In the November general election, voters in Pierce County will decide if they want an ombuds to oversee the county sheriff’s office.
An amendment to the county charter would create the Public Safety Ombuds. The ombuds would respond to civilian complaints about the Pierce County sheriff's department and its employees.
Right now, people can submit complaints to the sheriff’s office, which then goes to internal affairs for possible investigation.
Supporters of the amendment see it as a way to establish an independent body to investigate complaints and increase transparency.
Sheriff Keith Swank has said he doesn’t support this proposed change.
“Adding another layer of external oversight that many prospective deputies may view as unnecessary or politically motivated could further discourage qualified candidates from pursuing a career with the Pierce County Sheriff's Office,” Swank wrote in an emailed statement to NWPB last month.
The sheriff has taken issue with other charter amendments, including another that would make the sheriff’s position appointed instead of elected. That also moved to the ballot.
Kate Ginn, who was one of the sponsors of the ombuds amendment, said the change is not meant to target the sheriff.
“ It's not about that one role, whether it's elected or appointed. It’s about public safety in Pierce County,” Ginn said. “I think there's a lot of benefits for law enforcement in ombuds offices as well, if they're set up in a way that's about partnership with the community.”
Ginn also said that the office could prevent costly litigation for the county. From 2021-2025, the total for claims and litigation expenses for the sheriff's department, including law enforcement and corrections, was over $26 million, the highest for any county department.
The sheriff would have a say in who takes on the ombuds role. The amendment states the role will be appointed by a panel of five members that includes the sheriff and the county executive, and that each appointed ombuds is limited to two four-year terms.
The Pierce County Deputy Sheriff’s Independent Guild has issues with the amendment, which they detailed in a letter to the charter review commission on June 4. Amongst their top concerns are the cost of establishing and maintaining such an office. The guild also stated that the county has yet to bargain with them on how the office would operate.
In an email to NWPB, the president of the guild, Shaun Darby, wrote, “The guild will not be involved until after the election. At that time, we will be utilizing all of our legal authority to address it if it passes.”
A press secretary for Pierce County Executive Ryan Mello said that if voters approve the amendment, the county will engage in good faith negotiations and fulfill all collective bargaining obligations required by law. Mello hasn’t taken a position on the amendment, but he has supported similar efforts in the past.
The amendment would also create a community advisory board for law enforcement, similar to what Tacoma has.
How to create an effective oversight office
Writers of the amendment have purposefully left it broad and general, saying that details of the functions and authorities of the ombuds office can be ironed out later.
But there are models of civilian oversight of law enforcement already in place, including not too far from Pierce County. The city of Spokane has an ombuds for its police department.
“ For oversight to be effective, it has to work with the community and law enforcement agencies, so that they can better serve the public,” said George Perezvelez, who is the deputy police ombuds in Spokane.
Spokane’s model, which was established in 2008, has its ombuds monitor investigations conducted by the police department's internal affairs department. The ombuds can sit in on interviews with officers for the investigation and ask questions, but they cannot publish their independent conclusions. Only if the ombuds office rejects the investigation result can they independently investigate.
Perezvelez is also on the board of the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement and has been involved with the creation of numerous law enforcement oversight offices.
Perezvelez reviewed the Pierce County charter amendment and said he has three concerns with it as written: the term limit, a lack of specificity about what the ombuds’ powers are and how those powers are implemented, and not having a community member on the panel that selects the ombuds.
He said these agencies work well when the charter defines what it can and cannot do, and describes in detail what investigations they can and cannot engage in.
“ My argument always is if you believe that something should be followed and should be part of the powers of an agency, put it on the charter amendment, and then have a discussion about how that develops and how that is employed,” Perezvelez said.
Anything that is too general in the charter creates difficulty in actually implementing it, he said.
Legal battles have ensued in California as sheriff's departments have challenged the subpoena power of two oversight agencies.
Read audio transcript here.
