‘Do they want them to have free speech?’: Mason County sheriff argues oversight law threatens elected sheriffs’ rights

Mason County Sheriff Ryan Spurling said a Washington law concerning sheriffs’ professional standards gives an appointed commission too much power over elected officials — and threatens their ability to speak for the communities that chose them.

Joining “The Gee and Ursula Show” on KIRO Newsradio, Spurling welcomed a judge’s decision Friday to block key portions of the law. He argued that the debate is about voters’ authority and elected sheriffs’ free speech, not opposition to accountability.

“Do they want them to have free speech, or do they want them to be controlled by an appointed board?” Spurling asked.

Co-hosts Gee Scott and Ursula Reutin questioned Spurling about how to balance that authority with protections against misconduct. Gee supported his concern about an appointed body overriding voters, while Ursula pressed him on how an unfit sheriff could be removed.

Spurling argues voters should retain authority over sheriffs

Spurling said the ruling was important for the people who elect sheriffs.

“It was important for the electorate, the people who elect somebody, to have their voices heard,” he said.

Spurling’s concern centered on the state’s Criminal Justice Training Commission (CJTC), which he described as responsible for law enforcement certifications and running the academy for agencies other than the Washington State Patrol.

Spurling argued that provisions allowing decertification over speech deemed discriminatory could restrict an elected sheriff’s ability to represent constituents. He questioned whether an appointed commission should have the power to displace voters’ judgment.

Gee agreed with the concern but asked what accountability measures Spurling would support.

“But what is something that you would support when it comes to sheriff accountability?” Gee asked.

Spurling said sheriffs face accountability through state and federal laws, lawsuits, media scrutiny, and the public.

“Accountability is good for our profession; it has to be in place, or we draw the wrong person to our profession,” Spurling said. “So it’s not something that we’re against as sheriffs. We’re in support of accountability.”

Ursula asks how an unfit sheriff can be removed

Ursula outlined the argument from supporters of the law: If deputies can lose their certification for serious misconduct, why shouldn’t their sheriff be held to at least the same standard?

“Let’s say a sheriff is found guilty of serious misconduct,” Ursula said. “What are the ways to get that sheriff out?”

Spurling drew a distinction between losing law enforcement certification and losing elected office.

“Well, they can be decertified, and that would mean they cannot perform law enforcement duties,” he said. “That doesn’t mean that they’re not still the elected sheriff.”

Ursula later returned to the question of protecting both voters’ authority and public safety.

“Where should the line be between protecting the will of voters and protecting the public from an unfit sheriff?” she asked.

Spurling pointed to the recall process, citing the removal of a Benton County sheriff as an example. He said sheriffs, like other elected county officials, are subject to an existing process for removal.

“It took a little bit of time, but it’s the same as the auditor. It’s the same as the clerk. It’s the same as the prosecutor,” Spurling said. “There is a process in place.”

Sheriff’s answers give Ursula pause

Spurling said he expected a lengthy legal fight, noting that the attorney general had said he would appeal the ruling. He argued that Washington residents should weigh in on what authority they want elected sheriffs to have.

After the interview, Ursula told Gee that Spurling’s answers had prompted her to reconsider parts of the debate.

“Can I tell you that Sheriff Spurling is giving me some pause?” Ursula said. “You and I don’t agree on this, but I think he was able to answer some questions.”

She stopped short of abandoning her concerns about misconduct.

“I think there’s still some issues that I have, that certain folks can abuse their positions, but he’s giving me pause,” Ursula said.

Gee noted that his support for Spurling’s argument did not necessarily mean they shared the same politics. He favored leaving the decision to voters, while Ursula said she still had concerns that some officials could abuse their positions.

Watch the full discussion in the video above.

Listen to Gee and Ursula on “The Gee and Ursula Show” weekday mornings from 9 am to 12 pm on KIRO Newsradio.