El Dorado County supervisors face a consequential decision on Tuesday, October 20: whether to approve the county administration’s recommendation to appoint Undersheriff Eric Palmberg as sheriff-coroner-public administrator, or reconsider the selection process after former Sheriff John D’Agostini challenged the proposal and asked for more public input.
The central distinction is important: Palmberg is the county administration’s recommended appointee, not yet the confirmed successor. D’Agostini has publicly expressed interest in the appointment, but his challenge does not establish that he is entitled to the position.
The official county agenda identifies the matter as Item 26-1683, with a proposed monthly salary of $25,701.87, effective December 26, 2026, or upon an earlier vacancy. The proposed appointment would cover the remainder of the current term, ending January 8, 2029.
At a glance
Oct. 20
2026
Board of Supervisors meeting
Scheduled for 9 a.m. at 330 Fair Lane, Building A, Placerville, with remote participation available. The sheriff appointment is agenda Item 24 in the published meeting listing, under file number 26-1683.
Palmberg
County proposal
Continuity of leadership
The Chief Administrative Office recommends appointing the current undersheriff when Sheriff Jeff Leikauf retires.
D’Agostini
Public challenge
Delay and broader consideration
The former sheriff argues the process is moving too quickly, urges supervisors to consult constituents and says he is legally eligible for appointment. Those are his stated positions, not findings by the county or a court.
1. What the official appointment proposal says
The county’s Legistar record for agenda Item 26-1683 identifies the Chief Administrative Office as the recommending department.
The proposal would:
-
Appoint Eric Palmberg to the combined office of sheriff, coroner and public administrator.
-
Make the appointment effective when the office becomes vacant on December 26, 2026, or earlier if a vacancy occurs.
-
Cover the unexpired term through January 8, 2029.
-
Set compensation at $25,701.87 per month, funded by the county General Fund.
The current sheriff, Jeff Leikauf, announced his planned retirement in a letter dated October 12, identifying December 25 as his last day in office. He recommended Palmberg as his successor. The county’s agenda materials include the retirement letter.
The proposal is not itself an appointment. Supervisors retain the authority to act on the recommendation, subject to applicable law.
2. The legal appointment timeline
Three legal questions should be separated: whether the board must fill the vacancy, how quickly it must act, and who is qualified to be appointed.
December 30, 2016 — California Attorney General Opinion 15-1202
The California Attorney General concluded that a county board must appoint someone to fill a sheriff vacancy within a reasonable time. The opinion also concluded that an appointee must satisfy the qualifications applicable to an elected sheriff, including county residency.
Official source: California Department of Justice — Opinion 15-1202
October 12, 2026 — Retirement announced
Sheriff Jeff Leikauf notified the county of his intention to retire, with December 25 designated as his last day. He recommended Palmberg as his successor.
October 14–15 — Proposal and public challenge
The county created the appointment agenda item on October 14. D’Agostini’s challenge, received as public comment on October 15 according to the agenda record, questions the pace and transparency of the process and presents him as another eligible candidate.
October 20 — Board consideration
Supervisors are scheduled to consider Item 26-1683. The published item is a recommendation to appoint Palmberg, not evidence of a completed vote.
December 26 — Proposed effective date
The office is expected to become vacant following Leikauf’s final day. The county proposes the appointment take effect on December 26, or earlier if the vacancy occurs sooner.
Does the law require a vote on October 20?
Not on the evidence reviewed. Government Code § 25304 requires the board to fill an elective county-office vacancy by appointment, but it does not specify a fixed number of days before a planned retirement by which the board must act. The Attorney General’s opinion interprets the law as requiring action within a reasonable time after a vacancy occurs.
That distinction matters because Leikauf’s retirement is scheduled for December, rather than having already created a vacancy. The opinion supports the duty to fill the office; it does not establish that the October 20 meeting is legally required or that postponing the item would automatically violate the law.
Nor does the opinion grant D’Agostini a right to appointment. It establishes the governing legal framework, not the identity of the person supervisors must choose.
3. What is known about the two men?
Eric Palmberg
Basis: County agenda and Sheriff Leikauf’s recommendation, as summarized in the published materials.
