Sheriff’s Dept. Review Board Has Slow Start : Law enforcement: The panel was created by a 1990 ballot measure, but challenges to its authority are keeping it away from investigations.

Eileen Luna, the new executive officer of San Diego County’s law enforcement review board, knows exactly how long it can take to launch a citizen’s panel to investigate problems.

As former director of Berkeley’s review board, approved by voters in 1973, Luna watched a decade pass before officers were ordered to testify before the panel or risk losing their jobs. In San Francisco, where she was acting director of a similar board, the process took only two years.

In San Diego, the clock is running on formation of a review board, which was overwhelmingly approved on the November, 1990, ballot but is just now delving into substantive issues of sheriff’s deputy rights, confidentiality and investigative authority.

The panel has been authorized by the county Board of Supervisors to look into allegations of excessive force, illegal search and seizure, criminal conduct, false arrest, false reporting and other problems.

Once the board conducts an investigation, it can recommend disciplinary procedures to the sheriff, who can accept or ignore the advice.

But when those investigations or hearings will actually begin is anybody’s guess.

“It’s January now,” Luna said. “If I were a gambling person, I’d say the board will be up and running by summer.”

Summer may be too optimistic, say those who are fighting aspects of the board’s proposed authority. Although the panel’s 11 citizen members have been assembled and partially trained to begin their duties, objections to the new board’s proposed rules and regulations and lawsuits against its very existence have been filed.

“If a board is going to be set up to hold hearings and determine findings of fact, then we’re going to fight this all the way,” said James Gattey, an attorney who represents sheriff’s deputies. “We’re looking at a delay of a year and a half to two years.”

The sheriff’s department labor union filed a lawsuit a year ago that alleges San Diego County did not “meet and confer” with deputies before county supervisors placed the review board on the ballot.

The union, called the Deputy Sheriff’s Assn., argued that the panel’s proposed rules affect “terms and conditions of employment,” particularly those rules compelling deputies to testify before the board and to provide seemingly confidential board reports to those who generate the complaints.

Attorneys for the review panel say there is no need to meet with union representatives until all the regulations had been put into place.

Last Friday, Superior Court Judge Wayne Peterson made a preliminary ruling that the board must meet with deputies’ labor representatives before it holds any disciplinary hearings. In his ruling, Peterson said the proposed rules and regulations affect the deputies’ employment.

Sheriff Jim Roache fears the panel will interfere with his own internal investigations. In a six-page response to the review board’s draft regulations, Roache has strongly suggested that the board not be permitted to hold hearings that involve deputies, take sworn testimony or accept evidence.

Roache has asked that the review board begin investigations into citizen complaints only after his office has conducted inquiries and “all criminal proceedings . . . against the subject officer” are exhausted.

But the board, in its proposed regulations, says it “reserves the right” to investigate any complaint “where (it) determines that deferral is inappropriate or unnecessary.”

Luna said she believes the investigations will be conducted simultaneously, when necessary.

Defense Attorney Tom Adler, who has represented victims of deputy abuse, reminded the citizens review board that a Los Angeles Police Department deputy chief who testified in one of his cases said deferring investigations of citizen complaints is poor policy.

“It leads to the loss of evidence, witnesses’ memories becoming clouded, and a loss of interest on the part of the complaining party in pursuing the matter,” Adler wrote. “It also allows a law enforcement agency a period of time in which to ‘get their stories together.’ ”

A second lawsuit against the panel, filed on behalf of taxpayers by Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. President Randy Dibb last year, contends that the county is improperly spending public money on the county review board.

Since elected county supervisors choose the review panel’s members, and are not permitted to oversee the investigation of a fellow elected officer--in this case the sheriff--the panel is illegal anyway, the suit contends.

Arguments in the lawsuit are scheduled to be heard Thursday in Superior Court.

Although appeals following the disposition of both lawsuits could take months, and perhaps years, Luna said she is optimistic.

Because a number of boards have been created throughout the country, and state legislation is pending that might mandate civilian law enforcement review in California, San Diego County’s panel will not go through the same labored machinations as it did in Berkeley and San Francisco, Luna said.

“Civilian review is not a radical proposal anymore,” she said. “It’s very much perceived as good government. Because the law is much more settled, case law is on our side.”