Resolving some residents’ misunderstanding of state Assembly Bill 2257 was a key issue for both supporters and detractors of the proposed legislation during the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors’ April 21 hearing.
“This was pulled by quite a few members of the board. I personally pulled it for a couple reasons,” 4th District Supervisor Bob Nelson said about an administrative item for the county to support the bill, which staff described as aligning with the county’s legislative platform.
Authored by Assemblymember Gregg Hart (D-Santa Barbara), AB 2257 would give county jurisdictions across the state the option to shift county jail authority from an elected sheriff to an independent commission if passed.
Before Nelson ultimately dissented in the 3-2 vote (5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino also dissented) to support the bill, he wanted to clear up some misinformation he heard about the board’s reasoning for putting the item on the consent calendar rather than up for discussion.
“All we are doing is commenting on state legislation. Some people in Sacramento care about what Santa Barbara County thinks; many do not,” Nelson said. “So, we have minimal impact on this legislation. … I just wanted to explain that to the public that was a little misunderstood about why this showed up on today’s agenda the way it did.”
Based on emails the board received prior to the hearing, 2nd District Supervisor Laura Capps said, “it seems as though information went out that we were taking action today to take over our jails.”
“That is not the action that is being taken today,” Capps continued. “It’s about weighing in on a piece of legislation. … Nothing would change regardless of what this board does today.”
Andy Caldwell—executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture, and Business (COLAB)—was among the public speakers at the April 21 meeting who voiced objections to supporting the bill.
One day prior to the hearing, Caldwell sent out a COLAB e-blast that described Supervisor Nelson’s decision, as board chair, to place the item on the consent calendar as unfortunate.
“What is the significance of putting it on the admin calendar? These are items deemed non-controversial and assumed to pass,” Caldwell wrote. “The real reason? These politicians want to consolidate power from other electeds, and they also want to empty our jails as part of the national ‘decarceration’ movement.”
Caldwell reiterated some of his points in person at the board hearing.
“We want separation of powers. We want a professional law enforcement person elected to run the jail,” Caldwell told the supervisors. “Please respect the office and respect the will of the voters. They’ve elected [county Sheriff Bill Brown] four or five times, and he’s gotten more votes than any of you. … I believe it’s always been a battle of egos.”
A moment later, Assemblymember Hart’s district director, Ethan Bertrand spoke during public comment via Zoom.
“We apologize we can’t be there in person with you today. We’re actually in Sacramento presenting this very bill,” said Bertrand, who described the bill as restoring a power counties across the state previously had, up until 1993, to choose “to establish an independently led department of corrections and rehabilitation.”
“As has been stated, this is merely restoring a choice,” he explained. “Many counties, including your own, may choose to maintain a sheriff-run jail. And if that is in the best interest of public safety and fiscal accountability and rehabilitation, we support that.”
This article appears in April 23 – April 30, 2026.