's, again, unfortunate that this shift has now kind of ignored the fact that we, you know,

and that's just one person's experience on a given day.

I'm sure that happens with some amount of frequency.

And so, again, I'm a big fan of how that construct was then implemented and the benefits that came from it that I've seen for myself.

If I could add to that real quick.

Only from my prior statewide work and looking at how other areas and counties handled some of this,

one of the things I really learned is having that real trust between the sheriff and the clinician or the deputy and the clinician.

we don't want to put deputies in harm's way we also don't want to put clinicians in harm's way

and sometimes you don't know what kind of a situation you're getting into and maybe somebody

with a bad drug interaction or an overdose or something if they become violent that law

enforcement partnership is critical to keep everyone safe and that's why I really push the

partnership between law enforcement and the clinicians it's a two-way street back and forth

that they're backing each other up and keeping each other safe.

Supervisor Rodriguez.

So I came from the city of Folsom where we had a behavioral health specialist

that works with the police department and she goes out.

And I've done ride-alongs with them where you could see the impact that she has.

She calls with domestic violence, calls with people with mental health crises,

serious homeless issues.

And so there is a lot of value to that.

However, there's also the flip side where sending police officers into these circumstances, I can understand Sheriff Cooper's decision to do this because when you get a denial of a qualified immunity to an officer, now what you're doing is putting officers at risk of somebody who wants to die by suicide of a police officer.

And so there's that concern there.

And I don't know the statistics.

I don't know the data of what has happened the past 11 months since he stopped sending officers out to the field for those circumstances.

So has anyone or is anyone working on legislation to protect officers in the event of somebody who's having a severe mental health crisis that wants to die by suicide or does something to officers where officers have to respond in an extreme manner?

Sure. I haven't heard of any efforts at the legislature level to address this.

Because it seems like that was the core issue, like that was the root cause of the issue of the decision made, if I recall correctly.

At the beginning it was, but even Sheriff Cooper has made it clear that the policy changes were not just about Scott v. Smith.

And we can get into a long legal conversation.

Eric knows real well we spent a lot of time on it and the interpretations of Scott v. Smith.

The Law Enforcement Statewide Association's own law firm

came out with an opinion on Scott V. Smith

that strongly disagreed with Sheriff Cooper's interpretation.

I've learned you can get all kinds of legal opinions going back and forth,

and you have to be really, really careful.

Scott V. Smith was a real specific incident

where things happened that shouldn't have happened

an individual died who wasn't threatening others.

And I don't know if this is the type of place to go into the legal argument for it.

Happy to discuss it on the side or whatever.

But it is that interpretation.

I, in turn, absolutely don't want to put deputies in harm's way at a legal level as well where

they might lose their protected liability.

So it goes both ways.

but there's been some real difference of opinion on Scott v. Smith and what it needs.

Even Police Chief Kathy Lester disagrees with the sheriff's move on this,

and they haven't changed their policies at all.

It goes both ways, but again, I really try to keep in look of doing the best we can to protect the deputies

while also serving the public.

It's tricky and complex.

Thank you.

Thank you for indulging us, Paul.

I'm finished at this point. I'm going to let Vice Chair finish up the rest of the presentation.

Appreciate it. I'll be here to answer any more questions as well.

Very good. Thank you. Mr. Whiteside.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Let's see here if I can move that forward a little bit. Again, I'm Mike Whiteside.

I'm the Vice Chair of the Citizens Review Commission. We currently have three ad hocs that are at work.

One has kind of concluded its work, but not quite.

The other two are active.

The first is regarding halal meals in the county jails.

That ad hoc is co-chaired by myself and Commissioner Teresa Rivera of District 5.

We're looking at concerns from the Muslim community, from inmates in our county jails.

We became aware of this in 2023 and appointed the ad hoc in 2025, earlier this year.

It was brought to us by the Center for American Islamic Relations, known as CARES.

The concern is that Muslim inmates were being provided a vegetarian diet.

As a reminder, a halal meal is one where the meat is prepared in a particular fashion.

So to avoid having to serve halal meals, the Muslim inmates were getting vegetarian meals.

And the second concern was that an equity issue.

because we do provide in the jails kosher meals that do include meat.

And so there was an equity concern there.

Since we've had this ad hoc, we were informed by the sheriff's department earlier this year

that they are now serving halal-compliant meals with meat once a day.

The other meals are vegetarian still.

The only reason this ad hoc really hasn't wrapped up is because we're waiting for the written policy.

No job is done until the paperwork is complete.

So once we see that written policy, we'll wrap up our work.

Let's see here.

The next ad hoc is on military use and compliance with AB 481.

