The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the timeline for the appointment of a new Interim District Attorney (DA) at their regular meeting Tuesday.

The new DA will replace recalled DA Pamela Price until an election is held in 2026.

Applications will open Wednesday, and will be due on Jan. 6 at 5:00 p.m. Several people, including current Chief Assistant District Attorney Royl Roberts, have expressed interest in applying.

Roberts, who took helm at the DA’s office Thursday, has already appointed three chief prosecutors, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Roberts served in a variety of management positions at Peralta Community College District for nearly six years, and was sworn into the California Bar in July 2022. In a Monday interview with KTVU, Roberts cited his prior managerial experience and financial background as factors that will help him run the office without disruptions.

He expressed interest in leading the DA’s office for the next two years, but said he does not intend to run for the position in the 2026 election, KTVU reported.

In order for Roberts to stay through 2026, he will need to apply for the Interim DA position, and be chosen by supervisors in the coming months.

If he applies, he’ll face some competition. People that have expressed interest in applying for the job include California Chief Deputy Attorney General Venus Johnson, San Francisco Deputy District Attorney Amilcar “Butch” Ford, Alameda County Deputy Counsel L.D. Louis and Contra Costa County Assistant District Attorney Annie Esposito, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The Board of Supervisors will hold public interviews for the finalists the week of Jan. 20, and will deliberate on the candidates from Jan. 23 through Jan. 30. They’ll appoint a new DA by Feb 4.

Supervisors will narrow down the pool of candidates through several rounds of voting, rather than a single vote.

In the first two rounds, supervisors can each vote for up to two candidates, and candidates receiving the most votes will move forward in the process. In the third, they’ll get two attempts to vote for a single candidate.

If that process fails to pick a candidate, a fourth round of voting will open the pool back up to all candidates that were interviewed, and supervisors will be able to nominate candidates and vote “yea” or “nay” on them one at a time.

Residents weigh in on timeline, hopes for future of criminal justice

During public comment, advocates on all sides of the issue called for the county to use an “open and transparent process” to select its new DA.

Before opening the item to public comment, Board President Nate Miley assured attendees that the process will be “transparent and open.”

“There will be at least four occasions where the public can weigh in on the process,” Miley said, adding that candidates’ applications will be available to the public.

Speakers disagreed, however, on whether the proposed process allowed for enough time for candidates to apply and for the public to weigh in on candidates.

Under an initial draft of the timeline, applications were due Dec. 30 at 5:00 p.m.

Some speakers called the timeline “rushed,” asking the board to end the timeline.

Two faith-based advocacy organizations, Faith in Action East Bay and ​The Interfaith Coalition for Justice In our Jails, who opposed Price’s recall and sponsored a town hall with her last year, authored a letter urging the board to extend the timeline by at least a week, to allow candidates more time to apply.

“The suggested Alameda process is unnecessarily short,” the letter states. “Candidates would have less than three weeks to apply, much of that time overlapping with holidays. The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office is now in the hands of a competent caretaker, Deputy [sic] DA Royl Roberts. Selecting a new interim District Attorney must be given the consideration and time that such an important decision deserves. There is no rush.”

Shruti Lakshmanan, Policy and Government Affairs Manager at Color Of Change, encouraged the board to “add specific questions to the application interrogating the applicants’ position on public policy issues.”

Other speakers expressed similar sentiments. Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno, Policy and Legal Director of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, wanted to see the application include questions about candidates’ views on the death penalty or racial bias.

Recall organizers and supporters also spoke during public comment, giving insight on what they hope to see in a new DA.

Carl Chan, co-founder of SAFE, the group that led efforts to recall Price, urged the board to appoint “a new DA who is qualified, who can lead, who is supporting victims and their families.”

Chris Moore, SAFE’s campaign manager, emphasized the need to select a DA that is “accountable to victims” and “follows Marsy’s Law,” which gives victims of crimes certain rights to be notified of public proceedings and make statements in court. Moore has also aided in efforts to recall Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and unseat Oakland City Councilmember Carroll Fife.

Virginia Nishita, the widow of a security guard who was shot and killed more than two years ago, begged the board to “select someone urgently.” She lamented about the ability for suspects charged with crimes to skip out on court.

“We have a family here today that the accused has been refusing 14 times in a row,” Nishita said. “How can that happen? We’re in court because they did something wrong, and they murdered someone.”

Some advocates commented on the recall of the progressive DA, expressing hope that the next DA will also hold progressive values, rather than being “hard on crime.”

“Although we saw a recall of a progressive DA, we still have liberal values. This is not Trump country,” said Bob Britton, a member of the Interfaith Committee for Justice in Our Jails.

“Our values include not prosecuting children as adults,” Britton said. “People with serious mental illness need treatment. They should not be arrested and sentenced to death in our county jails.”

Speaker To Niya M Scott-Smith spoke passionately about the need to choose a DA who will hold “police accountable for their corruption.”

“Now let’s get someone else in there that’s going to help us and care about us,” Scott-Smith said.

Board adjusts timeline following public comment

The board of supervisors voted to extend the timeline by one week, allowing candidates to submit applications up until Jan. 6 at 5:00 p.m.

They also eliminated a cap on the number of candidates they are allowed to interview.

After reviewing applications, the board will select at least three finalists to interview, with no maximum number of finalists.