10/20
By Carl Tennenbaum
When my children were young, my seven-year-old son loved teasing his older sister. He would hold his finger half an inch from her face and taunt her: “I’m not touching you! Neener neener neener!”
Technically, he was right. But his intent was to provoke her while hiding behind a technicality. It was behavior one might expect from a seven-year-old, not a grown man entrusted with public authority.
Recently, Sonoma County Sheriff Eddie Engram posted political endorsements of Sylvia Lemus for District 2 supervisor and Tom Schwedhelm for District 4 supervisor on a Sheriff Eddie Engram Facebook page. In both photographs Engram is wearing law-enforcement-style attire and posing beside a vehicle resembling a patrol car.
At first glance, the photographs look like images of Sheriff Engram in uniform. Only upon closer inspection does one notice subtle differences in the clothing and accessories.
When questioned about his political activities while in uniform, Engram said he wasn’t wearing his uniform, that he purchased the clothing and badge privately, used a different campaign patch (which read “Engram for Sheriff”, along with a name tag that appears to read Eddie Engram Sheriff), and posed beside a privately owned police vehicle. He has described the clothing as a “costume” intended for political photographs.
A costume.
That may explain who owns the props, but it doesn’t answer what the photographs communicate to the public.
If the objective was to separate his political activities from his official responsibilities, why recreate the recognizable appearance of law-enforcement authority? Why not just pose in a casual outfit or business attire?
We’ve been down this road before
During the 2022 Sonoma County sheriff’s election, Engram’s campaign materials showed him wearing a uniform that appeared identical to the official Sheriff’s uniforms, except that identifying agency information had been obscured. Formal complaints were filed alleging violations of California law, Sonoma County Code, and Sheriff’s Office Policy 1024.
The Sheriff’s Office investigated and exonerated Engram, based solely on the word of Engram’s predecessor Mark Essick, who said that Engram had his “implied” permission to wear the uniform. According to IOLERO’s 2022–2023 Annual Report, the investigation did not interview any other parties involved.
IOLERO challenged the investigation’s adequacy and recommended clearer restrictions on political use of uniforms. The Sheriff’s Office subsequently confirmed that Policy 1024 had been revised based on IOLERO’s recommendation, spelling out restrictions on the use of uniforms, badges, patches, and official insignia in political campaigns and other specified activities.
Four years later, we appear to be having the same argument in a slightly different but eerily familiar costume.
One standard for the public, another for the sheriff?
In July and August 2026, County Counsel and the County Administrator issued memoranda warning members of IOLERO’s Community Advisory Council (CAC) that even the perception of partiality could expose the County to allegations of improper political activity.
The proposed candidate forum, organized by CAC members and Community Law Enforcement Accountability Now (CLEAN), was intended to give voters a neutral opportunity to hear candidates discuss public issues. The County’s message was clearly to prevent CAC and CLEAN from hosting the planned form.
County Counsel warned citizen volunteers that even the appearance of political bias could put the County at risk for hosting a neutral candidate forum. Yet when the Sheriff uses the trappings of his office to promote political candidates, where is that same level of concern? The law means little if its principles bend to accommodate the powerful. Public trust demands one standard, applied to all.
What about the sheriff’s priorities?
How much time and resources went into producing this political cosplay? Even if everything was privately funded and done on personal time, a larger question remains: Is this how we want our Sheriff’s Office to be run?
A sheriff’s uniform, badge, and official identity symbolize the authority of the office. That authority carries an obligation to serve the public with professionalism and respect. Those qualities are demonstrated through conduct, not asserted through explanations after questions about ethics, integrity and political favoritism repeatedly arise.
Sonoma County deserves leadership that serves the greater good, one that is principled and respects the purpose of its own policies, recognizing that public confidence and trust is earned through conduct. Accountability is not an obstacle to maneuver around. It is an obligation that comes with public office, and that obligation should apply at the top.
Public trust, professional responsibility, and equal application of standards are the stakes.
