Sophia Mason investigation looks more like a coverup



Greater than a yr after the decomposing physique of 8-year-old Sophia Mason was discovered inside a Merced house, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors final week lastly licensed an unbiased investigation into the loss of life of the Hayward woman.

Data and reporting by this information group over the previous yr present that county social employees ignored not less than seven separate warnings within the 15 months earlier than Sophia’s loss of life that she was being abused and in peril.

The supervisors’ unanimous resolution to authorize the investigation — the primary time they’d mentioned Sophia in a public assembly — comes after months of prodding by this editorial board.

Nevertheless it’s by no means clear that the investigation will resolve what went fallacious and maintain these accountable accountable for his or her actions. Sadly, this seems to be extra like a coverup than a breakthrough.

Newly elected Supervisor Lena Tam of Alameda, with help from newly appointed Supervisor Elisa Márquez of Hayward, deserves credit score for urgent for an investigation that her veteran colleagues had beforehand stonewalled.

Supervisors Nate Miley and David Haubert in June 2022 had promised an investigation of Sophia’s loss of life, however nothing occurred, whereas Supervisor Keith Carson continues to duck our questions in regards to the case. Reasonably than demonstrating management, they appear hellbent on distancing themselves from the case as a lot as doable.

It appears clear that Alameda County Counsel Donna Ziegler, who’s now defending a lawsuit stemming from the Mason case, is looking the photographs. Whereas we admire that there must be some care exercised within the face of ongoing litigation, that shouldn’t be an excuse for supervisors abdicating their accountability to resolve what went fallacious and to insist on public accountability.

“As any person who has labored by means of litigation on the jurisdictional stage,” former Hayward Councilmember Sara Lamnin informed the supervisors earlier than their Could 23 vote, “I’m very conscious that it’s doable to do each, to take an unflinching have a look at a system and nonetheless work by means of the intricacies of litigation.”

Precisely.

Sadly, that doesn’t appear to be what’s taking place right here. Tam’s vaguely worded proposal for an unbiased investigation gives no timeline; no course of for choosing an unbiased investigator to make sure that supervisors, not self-interested employees, make the choose; and no readability on the scope of the probe.

The directive emphasizes “a dedication to overview greatest practices for conducting baby welfare investigations … that will inform ongoing insurance policies and practices.” That must be an necessary part of the investigation, however actually not the one one.

There isn’t a point out of holding culpable county staff accountable. Fairly the opposite. Miley mentioned that in approving the movement, the board was not “casting any aspersions on our employees.”

Reasonably than a really unbiased investigation that might be performed separate of county employees, the supervisors’ directive states that the probe “might be accomplished at the side of ongoing litigation.” That implies the investigation is likely to be performed by county attorneys or outdoors attorneys who’re additionally dealing with the litigation — undermining the very notion of independence.

And nowhere within the movement is there any indication that the general public will ever be taught the result of the investigation, for there is no such thing as a point out of constructing the findings public.

This isn’t the unbiased investigation Alameda County residents deserve. To make sure there isn’t one other case like Sophia Mason’s, supervisors have to do higher.