More Information to come

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors created IOLERO as an independent, non-police agency to audit Sheriff’s Office Internal Affairs, make policy recommendations, and (as later expanded) investigate whistleblower complaints and critical incidents. [1] 

Measure P passes; unions file labor charges. Voters approved Measure P, expanding IOLERO’s authority (including subpoenas) and minimum funding. The Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) and SCLEA filed unfair-practice charges at PERB, claiming the County failed to meet-and-confer before placing the measure on the ballot. [2] 

PERB Decision 2772-M (vacated in part on appeal). PERB ruled the County violated meet-and-confer duties and purported to sever/void certain Measure P provisions as to represented employees; the County appealed. [3] 

The First District held PERB skipped an initial “significant and adverse effect” analysis (Claremont test) and exceeded its authority by invalidating Measure P; it remanded to PERB to determine which ballot-placement decisions/effects, if any, were within scope and required bargaining. [4] 

 PERB concluded the County failed to give the unions adequate notice/opportunity to meet-and-confer before the Board placed Measure P on the ballot; ordered cease-and-desist and posting (no wholesale voiding). [5] 

The County and law-enforcement labor groups executed LOAs that spell out IOLERO’s oversight authority (auditing investigations, access to materials, etc.), resolving many meet-and-confer issues tied to Measure P. [6] 

IOLERO issued subpoenas in a Sheriff’s Office whistleblower matter and moved in Sonoma County Superior Court to enforce them; in Sept. 2024 the court ruled IOLERO lacked statutory authority to subpoena in whistleblower investigations (distinct from other contexts). IOLERO appealed in Nov. 2024; the dispute remained active into 2025. [7] 

 The County’s IOLERO news page references expansion of audits while appealing the ruling limiting subpoena power in whistleblower cases. [8] 

. During IOLERO’s investigation of the July 2022 David Peláez-Chavez shooting, the DSA accused IOLERO of overreach and filed a harassment complaint; sealed court subpoenas from the whistleblower case were inadvertently released, drawing new scrutiny. IOLERO’s Community Advisory Council set a special meeting for Oct. 22, 2025 to discuss a response. [9]

[1] Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Ordinance establishing IOLERO, 2015. [2] PERB Case Nos. SF-CE-1640-M and SF-CE-1641-M, filed 2020. 

[3] PERB Decision 2772-M (June 23, 2021). 

[4] County of Sonoma v. PERB (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 167. 

[5] PERB Decision 2772a-M (February 28, 2023).

[6] Sonoma County Human Resources LOA summary, May–October 2023. 

[7] Sonoma County Superior Court, IOLERO v. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, Case No. SCV-275113, 2024. 

[8] Sonoma County IOLERO public updates, December 2024. 

[9] CLEAN response and DSA complaint correspondence, September–October 2025.