Sonoma County’s civilian law enforcement watchdog council wanted to put the four candidates running for two open Board of Supervisors seats onstage and ask them where they stand on Measure P and other issues related to law enforcement. That is a great topic for a candidate forum, but the community advisory council is the wrong group to host it.

The Community Advisory Council to the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach, known as IOLERO, meant well. Its members understand the challenges with county law enforcement better than most people. Good intentions are not enough, though.

In memos dated July 27 and Aug. 6, Deputy County Counsel Kara Abelson correctly advised council leaders that they may not host a candidate forum. It is illegal under state law for local appointees to use public resources — facilities, staff time, email accounts, county logos, etc. — for campaign activity. If someone files a complaint, it could lead to civil penalties and legal bills for the county. The state Supreme Court has warned for 50 years that the government must stay clear of elections.

This is also a matter of public perceptions. An 11-member panel appointed by supervisors that oversees difficult cases involving the Sheriff’s Office cannot referee a race for the offices that set its budget without the appearance of a conflict. No matter how fair the questions, some people will wonder whether the council favors a candidate or two.

That applies to any county board, not just the Community Advisory Council. The county executive’s office is therefore on the right track drafting a policy to cover all 75-plus board-appointed bodies.

The conversation around law enforcement and the role of oversight matters. County voters approved Measure P in 2020 with about 65% of the vote, and it has been fought over ever since. State courts have affirmed IOLERO’s subpoena powers, and the California Supreme Court let that stand in July. IOLERO and the Sheriff’s Office had spent more than $390,000 combined on legal bills by spring.

It remains unsettled whether deputies must answer questions in IOLERO’s independent investigations of deputy-involved deaths. Supervisors floated amendments to Measure P in the spring, but shelved them.

It is fair to ask candidates where they stand.

To that end, there should be a debate, just not one involving county resources.

Despite the warnings, the community advisory council voted unanimously to work with Community Law Enforcement Accountability Now (CLEAN) on a forum held under the council’s banner. Finding a partner does not resolve the issue of flying a public body’s banner. Council members should follow Abelson’s advice and pursue this in their personal capacities and with their personal resources.

Organizers should consider reaching out to other groups, too. The League of Women Voters of Sonoma County, for example, has held candidate forums before. It could help organizers avoid pitfalls and provide neutrality.

Better yet, why not invite the Sonoma County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and the Deputy Sheriff’s Law Enforcement Management Unit to co-sponsor? The DSA campaigned against Measure P in 2020 and litigated it for six years. It has a clear stake in the debate and is a private organization free to spend its own money on a candidate forum.

If the deputies’ groups joined with CLEAN, the questions would be sharper, and few could dismiss the event as one-sided. More important, it would show Sonoma County residents that law enforcement and the watchdogs need not be enemies. If they can partner this once, maybe the next six years can be less combative than the past six.