{"id":14662,"date":"2026-10-17T21:09:17","date_gmt":"2026-10-18T05:09:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inedc.com\/26\/?p=14662"},"modified":"2026-10-17T21:09:17","modified_gmt":"2026-10-18T05:09:17","slug":"el-dorado-sheriff-appointment-faces-records-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inedc.com\/26\/crime\/el-dorado-sheriff-appointment-faces-records-challenge\/","title":{"rendered":"El Dorado Sheriff Appointment Faces Records Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

El Dorado Sheriff Appointment Faces Records Challenge<\/h1>\n

PLACERVILLE, Calif. \u2014 An El Dorado County resident is asking county supervisors to delay the appointment of Undersheriff Eric Palmberg as the next sheriff until outstanding public records concerning the Sheriff\u2019s Office\u2019s June 2026 California State Sheriffs\u2019 Association conference have been produced and reviewed.<\/p>\n

Leslie Schlag, a District 3 resident and county employee of 21 years, submitted a written notice ahead of the Board of Supervisors\u2019 Oct. 20 meeting. Her filing raises questions about planned law enforcement staffing, security arrangements, transportation and potential taxpayer costs associated with the conference.<\/p>\n

The challenge comes as supervisors prepare to consider a recommendation from the Chief Administrative Office to appoint Palmberg as sheriff-coroner-public administrator when Sheriff Jeff Leikauf retires. The county\u2019s agenda lists the appointment under item 26-1683, with a proposed effective date of Dec. 26, 2026, or earlier if the office becomes vacant before then. The appointment would cover the remainder of the current term, ending Jan. 8, 2029, at a proposed monthly salary of $25,701.87.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
File #: 26-1683<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Schlag argues that the board should not make the appointment before the relevant conference records are available for scrutiny. She also wants an independent inquiry into what was planned, what actually occurred, who authorized the arrangements and what role individual members of the Sheriff\u2019s Office command staff played.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Board should explain how District 3 residents will have a voice in this decision,\u201d Schlag wrote in her notice.<\/p>\n

Conference plan raises questions about staffing and security<\/h3>\n

The concerns center on an Incident Action Plan produced by El Dorado County through the California Public Records Act process, according to Schlag\u2019s filing.<\/p>\n

She says the plan assigns two El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office jet skis to accompany the Rum Runner, a commercial lake cruise. Separately, the document assigns a patrol boat staffed by two deputies to operate on the lake near Valhalla and identifies a nearby marine unit.<\/p>\n

The plan also assigns a plainclothes sergeant aboard the Rum Runner and designates plainclothes deputies and a sergeant to provide security for spouses\u2019 shopping, according to the notice.<\/p>\n

Schlag says the spouses and partners referenced in the assignments were connected to sheriffs and Sheriff’s Office officials attending the conference, including individuals associated with Leikauf and Palmberg. The plan, as described in her filing, does not identify each person or specify which official each person accompanied.<\/p>\n

A conference email referenced in the notice reportedly said transportation would be provided for a spouse-only Rum Runner cruise, while the Incident Action Plan described the cruise as within walking distance.<\/p>\n

Those details raise questions about the operational rationale for the planned deployments and whether the assignments were necessary for legitimate law enforcement or security purposes. However, the plan alone does not establish which assignments were carried out, how much staff time was spent, whether overtime was incurred or what the event ultimately cost county taxpayers.<\/p>\n

Schlag says those questions can be answered only through additional records, including deployment documentation, timekeeping records, payroll information and financial accounting.<\/p>\n

The county has not established in the records described in the notice that the planned assignments resulted in misconduct. The distinction between a proposed deployment and an actual expenditure is central to the questions Schlag wants investigated.<\/p>\n

Public records remain outstanding<\/h3>\n

Schlag\u2019s notice says the county was producing records about the conference in stages and had estimated completion by Nov. 20, 2026.<\/p>\n

The requests seek information that could help establish what occurred, who received transportation or security services, how personnel were deployed and what costs were incurred.<\/p>\n

