SAN JOSE – Civil rights and social groups strongly oppose equipping Santa Clara County sheriff's deputies with Tasers, and expressed their opposition during a Board of Supervisors meeting in May to think about such a proposal.
The whiteboard voted for a cautious approach equipping officers with stun weapons, ordering a report due in September outlining a two-year pilot programme and setting out the likely health impacts, and addressing widespread public concerns concerning the use of such stun weapons is used disproportionately against minorities throughout the country.
That discouraged civil rights advocates who had raised concerns, saying the sheriff's civilian oversight body, the Office of Correctional and Law Enforcement Monitoring, had failed to supply supervisors with research showing Tasers to be way more deadly than their description as “less lethal than firearms” suggests.
Since then, they’ve directed their ire on the OIR Group, a Southern California-based company that acts because the sheriff's watchdog agency. The local branch of the NAACP and the Coalition for Justice and Accountability — made up of South Bay civil rights groups — criticized the corporate for being aligned with the sheriff's office and board and betraying the general public trust.
The Reverend Jethroe “Jeff” Moore, president of the San Jose NAACP, sent a letter to OIR chapter leader Michael Gennaco and the board in June, raising the ideological conflict beyond the Taser issue and claiming that what they’re seeing now isn’t what they expected five years ago after they heard that county-level police oversight was being implemented.
“We want neutrality, we don't want to just agree with the sheriff and tell the board the truth,” Moore said in an interview. “Where is the balance?”
Gennaco had no problem explaining that his company's job isn’t to inform managers what they need to and mustn’t tackle, but quite to supply expertise and data on best strategies and practices, in addition to liability issues, once a choice has been made.
“I am aware of the problems, the pros and cons,” he said in an interview. “The proponents say we should adopt their position. But as far as buying (Tasers) or banning them goes, we will not go along with that.”
The majority of managers, including those that took the lead in organising the monitoring function, consider that Gennaco and his company are doing the job they envisioned.
“I think OCLEM has done a remarkably good job,” said Supervisor Joe Simitian. “Does that mean that all or any of the board members will agree on all issues? Of course not. We are still committed to acting independently and to the best of our ability.”
It is likely to be instructive to think about that within the South Bay, the first source of police oversight is the Office of the Independent Police Comptroller in San Jose. That comptroller's office has made policy recommendations prior to now but has no authority to compel the San Jose Police Department to implement them.
LaDoris Cordell, who served as San Jose police auditor from 2010 to 2015 and whose work on a high-profile county commission – prompted by the 2015 death of Michael Tyree by the hands of a jail guard – helped pave the way in which for oversight of the sheriff's office, sees a disconnect between expectations and what Gennaco's company committed to doing when it took the job in 2020.
“The idea known in the community is that as an observer you investigate complaints and recommend policies and procedures,” Cordell said.
She added that the board's current request for the sheriff's office and the OIR group to supply a Taser report could cause trust issues amongst community members. She argued that it might make the monitor look like a part of the trouble to implement Tasers and later be tasked with investigating allegations of abuse.
“It clouds the situation,” Cordell said. “I don't think the community is being unreasonable.”
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, the present board chair, said that while she disagreed with the proponents' view of compromising the monitor, “that does not mean I dismiss their concerns.” She plans to satisfy with them on the problem.
She emphasized how tailored the monitoring contract was, and specifically stressed that the OIR Group reviews the legality and transparency of sheriffs' policies and practices and only makes policy recommendations when existing practices violate the law.
“I want them to tell us whether the sheriff's office's actions are consistent with best practices. And then, as a politician, I want to use that information, integrate it with all the other sources of information that I use, and make decisions,” said Ellenberg, who was the just one to vote against the Taser proposal.
Simitian said there are many examples of OIR Group acting as a counterpart to the sheriff's office, pointing to scathing reports on longtime Sheriff Laurie Smith's previous administration and its handling of high-profile allegations of jail misconduct that led to multimillion-dollar settlements by the county. The firm's investigations also helped spur a 2022 civil corruption trial that influenced Smith's decision to resign and ended along with her formal removal from office.
“Anyone who reads these reports will see that they did not mince their words in their assessment,” Simitian said.
Simitian added that the board has established a civilian advisory body, the Community Correction and Law Enforcement Monitor Board, to specifically represent the positions that the OIR Group stays away from.
But Walter Wilson, a longtime civil rights activist and chairman of the town council, says CCLEM isn’t given nearly as much weight because the OIR group, making its prospects dim.
“That's why we are where we are now,” Wilson said. “The board is not listening to us. So what's the point of this group if they're not listening?”
Raj Jayadev, co-founder of the social organization Silicon Valley De-Bug, said the panel's response also ignores what oversight means for inmates, particularly prison-affected families and minority groups who’re statistically more more likely to have a Taser used against them.
“There is a measurable harm and danger when these consulting firms play a role that is far broader and more targeted in the public imagination than what they actually do,” he said. “The only thing worse than not having civilian oversight is one that doesn't do what you expect it to do.”
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, who led the creation of the monitor role with Simitian, joined her colleagues in expressing appreciation for the way Gennaco and his company have met their commitments, but said she at all times expected things to vary.
“We have literally started something new for ourselves and I expect that we will learn and evolve as we go along,” she said. “I never thought that it would stay the way we started. Whenever we do something this important, we have to constantly discuss how we can do it better.”
image credit : www.mercurynews.com