-
Experience: Leikauf’s letter credits Palmberg with 19 years of progressively responsible service in the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office.
-
Current role: Undersheriff, a position he has held since November 2025, according to the county’s published background reporting.
-
Assignments: Reported experience includes patrol, field training, narcotics, supervision, the Coroner Unit, SWAT command, jail administration, support services and public information.
-
Specialized experience: Leikauf credits Palmberg with helping plan and establish the department’s morgue and indoor shooting range while assigned to the Coroner Unit.
-
Training and recognition: The sheriff’s recommendation cites Palmberg’s 2025 graduation from the FBI National Academy and departmental awards for performance and leadership.
-
Case for appointment: Leikauf emphasizes operational continuity, institutional knowledge and Palmberg’s working relationships with county partners.
John D’Agostini
Basis: D’Agostini’s public statement and his letter to supervisors, as reported and reproduced in the public challenge.
-
Prior service: D’Agostini says he was first elected sheriff in 2010 and reelected without opposition in 2014 and 2018. He describes his tenure as 12 years.
-
Eligibility claim: He says he submitted documentation of his qualifications and cites California Attorney General Opinion 15-1202.
-
Process criticism: He argues that the recommendation followed too quickly after the retirement announcement and calls for supervisors to consult their constituents before making the appointment.
-
Governance criticism: He questions the propriety of the unelected Chief Administrative Officer recommending an appointment to an elected office.
-
Board-composition concern: He alleges that the meeting was scheduled knowing the District Three supervisor would be absent. This is his allegation; the available materials do not establish the reason for the scheduling or independently substantiate his claim about intent.
Placerville NewsWire+1
What can be said about their qualifications?
The available material supports a comparison of their documented professional histories, but not a definitive ranking of their overall fitness for the position.
Palmberg’s current command role and broad assignments are relevant to continuity. D’Agostini’s prior elected service is relevant to his experience leading the department and to his familiarity with the office. Neither fact, by itself, settles which candidate is better qualified to serve during the remaining term.
The legal test also needs precision. Government Code § 24004.3 specifies qualifying combinations of law-enforcement experience and education, including an advanced POST certificate as one route. The Attorney General concluded that these qualifications apply to appointed sheriffs as well as elected ones. County voter-registration and residency requirements also apply.
Unresolved eligibility issue: The public claims and the available summaries do not independently establish that every legal requirement has been verified for both men. Supervisors should confirm the relevant credentials and residency or voter-registration requirements on the record rather than treating either candidate’s assertion—or a résumé summary—as a legal determination.
4. Verified facts vs. advocacy claims vs. analysis
This distinction is essential for a fair preview.
| Issue | Verified fact | Advocacy claim or analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Palmberg’s candidacy | The Chief Administrative Office recommends his appointment. | The recommendation is the best way to ensure continuity. That is the rationale for the proposal, not proof that no alternative is suitable. |
| D’Agostini’s candidacy | He has publicly expressed interest and asked supervisors to consider his eligibility. | His claim to be a viable alternative requires independent credential verification. |
| Timing | The retirement announcement was dated October 12; the appointment item was created October 14. | D’Agostini calls the process rushed. Whether it is unreasonably rushed is a judgment, not an established legal violation. |
| CAO’s role | The CAO is recommending an appointment for supervisors to consider. | D’Agostini argues that an unelected administrator should not recommend an appointment to an elected office. The recommendation alone does not establish impropriety. |
| Supervisor attendance | D’Agostini alleges that the meeting was scheduled knowing a District Three supervisor would be absent. | The allegation does not establish deliberate manipulation. The scheduling rationale and expected attendance should be confirmed independently. |
| Legal obligation | State law requires the board to fill the vacancy by appointment within a reasonable time. | The law does not, on the evidence reviewed, establish that October 20 is the only permissible date or that D’Agostini must be appointed.
|
One additional distinction is important: the Attorney General’s opinion was issued in response to questions concerning a sheriff’s death in Calaveras County. Its conclusions interpret the relevant statewide statutes, but the factual circumstances differ from El Dorado County’s planned retirement. The opinion should be applied to the current situation with that difference in mind.