The committee ad hoc is chaired by Commissioner Stoller from District 1.

And we're looking at the Sheriff's Office use of military equipment and compliance with the relevant laws.

the primary concern is whether the sheriff's office or sheriff's department should be able

to use our commission to meet its annual obligation to host a community engagement

meeting around its military use report as part of the law they have to have a public meeting to

present their military use report the past several years they've been using our commission

here in chambers for that purpose.

And the final ad hoc we have is one that I'm also chairing.

This is on the Blue Envelope Program.

And we're saying whether we should recommend the sheriff adopt or implement a Blue Envelope Program.

The Blue Envelope Program, for those of you who don't know,

is designed to promote inclusivity and serve to enhance communication awareness

or serve as a communication tool between law enforcement and members of the

community who may have a disability or a condition that may require additional

accommodation or time for example somebody who may have somebody who may

have autism dementia or even a hearing impairment and such individuals

self-identify they get this blue envelope that has some information in it

and that tells an officer that the individual may need additional time or may need additional patience or communication.

If they're not complying, it's not because of desire to not comply.

It's because they need additional time.

The program is really well regarded in San Diego, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.

THEY ALL RAVE ABOUT THE PROGRAM AS WELL AS SOME FOLKS IN THE

DISABILITIES COMMUNITY.

IT HAS ALSO BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN PLACER COUNTY, OUR NEIGHBOR

HERE.

THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS AS WELL TO IMPLEMENT THIS

STATEWIDE THROUGH LEGISLATION, WELL, AND THE STATE AND AT THE

FEDERAL LEVEL, BUT ALL THAT IS ON HOLD AT THIS POINT.

SO WITH THAT, WE DO MEET HERE MONTHLY.

Our next meeting is in January.

Meet here right here in Chambers.

We'd love to have you attend.

Our annual report for the 24-25 year is now on our website.

And with that, thank you very much for the opportunity to present,

and we would be happy to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you, Mike.

Let me first start by, again, thanking both of you for your leadership

and your very obvious focus on the subject matter of this critical commission.

I'm actually very, very proud that my appointee, Mr. Curtis,

has done the level of work that you have, Paul.

And we have a great working relationship, personal relationship,

but having open lines of communication from you fairly with some degree of frequency during the course of the last year

has really kept me apprised of some of the nuance, some of which you've gone into this morning on certain issues.

So I really just have to express publicly my gratitude for not just your willingness to be an appointee,

but to do it with a particular conviction that I think is obvious to all of us in this room,

is genuine and sincere and really helps the county do its job.

So I want to thank you, Paul, for your ongoing service to the community.

And, Mike, I know you as well.

And, well, your District 2's appointee.

Yes.

I just want to thank you, Mike, as well,

for just being a terrific part of the infrastructure

that we have and that is, again, absolutely so critical

to how we enhance transparency

between the Sheriff's Department and the community.

And I think it's fairly remarkable,

and this could be said for both you and others

that aren't in the room that serve on the commission,

but to do it in a way that is not confrontational with the particular department that you're charged with providing oversight to.

I think oftentimes just the fact that there is an oversight platform for law enforcement sometimes from day one can come with assumptions made by both parties that can be less than constructive.

And what I see is that, as was alluded to in terms of Paul reflecting on, you know, letting his mind change a bit and evolve as it related to the policy concerning response to self-harm calls.

That is extremely healthy.

And both of you expressed that so well.

So, again, just really proud of the commission, proud of both of you, and want to thank you for what you do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I want to echo Chair Cerna's comments about the importance and helpfulness of the work that you do and how seriously you take it.

and that you are trying to be, I think, a good partner with the department that you are asked to opine about,

and that does not go unnoticed or unappreciated.

And I would say that given the fact you touched on the halal meals,

but given the fact of the sheriff's change in policy,

it took off some of the other things that you call out in your report that was also very important work.

The implementation of SB 43 and the expansion of gravely disabled.

That's a huge change that I think you guys, obviously, as included in your report, you took seriously.

The peer review of the jail annex and the work that we have paused and taken a step back and said, let's look at this a little more holistically.

And so I hope you'll continue to pour into that situation.

But in reading your report, there was one sentence that absolutely caught my eye.

And I don't know if you were in a position to answer this or county staff, but you said this has to do with mental health treatment and custody.

Sacramento County Jail is one of only a few jails in California that provide acute psychiatric treatment.

That blew my hair back.

How do other detention facilities handle that?

Didn't blow yours back?

I was waiting for a comment from Mr.

how do other detention facilities handle that population?

And or why are we in that business?

I mean, it seems like that was a big focus of Mays.

