Essick’s earlier refusals met with series of rebukes, calls for resignation
After going through a weekend of not being on the same page with their public statements about enforcing business closures and shelter-in-place public health orders, Sheriff Mark Essick met Tuesday with the Board of Supervisors and declared “we are all unified in our resolve” and have a “clear path forward.”
The sheriff, who surprised everyone last Thursday with a declaration that his department would stop enforcing the local public health orders, reversed his position and gave his verbal support for county public health officer Dr. Sundari Mase and Barbie Robinson, head of the department of health services.
He said he is confident now that everyone supports the “public’s best interests.”
A series of exchanges between the five supervisors and the sheriff were terse and without the usual verbal interplay elected politicians usually favor in front of a microphone, or in this case a Zoom-recording.
Last Thursday Essick parted ways with other county officials complaining he was getting conflicting orders between county and state COVID-19 safety guidelines and that he was not always being consulted ahead of changes to the orders he was expected to enforce.
His refusal to support Mase’s public health orders was met with public rebukes by the supervisors and others. Other local law enforcement agencies outwardly endorsed support for Mase.
An attempted “meeting of the minds” session on Friday led by Congressman Jared Huffman with two county supervisors, Rep. Mike Thompson and State Senator Mike McGuire, devolved into an “on-again, off-again” effort to craft a mutual statement and agreement. At least two local elected officials, who did not attend the meeting, called for Essick’s resignation.
After being unavailable for any public comments all weekend, Essick joined the supervisor’s regular weekly meeting during the portion of the agenda focused on novel Coronavirus/COVID-19 threat, response, reopening and recovery updates by Mase and other county officials.
Board chair Susan Gorin told Essick his inconsistent statements on what rules his deputies would, or would not, enforce “left the community very confused and frustrated.” She said she was glad to see everyone agreed to move forward and regretted the public quarreling.
“There are no easy decisions here for us,” said west county supervisor Lynda Hopkins during the meeting. “I am anxious to also see what outcomes we will hear from our economic recovery task force.”
Essick said he still has concerns over social impacts and other aspects of the public health orders as they are being updated to meet new social, economic and public health conditions. He expressed special concern for the local Latinx population that has seen a high number of COVID-19 positive test cases and illnesses.
“I hope we are ready to do the outreach we say we are,” he said.
The sheriff’s department has responded to 700 coronavirus-related calls and has issued 19 written warnings and 13 citations.
“I am proud of my deputies,” Essick said. “They are taking a compassionate and educational approach to this, rather than a heavy-handed one. We don’t want to put people in jail.”
Mase’s orders must align with state public health orders, as all 58 California counties continue to create local responses to the shelter-in-place orders, now 77 days in and counting as of Tuesday.
“We have been following an evidence-based, data-driven model since day one,” Dr. Mase said.
In last week’s statements, Essick called for a more “risk-based” approach to allow for more local control and consistency. Mase said her approach has always been risk-based, adding that protecting public health and supporting the local economy is a “balancing act between risks and benefits.”
She said she was preparing less restrictive orders later this week to open all parks, coastal beaches and more indoor retail activity.
Supervisor James Gore attempted to ask Essick about his responses to the current public anti-police brutality rallies and related violence and property damage. County Counsel Bruce Goldstein intervened and said such a discussion needed to be placed on a future public meeting agenda and was not COVID-19 related.
