Civilian oversight for the Sheriff’s Dept.

Over the next two weeks, Los Angeles County supervisors have the opportunity to establish a system of oversight for the Sheriff’s Department that will finally bring some meaningful civilian accountability to a department long defined by abuse and mismanagement, as documented in a searing critique by the jail violence commission, federal civil rights charges against deputies, reports of inept hiring practices and perhaps a consent decree to correct inadequate mental health services for jail inmates.

The board started out on the right foot last year when it created the Office of Inspector General. It was designed to replace both a special counsel, who presented regular reports and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors but didn’t get enough public attention to spark any follow-up, and the Office of Independent Review, which relied too much on the sheriff’s voluntary cooperation to be a credible monitor.

But the supervisors rejected the strong recommendation of the Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence to appoint the inspector general to a set term and make him removable only for good cause. And the board still hasn’t brokered an agreement with the Sheriff’s Department over the scope of the inspector general’s powers. So no matter how strong the work ethic and integrity of Inspector General Max Huntsman, he is an at-will employee of the Board of Supervisors with no law establishing his power or authority to investigate the sheriff.

Meanwhile, the county’s contracts with its previous monitors expire Monday, so for the first time in two decades there will be no independent sheriff oversight. Despite the opportunity and necessity for improvement, the county is in danger of falling backward.

Forward momentum will depend on more than new promises by the supervisors to do a better job of keeping an eye on the sheriff. It will require the board to create a citizens oversight commission that conducts its meetings in public and has the kind of insulation from micromanaging that so far the board has denied the inspector general. There should be nine members on the commission, enough for each county supervisor to appoint one while still allowing sufficient appointments by other authorities to prevent the commission from becoming the board’s proxy. Members should serve for set, nonrenewable terms, and be removable only on a showing of good cause.

This is a transition year for the county, when the sheriff, two supervisors, the chief executive and the county counsel will step down. By creating a sheriff’s oversight commission, the current board has the chance to leave the county with a better government, not just the same one with new faces.