The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office has declined to release emails and other communications it has had with media consultants who advertise themselves as “transparency engagement advisors.”

In late July, the Bohemian filed a request with the Sheriff’s Office under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for a year’s worth of emails and other documents involving Cole Pro Media and Critical Incident Videos, two Vacaville-based companies founded by a former television journalist.

On Sept. 1, the Sheriff’s Office released some records but, citing a broad range of reasons including protections for communications with attorneys and communications related to ongoing investigations, withheld an unknown number of additional records, including social media training materials developed by Cole Pro Media.

Glen Smith, an attorney with the San Rafael–based First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit focused on government transparency and free speech, says the exemptions cited by the Sheriff’s Office’s seem overly broad, especially given that no one at either of Cole’s companies are attorneys.

“It appears from [the documents] they released that this is purely a PR firm and their work product, whatever it might be, is not privileged,” Smith told the Bohemian.

The Sheriff’s Office’s latest contract with Cole Pro Media, a three-year agreement signed this July, requires the company to provide a wide range of services, with tasks ranging from daily social-media advice to “1-on-1 tactical and strategic consultation” for Sheriff Mark Essick. Under a separate contract signed last year, Critical Incident Videos performs “redaction and editing of video” and provides “non-legal advice regarding production” for the Sheriff’s Office on an as-needed basis.

In a statement, Misti Wood, a Sheriff’s Office spokesperson, said that the agency takes “transparency very seriously.”

“Cole Pro Media provides transparency and engagement advice from an outside perspective,” Wood wrote. “This advice helps the Sheriff’s Office continue to be as transparent as possible.”

Laura Cole, the founder of both media consulting companies, did not respond to a request for comment.

Cole, a former television journalist, founded Cole Pro Media in early 2014, a year after the Black Lives Matter movement first sprang up nationwide. In February 2019, Cole founded Critical Incident Videos, a company which edits together 911 call recordings, body-camera footage and other materials following a “critical incident” involving law enforcement officers in order to comply with Assembly Bill 748, a recent state law which requires agencies to release body-camera footage when a law enforcement officer’s actions result in “death or great bodily injury.”

Although her companies are still relatively young, they have attracted a long list of California law enforcement agencies as clients. According to its website, Cole Pro Media represents numerous law enforcement agencies across the state. It also serves as a media consulting firm for the California State Sheriff’s Association, an advocacy group which opposed AB 748 when it was under consideration in Sacramento. Just a year and a half old, Critical Incident Videos now represents about 100 agencies throughout the state, Cole told KPBS, a San Diego public radio station, earlier this month.

The manner in which Cole presents her company’s work has shifted over the past three years.

In May 2017, the Modesto Bee reported that Cole Pro Media’s own Facebook page described the company’s work in these words: “Here at Cole Pro Media, we believe journalism is changing. Thanks to social media, any person, agency, or leader can report the TRUTH. It is all about building your OWN media. We will report the story for you and teach you how to do it on a daily basis. It is time to take back the control from the Mainstream Media and get the real stories out there using social media. We also offer a ‘street smart’ class to outsmart reporters.”

Although Cole reportedly stood by the description of her company’s work at the time, Cole Pro Media’s public presentation has changed considerably since then. On its website, the company now calls its employees “transparency engagement advisors” and claims to have a “no spin” policy.

In her recent KPBS interview, Cole said that Critical Incident Videos will not edit videos for an agency which wants the company to make the agency “look good.” That said, Cole acknowledged it is ultimately the client agency’s decision as to what final video is published.

The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office first hired Cole Pro Media in November 2016 for $2,500 per month. The company’s first contract includes a short, general, three-point scope of work, including offering the agency “guidance on media communications,” “social media support,” and six two-hour social-media training sessions for Sheriff’s Office personnel each year.

This July, the Sheriff’s Office signed a new, three-year contract with Cole Pro Media with a more specific scope of work for $3,000 per month, plus $350 per hour for any on-site work outside of Cole Pro Media’s social-media training courses.

All told, the Sheriff’s Office paid Cole Pro Media $126,500 between October 2016 and August 2020, according to financial records obtained through a public-records request. Critical Incident Videos, which bills the Sheriff’s Office $350 per hour, has edited four videos for the Sheriff’s Office at a total cost of $18,200 over the past year.

The scope of work included in Cole Pro Media’s July 2020 contract includes numerous specific tasks, including reviewing “high profile and sensitive documents prior to release to the media” and completing a “daily review of all Sheriff’s Office posts on all media and social media platforms.”

The contract further requires Cole Pro Media to be available for “multiple conversations a day for the duration of the [critical] incidents” and “3 conversations each day” for the duration of a natural disaster, such as a wildfire or flood, for up to three weeks.

One line is repeated in both the November 2016 and July 2020 contracts: “Anticipate questions and tactics from mainstream media.”

Lastly, in addition to shaping public perceptions of the agency as a whole, the July 2020 contract tasks Cole Pro Media with providing “1-on-1 tactical and strategic consultation to the Sheriff to assist with media approach, both on an incident specific and broad strategic development scale.”

While Cole Pro Media’s contract suggests close contact with the Sheriff’s Office it is not clear where the consultant’s scope of work stops and starts.

Since late May, when he briefly announced that his agency would not enforce the county’s Covid-19 Health Order, Sheriff Mark Essick has been perceived on several occasions to be at odds with the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and other local officials. During those public disagreements, Essick sometimes spread his opinions via Facebook.

But, since the Sheriff’s Office will not publicly release its communications with its media consultants, it remains unclear what advice they are giving Essick—and whether he is following it.

