Honorable Board of Supervisors:

As the General Manager of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (AOCDS), I write regarding the Board's plan to implement an "Office of Independent Review" directed exclusively at the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Deputy Sheriffs recognize their responsibilities to the citizens of Orange County. Having the power to curtail freedom is a not taken lightly. The possibility that their actions may result in physical harm or death is ever present and always in the forefront of a deputy's mind. But, providing care and protection are the obligations of sworn peace officers and continuing review of their behavior is willingly accepted by AOCDS members.

The conduct of deputy sheriffs is constantly scrutinized by the Sheriff's Department. It is also subject to review by the District Attorney, the State Attorney General, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Attorney General of the United States, and civilian watchdog groups along with plaintiff's attorneys, individual concerned citizens and the press. There is no occupation whose practitioners are more closely watched than law enforcement.

The Association acknowledges that the Board of Supervisors is now going to add another layer of costly bureaucracy to the current multi-pronged review system. However, directing this effort only towards the Sheriff's Department seems punitive rather than proactive. AOCDS suggests that any Office of Independent Review not be limited to the Sheriff's Department, but be extended to all County agencies and offices, including elected officials and their staffs.

Acts or threats of discrimination or disparate treatment or verbal slurs based on race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, political affiliation, gender, disability or sexual orientation [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(2)] is not conduct that may be limited to only the Sheriff's Department. Neither is sexual harassment [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(3)]; falsification of government documents or reports [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(5)]; interference in, obstruction of, or improper influence over any investigation conducted by law, in a manner that inhibits or compromises the impartial search for truth [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(6)]; making false or misleading statements in any investigation authorized by law [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(7)]; use of illicit drugs [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(9)]; use of an official position for personal or financial gain [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(10)]; or criminal conduct [Proposed Section 1-2-226(e)(12].

If the true "purpose and intent" of the Board of Supervisors in implementing an Office of Independent Review is "to assist, oversee and advise in the investigation of selected internal and citizen complaints in which it is alleged that [County] employees committed certain actions or inactions in the performance of their duties [Proposed Section 1-2-225(a)] and selected incidents of death or serious injury occurring to persons while in custody of employees of the [County] [Proposed Section 1-2-225(b)], there is no reason why this oversight and review should not be applied to all county employees. If the Board of Supervisors believes that "independent" oversight is necessary for the Sheriff's Department, why doesn't it believe that it is necessary for all county agencies? Why isn't independent oversight a good idea for the District Attorney, the Probation Department, the Treasurer-Tax Collector, the Auditor and the Board of Supervisors?

The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs can support the creation of an Office of Independent Review only if it is for all County employees and elected officials.

Very truly yours,