And to learn that we're one of the few facilities that even undertake that work,

I mean, it just blew my mind.

I can't answer for other counties necessarily.

I will just do want to recognize the great work the sheriff's office does do.

Also want to note, like, medications.

Inmates who are in the jails for a longer period of time,

not just those who are in for a DUI or something or an arraignment where you're in and out,

those who are staying for significant amounts of time, they're being treated for conditions,

they leave with a 30-day supply of medications.

Again, one of the few jails in the state that does that.

So I think it's important that we really try to recognize the good work the sheriff's office is doing,

but while also calling out areas where we think things could be done better.

or different.

Why other counties aren't doing it,

that's a good question.

You kind of have to ask them.

Okay.

I guess I'm more curious as to,

it seems like that's a big gap

for the population that, you know,

is coming into the facility.

How are they addressing that?

I can get more information about how folks,

how the different facilities define acute psychiatric care.

I know some facilities,

facilities, especially smaller facilities that don't necessarily have the bandwidth to do a whole

acute psychiatric facility, may actually send folks off-site like they would to a hospital,

let's say, but then they'd have to send custodial officers with them. So it could be that other

jurisdictions, other counties are using private facilities, but then sending custodial officers

OFF SITE TO MONITOR. I'LL FIND OUT. I'LL GET SOME MORE DATA ABOUT WHO'S DOING WHAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS?

SEEING NONE. I WANT TO COMMEND THE STAFF IN THE JAIL WHO DO THE MEAL PREPARATION. IF YOU HAVEN'T

BEEN THERE, IT'S AN INCREDIBLE OPERATION THAT THEY DO. FOR THE PRICE THAT THEY FEED OUR INMATES

that's a tough job with a lot of moving parts, and they deserve to be recognized.

So thank you.

Point taken.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

All right.

No action on this.

This is annual report.

All right.

With that, Mr. Clerk, our next item.

Our next item is number 44, County Executive Commons.

Thank you, Todd.

I just wanted to, Supervisor Cerna kicked off the meeting, said this is his last one

as chair.

This is the last one for 2026.

I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you all for your leadership throughout the year.

Also to thank the team behind me and the directors here in the county and all the county staff for all the great work that we've done, including everything that we've accomplished.

So I appreciate that.

The other thing, as we head into the holiday season, I just wanted to take a moment to wish you and your families a happy holiday.

And not only your families, but our own county family.

and I know that comes from not only me, but it comes from the team behind me that we are wishing everybody a happy new year

And we look forward to what this next year will bring we have incredible pressures coming from different places

But I know we'll get through it and we'll accomplish it and be successful like we always are so thank you very much good words

Thank you. All right

Next item, please our next item is supervisor comments reports and announcements vice chair Rodriguez

Thank you. First, I want to start off by saying, Phil, thank you so much for your leadership and being able to sit next to you and learn and being able to ask you questions when I didn't know when something was happening.

So I just want to say I really do appreciate the past year and your leadership.

I also want to take a moment to highlight some great things happening across our communities.

The Folsom Bulldogs captured the D1AA state championship last Friday, earning the program's sixth state title.

It was very impressive.

And I just want to say, way to represent Sacramento County.

I also want to highlight Costa Robles quarterback Aiden Lopez, who was named the 2025 Golden Empire League Most Valuable Player.

His leadership and performance throughout the season truly stood out, and this recognition is well-deserved.

And lastly, I actually want to thank Sacramento County Sheriff's Office.

They did a retail crime task force yesterday and arrested, I think it was about 25 individuals who had retail theft.

And so I just want to give a shout out and say thank you for supporting our local businesses.

It sounds like this is something they're going to be doing for the next couple of weeks.

So I think this is good for our communities to send the message that if you come to Sacramento County to steal from our stores, you will get arrested.

And also, happy holidays to everyone.

Thanks.

Very good.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

All right.

Any other comments for the good of the order?

I WILL JUST SAY AGAIN IT'S BEEN AN HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO WRAP UP CHAIRING THIS ESTEEMED

BOARD FOR THE THIRD TIME IN MY CAREER HERE.

I LOOK FORWARD TO MY FINAL YEAR STARTING IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND THEN LOOK FORWARD

TO YOUR CHAIRWOMANSHIP, VICE CHAIR RODRIGUEZ, BEGINNING OUR FIRST MEETING OF THE YEAR.

I too want to offer happy holidays to everyone.

I know some of us are traveling, some of us are staying put,

but again, I just want to wish everyone happiness and health

during this holiday season.

All right, if there's no further business before this board,

we stand adjourned.

And Supervisor, we do have closed sessions.

Yeah, we do have closed sessions.

Thank you.