The records status provided by Schlag, current as of Oct. 16, identifies several requests as completed and others as still in progress.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Public records request<\/th>\nStatus as of Oct. 16, 2026<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
P009312-051926 \u2014 County complaint handling and related human resources records<\/td>\nCompleted; some records withheld or redacted<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P009313-051926 \u2014 Sheriff\u2019s Office complaint records<\/td>\nCombined with P009312; completed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P009314-051926 \u2014 District Attorney complaint records<\/td>\nCombined with P009312; completed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P009325-052026 \u2014 County whistleblower policies<\/td>\nCompleted<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P009497-062226 \u2014 CSSA conference records<\/td>\nProduction in stages; estimated completion Nov. 20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P009498-062226 \u2014 District Attorney whistleblower, conflict and complaint policies<\/td>\nCompleted; county reported no responsive records<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P009499-062226 \u2014 Whistleblower and retaliation training records<\/td>\nCompleted; final response received Sept. 16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P009927-082526 \u2014 Sheriff\u2019s Office overtime records<\/td>\nIn progress; estimated completion Oct. 30<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
P010122-092626 \u2014 Gifts, benefits and donations<\/td>\nIn progress; estimated completion Dec. 4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Source: Records-request status supplied by Schlag. These dates are estimates reported in her notice, not independently verified production deadlines.<\/p>\n

The outstanding overtime records could help determine actual personnel costs, while the pending gifts and benefits records could clarify whether officials received any benefits connected to the event.<\/p>\n

Schlag is asking the board to direct the Chief Administrative Office and County Counsel to coordinate with the relevant records units, prioritize the outstanding conference requests and report which records remain unavailable and when they are expected to be released.<\/p>\n

Passes and reimbursements need a final accounting<\/h3>\n

The notice also raises questions about conference passes, reimbursements and a deposit.<\/p>\n

According to Schlag\u2019s review of the records produced so far, one order associated with Leikauf lists a $200 spouse pass. An order associated with Palmberg totals $600 and includes a $200 spouse pass and a separate $400 law enforcement pass.<\/p>\n

The produced records also include $200 reimbursement entries and refer to a deposit. Schlag says the underlying deposit record and a final accounting have not been produced.<\/p>\n

Those entries do not, by themselves, establish that the county improperly paid for any pass or that a public official received an improper benefit. A complete accounting would be needed to establish how the charges, reimbursements and deposit were handled, which entity paid each amount and whether any expense ultimately fell to county taxpayers.<\/p>\n

Schlag wants investigators to examine the financial records alongside deployment and payroll documentation rather than draw conclusions from partial records.<\/p>\n

Monterey County case provides a comparison, not proof<\/h3>\n

Schlag points to the 2019 California State Sheriffs\u2019 Association conference in Monterey County as a reason for closer scrutiny of the El Dorado County arrangements.<\/p>\n

In that earlier case, Monterey County\u2019s Sheriff\u2019s Office hosted the statewide conference. Allegations concerning the use of county personnel and resources prompted an investigation by the Monterey County District Attorney\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n

The District Attorney\u2019s investigative report addressed allegations involving public expenditures, transportation services, timekeeping and county property. The District Attorney concluded that criminal violations could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

In May 2021, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution censuring Sheriff Stephen Bernal for allowing inappropriate county expenditures during the conference. The board\u2019s action followed the District Attorney\u2019s report, despite the absence of criminal charges.<\/p>\n

The Monterey case illustrates that questions about the appropriate use of public resources can lead to administrative or political consequences even when criminal charges are not brought. It does not establish that El Dorado County officials committed comparable violations.<\/p>\n

Schlag argues that the similarities between the two conference plans warrant a review of the El Dorado County arrangements. She wants investigators to determine whether the staffing and security assignments were justified, whether county policies were followed and whether the expenses were properly authorized.<\/p>\n

Questions about command responsibility<\/h3>\n

Schlag is asking that any inquiry examine the individual roles of Leikauf, Palmberg and other senior command staff.<\/p>\n

Among the questions she wants answered are:<\/p>\n