Overview: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors recently approved an ad hoc committee to study oversight options for the county sheriff’s department. Following intense community pressure and a critical Civil Grand Jury report, Supervisors Jose Medina and Karen Spiegel will lead a six-month study on best practices. This decision follows a failed attempt at a similar initiative last year, amid ongoing concerns regarding deaths in custody at local facilities.
S. E. Williams
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors experienced a change of heart recently and voted in support of an ad hoc committee to study best practices and possible options for stronger oversight of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.
This too long delayed action was taken in response to community pressure that seemed to weigh heavier after a recent Civil Grand Jury report laying out in black and white what the community has already laid out in black and white.
The ad hoc committee will consist of Supervisors Jose Medina and Karen Spiegel who will study best practices and oversight options over a six month period.
The supervisors failed to act on this issue last year when a similar initiative failed to pass. Finally, in response to a persistent and tenacious group of advocates; survivors and grieving loved ones of those who died in custody at one of Riverside’s many jails; a civil rights pattern or practice investigation into the sheriff’s department by the California State Attorney General (still in process); a disastrous 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury report; and a looming mid-term election that could wipe out right-leaning politicians, to finally get a squeamish County Board of Supervisors to even consider taking the most moderate step forward in the direction of stronger oversight of the sheriff’s department—at long last, the board was compelled to finally act.
A year ago, Supervisor Jose Medina stood out as the sole voice of reason when he tried to get his peers on the board to support a previous and largely similar resolution—they all ran for cover. Today, we continue to applaud his efforts.
I don’t believe it is too far from the realm of possibilities for me to think that many of the Riverside County Board Supervisors did not support the action last year because they did not want to risk losing campaign funding support from police and sheriff unions.
When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it’s always worth taking a careful second look.
Malcolm Turnbull
That has not changed. However, some things have changed this year that seem to make it riskier for the supervisors not to at least consider stronger oversight options. Yes. It may well be the Civil Grand Jury report that forced their hand, but I feel it may be something more important to these politicians… like say reelection for example. Republicans are losing favor with the American people…and with this being a re-election year for at least three of them, I wonder if these supervisors are becoming a little more afraid of the voters than they are of their funders? That’s a rhetorical question, of course, but there may be some truth in it.
Yes. We know that these local offices are supposed to be nonpartisan, but we also know-–in truth and in reality—that they are about as partisan as they can be; and this year, there are warning lights for Republicans and those who lean in their direction. So much so that even the right leaning Brookings Institute has warned, “The president’s job approval has fallen to new lows, discontent has deepened with his handling of a wide range of issues, now including the war with Iran, and the mood of the electorate has soured.”
With this in mind, I see politicians at all levels of government trying to game out their political futures—especially if they are on this year’s ballot–and regardless of whether they are playing the “non partisan” game we play or not. Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors seeking reelection this year include 2nd District Supervisor Karen Spiegel; 4th District Supervisor V. Manuel “Manny” Perez; and 5th District Supervisor Yxstian Gutierrez. All who changed 2025 “no” votes on oversight to “yes” votes in 2026.
In truth, I see the recent vote by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors not so much as a vote for real strengthening of sheriff department oversight but more like a “let’s buy ourselves six months and move a final decision regarding real oversight to well after the November 2026 election.
This way, if Republicans lose big and/or some of the supervisors running for re-election lose their bids, oversight of the sheriff’s department will no longer be their problem. Otherwise, if they win their bids for reelection they can breathe a sigh of relief for having taken a vote in favor of moving the oversight initiative forward with very minimal risk.
The same can be said of Riverside County Supervisor Chuck Washington, who is not up for reelection this year but who voted against a similar initiative last year and didn’t bother to show up and even cast a vote on this important and controversial issue this year. Since Washington is not on the ballot in 2026, he’s probably counting on voters’ short memories, hoping by the time we get to the 2028 election cycle, most will have forgotten how he did not have the voters’ back on this issue.
As far as those supervisors who are on the ballot in November, they probably earned some good will for their “yes” vote recently—it may even help them in the upcoming election. And again, they really did not have to risk anything because in six months when the oversight viability report is due back to the board for consideration—and provided they keep their seats—these very supervisors can always go back to being the same “road blocks to justice” they were last year and vote down any substantive changes. It will probably be easy for them to do so since they have now given themselves plausible deniability for a future “no” vote or a “yes” vote to something watered down because they can point to their recent “yes” vote and say….”See. I gave it fair consideration.”
Last year Washington offered what I considered a feckless explanation for his lack of support, “I want to have this conversation in a safe space for everyone with differing viewpoints that would be productive,” he said.
What could be safer than the board chambers. . . I wondered when he said this last year? Maybe one of the Riverside County jails? I guess we have to take Chad Bianco’s word for how safe they are since we can’t ask the additional 19 individuals who died in custody last year while Washington waited to find a “safe space” for everyone to have a discussion.
How many more lives will be lost while we wait another six months for something that has already been studied in Riverside County, across the inland region, around the state and throughout the nation ad nauseum.
I guess when it is not their life or the life of their child or loved one on the line… They can afford to say, “Let them wait…” To me, it sounds cavalier, dismissive … like Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake.”
If this were a brand new issue I’d say, well it’s progress. But this is a tale as old as time. As noted, what’s left to study?
Of course, this is just my opinion. I’m keeping it real.