In her response to questions about Cole Pro Media, Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Misti Wood stated that Cole Pro Media “may provide advice on any number of subjects, from daily activities to disasters,” but did not respond to specific questions about whether Cole Pro Media offered advice on any of the recent public disagreements between the Sheriff and other county officials.

A recent public scuffle over the Sheriff’s budget offers a good example of Essick’s use of the agency’s Facebook page. In an Aug. 13 Facebook video published on the agency’s Facebook page, Essick outlined the “proposed service cuts” the Sheriff’s Office was facing, including the elimination of the agency’s beloved helicopter, Henry-1.

“Please know that I have no choice but to recommend these cuts based on the Board’s direction to cut $14.2 million from our proposed budget,” Essick says in the video. “If you want to get involved, you may get in touch with the Board of Supervisors directly to share your thoughts.”

In an interview with the Press Democrat, Essick argued that the video was “about public transparency and the budget process.” Multiple county supervisors disagreed with that assessment, pointing out that they had required all county agencies to find programs to cut.

“He is bullying the Board of Supervisors through social media,” Supervisor Shirlee Zane told the Press Democrat. “He’s also using social media to scare the public at a time when we need the public’s trust more than ever. Shame on him.”

A complaint filed with a state campaign finance regulation commission alleges that Petaluma City Councilmember Gabe Kearney has violated campaign finance rules 16 times during the past four years by failing to file paperwork and pay fees on time.

The complaint against Kearney, filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), alleges that Kearney filed numerous forms late, failed to pay annual FPPC fees on time for the past four years, and gathered over $5,000 in political contributions before formally declaring his candidacy in the November 2016 election.

Though the complaint lists the forms as allegedly late, not entirely missing, some of the same forms are not available at the Petaluma City Clerk’s office, making it unclear how much money—if any—Kearney received from donors at the end of his 2016 campaign and during his latest four-year term on the council.

At a meeting in May, the FPPC’s legal staff determined that there was “probable cause” that Kearney had violated state rules repeatedly. While a finding of probable cause does not mean there was a violation it does signal that FPPC staff found some evidence to support the complaint. The vast majority of cases end in a settlement, according to an FPPC spokesperson. The FPPC does not comment on specific, on-going cases.

In response to questions about the complaint, Kearney told the Bohemian on Thursday morning that the late filings stem from a paperwork error at the end of 2016.

“At the end of the [2016] campaign I submitted the forms that I thought were adequate to close out my campaign account. I have been informed that they were not the proper forms to close out the account and I am working with the FPPC to close out this in the proper way,” Kearney wrote, adding that he hopes to close the case in the next few weeks.

Kearney’s explanation does not appear to apply to six of the 16 counts against him. Five of the counts predate the end of the 2016 campaign and another count, an alleged failure to file an annual Statement of Economic Interests on time in 2019, is unrelated to the 2016 campaign committee.

In addition, a form covering contributions to Kearney’s 2016 campaign between Oct. 23 through Dec. 31, 2016, was not available on the City Clerk’s website at the time of publication.

Acting City Clerk Samantha Pascoe told the Bohemian on Thursday that Kearney is working with the FPPC to amend two 2016 forms—including the one covering campaign contributions Kearney received between Oct. 23 through Dec. 31, 2016—which are currently not available on the city’s website. A recently-added note on the city’s 2016 campaign finance page states that the amended forms will be published soon.

Kearney did not respond to a request for clarification of his explanation on Thursday.

Ann Ravel, a former chair of the FPPC who reviewed the complaint, said that the number of alleged violations listed in the complaint against the Petaluma City Councilmember is unusually high and could result in a large fine.

“This is an awful lot of instances of violations. It’s quite unusual actually,” Ravel said in a phone interview.

Ravel said she believes that the commission’s staff would have considered the possibility of the paperwork error Kearney cited before deciding that there was probable cause.

“Certainly the FPPC would have looked at the circumstances. Either you filed or you didn’t… They would have known whether [the campaign committee] was closed out, whether it should have been closed out,” Ravel said. “If they thought that [Kearney’s explanation] was a reasonable rationale for failing to file they would not have charged him.”

The 16 counts against Kearney include soliciting and accepting “campaign contributions totaling approximately $5,315” before filing paperwork announcing his intention to run in the November 2016 election and failing to file eight campaign finance statements on time between Sept. 24, 2016 and Jan. 31, 2020. Kearney and his 2016 committee also allegedly failed to pay an annual FPPC fee—and the four resulting $150 late fees—every year between 2016 through 2020.

One form available on the City Clerk’s website, which the FPPC complaint lists as due on Sept. 29, 2016, was submitted on Oct. 6, 2016, according to a datestamp on the form.

“It looks to me like there’s probably going to be a big fine involved,” Ravel, the former FPPC chair, opined.

Kearney was first appointed to the Petaluma City Council in 2011. He won reelection in 2016 and recently filed paperwork announcing his intention to run again in the Nov. 3, 2020 election.

According to his most recent Statement of Economic Interests, a form politicians and many public employees are required to file each year, Kearney worked in 2019 as an Emergency Services Coordinator for Cal OES, the state emergency management department.

All told, three sitting city council members—Kearney, Mike Healy, and Kathy Miller—are running against five newcomers—Brian Barnacle, Robert Conklin, Susan Kirks, Dennis Pocekay, and Lizzie Wallack—for three open seats on the Petaluma council this November.

The complaint against Kearney is included on pages 12 and 13 of this document.