Sheriff’s Oversight Revisited Due to Brown Act Violation

Supervisor Mike Wilson

The length of Humboldt County Board of Supervisors meetings is hampering public comment and a hearing on forming a sheriff’s oversight committee had to be redone because of it.

Supervisors violated the Brown Act, a state law that sets standards for public disclosure and participation, at their epic length April 28 meeting.

There were issues with a call-in feed and because the meeting lasted into the early evening, the doors of the county administrative building were locked, barring access.

The matter was taken up again at the May 12 meeting and in an unusual move, Board Chair Mike Wilson read directly from a written staff report which dryly states that “certain members of the public may not have been able to provide public comment regarding this matter” without explaining what happened.

And Wilson was called out on it by Southern Humboldt resident Thomas Mulder, who is a former county planning commissioner.

“Well, I will say that is the most gas-lit response statement I’ve heard in my life,” he said. “That was a direct violation of the Brown Act and there should be an apology, that was the most egregious violation of the Brown Act I’ve ever seen.”

Other speakers also commented on the violation, with one saying “I really didn’t appreciate hearing somebody in the chambers laugh when we were told the doors were locked during the last meeting – that was really inappropriate.”

Wilson and County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes had led a round of bemused laughter about the situation.

The excessive length of supervisors meetings makes it hard to know when an agenda item will be heard and another speaker noted that “it looks like today, once again, it’s pretty late into the day before the public is getting to talk about this.”

Caroline Griffith, who represented a group of residents requesting oversight last March, described the April 28 meeting as “the unfortunate meeting that we’re having to re-do”

The more inclusive public comment session included a greater mix of opinions.

During the discussion last April, Sheriff Billy Honsal said oversight isn’t necessary due in part to the community’s high level of trust in the Sheriff’s Office.

But some public speakers disputed that.

One who identified as a “caregiver who works with people with intellectual disabilities” said there’s “a large amount of fear and distrust with our Sheriff’s Office, especially around interactions with people having mental health crises and with the lack of accountability when deputies brutalize us.”

As an example, he cited a 2023 incident resulting in a lawsuit that cost the county $150,000 to settle.

The incident involved a man whose car window was smashed by a sheriff’s deputy after allegedly not following an order to roll the window down.

In a letter, Honsal said the deputy’s actions “may have been legally justified” but they violated the office’s use of force policy and the deputy “will be undergoing additional de-escalation training.”

The speaker said “severe police brutality and vindictiveness” was shown and he described the Sheriff’s Office’s response to it as “barely a slap on the wrist.”

But some speakers questioned the need for oversight, including a Fortuna resident who related her family’s surprisingly positive experience, considering its context.

“I have a son that is in prison serving time now, his second term, and Sheriff Honsal has been nothing but supportive of my family,” she said. “I have seen him in action, I saw him when my son went to prison the first time and he was so compassionate and so understanding.”

She added, “I agree with those who say you guys are pushing this too fast and all these people that are that are bashing him, they’re wrong – they are wrong, they are absolutely wrong.”

Another said an oversight committee would be “redundant and pointless.”

Responding to the support for Honsal, an oversight advocate said a committee would do its work into the future with “a hypothetical sheriff that we have yet to meet and do not know” and “regardless, transparency, accountability, public trust and community engagement are all really important, particularly for police departments that work closely with the community and need their trust in order to function.”

Supervisors’ opinions were as mixed as what came from the public comment podium, with about the same majority proportion of oversight support.

“I guess to be honest I’m a little surprised that it isn’t more embraced because there are just so many examples of this being functional not only for law enforcement but also for other other aspects of the public trust that involve a lot of authority and a lot of impact on people’s lives,” said Supervisor Natalie Arroyo.

Wilson said he’s “seen very empathetic and meaningful community work done by the deputies and staff” but still supports oversight. He added he’s gotten emails “in all directions” and the public commentary will affect decision-making.

Supervisor Steve Madrone has said having an oversight committee will ensure transparency and although it would carry staff time costs, it could also reduce costs by improving policies and preventing litigation.

A majority of supervisors – Arroyo, Madrone and Wilson – voted to form an ad hoc committee to develop an oversight committee ordinance that will be up for consideration this fall.

Supervisors Rex Bohn and Michelle Bushnell voted against doing so, with Bohn saying “I don’t think this is needed” and Bushnell saying there are already “layers of investigation” such as the county’s District Attorney’s Office and the state’s Attorney General’s Office.