5. The strongest questions supervisors should answer
These are the questions most likely to produce a meaningful, accountable public record.
1. What legal review supports the appointment process?
Has County Counsel reviewed Government Code §§ 24004.3, 24001 and 25304, the county charter, and Attorney General Opinion 15-1202? Does the county have a written determination of the qualifications required for an appointed sheriff?
2. Have both candidates’ eligibility requirements been verified?
What documentation establishes Palmberg’s qualifying law-enforcement experience, applicable POST certification or education-and-experience pathway, and county voter-registration and residency status? Has D’Agostini’s submitted documentation been reviewed against the same criteria?
3. What alternatives did the county consider?
Was Palmberg recommended solely on the retiring sheriff’s assessment, or did the county evaluate other qualified candidates? Were D’Agostini’s credentials received early enough for a substantive review? If not, why not?
4. Why must the board consider the item on October 20?
What operational or legal need supports the timing? Would a short, defined postponement materially disrupt department operations or risk violating any legal duty? What continuity arrangements would apply if the board delayed action?
5. What is the documented reason for the meeting schedule?
Who selected the date, when was it selected, and what records explain the scheduling decision? Was the District Three supervisor’s availability considered? The board should address the concern through records and evidence, not simply dismiss or accept the allegation.
6. What criteria will govern the board’s decision?
Will supervisors compare command experience, personnel management, operational performance, public accountability, experience across the sheriff-coroner-public administrator functions, and readiness to serve through January 2029? Will they explain their reasoning publicly?
7. What exactly does the proposed compensation cover?
The agenda lists $25,701.87 per month from the General Fund. Is that the full salary for the combined office, and how does it compare with the current compensation and benefits? The public should have a clear fiscal explanation, even though compensation is not the central dispute.
6. What happens if supervisors delay or reject the proposal?
The board’s options and their consequences should be distinguished from what the current agenda recommends.
-
Approve Palmberg: The board would select the county’s recommended candidate, subject to the appointment’s stated effective date and confirmation that legal requirements are met.
-
Continue the item: Supervisors could seek additional legal review, examine qualifications or obtain further public input. Any delay should have a defined purpose and timeline consistent with the legal obligation to fill the vacancy within a reasonable time.
-
Consider another qualified candidate: The county’s recommendation does not itself eliminate the board’s appointment authority. Any alternative must satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
-
Take another legally permissible action: Supervisors should obtain advice from County Counsel about the procedure and consequences before departing from the staff recommendation.
The board does not have to treat the CAO’s recommendation as a binding decision. Equally, the existence of a competing candidate does not itself invalidate the recommendation.
7. How residents can follow the meeting
Board of Supervisors — October 20, 2026
Scheduled start: 9 a.m.
The sheriff appointment is Item 24 in the published agenda listing, file 26-1683.
Location: Board Chambers, 330 Fair Lane, Building A, Placerville, California.
Remote access: County’s published meeting information and livestream links.
Written comments: The published instructions request comments by 4 p.m. Monday, October 19, emailed to edc.cob@edcgov.us, identifying Item 26-1683. The county says written comments will be entered into the public record.
Source: Official county agenda item and October 20 meeting record.
Editorial assessment
The strongest framing is not that Palmberg is unqualified, that D’Agostini is entitled to return, or that the county has violated the law. The available evidence establishes none of those conclusions.
The defensible story is that the county has recommended an experienced internal successor, a former elected sheriff has challenged the pace and transparency of the selection process, and supervisors must make a legally compliant appointment while explaining their decision to the public.
The key accountability test is straightforward: Will the board demonstrate that its decision rests on verified eligibility, a defensible assessment of leadership qualifications, and a transparent explanation of its process?
That is a stronger public-interest question than asking residents to choose sides before the county has answered the outstanding questions.
Fact-check limitation: This preview is based on the published county agenda, the reported contents of the retirement recommendation and D’Agostini’s public challenge, the relevant California statutes, and the 2016 Attorney General opinion. The county’s listed attachments were not fully retrievable in this review, so the underlying candidate qualification documents and the complete correspondence should be checked before publication. The October 20 meeting and vote are still upcoming as of October 17; no outcome should be reported as having occurred.
