Gibson spreads misinformation, SLO County denies district attorney funding

June 10, 2026

By KAREN VELIE

Following conflicting arguments during a contentious budget hearing on Tuesday, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors rejected a funding request from the district attorney’s office by a 3-2 vote with supervisors John Peschong and Heather Moreno dissenting.

CalCoastNews investigated multiple arguments made during the hearing, including Supervisor Bruce Gibson’s false claim that the prosecutor’s office had a substandard conviction rate. In addition, supervisors sparred over who sets the budget, when Dow initially asked for the funds and the administrative office’s responses.

Amid staffing cuts, cases are taking longer to get to trial. For example, a man who allegedly raped an 8-year-old child and molested two other children under 10 years old, has been out of jail on bail since 2024 while the case moves slowly through the system. Meanwhile, the caseloads for both theft and repeat drug offenses more than doubled after the passage of Proposition 36.

During Tuesday’s hearing Dow asked the board to provide $878,719 in additional funding to restore three position and fund two new positions, not for him, but for the safety of the community. In his proposal, Dow suggested using funding from the opioid settlement, Proposition 172 reserves and the general fund.

In a change to the budget process, in Dec. 2024, County CEO Matt Pontes provided the district attorney a proposed budget that includes a 4.5% cut from spending from the previous year, which would require Dow to eliminate four positions, Dow said. This was after the prosecutor’s office eliminated several positions in fiscal year 2023-2024.

In January and February, Dow met with Pontes to discuss the need to fund at least two more positions, while continuing to fund the current staff, Dow said.

“Pontes said we would be fine,” Dow said.

Even so, Pontes’ proposed budget continued to include the 4.5% reduction in spending.

Dow again reached out to Pontes noting the importance of filling the positions in order for his office to meet state mandates.

On May 29,  Pontes and Dow met and agreed on funding three positions.

“I also appreciate the conversation and I am glad we found a path to meet both of our current objectives,” Pontes said in a text to Dow. “I will continue to work on county-wide changes that prioritize public safety in the future.”

During Tuesdays hearing, Gibson asked Pontes if he supported Dow’s request for additional funding. Pontes responded saying that he had not analyzed the numbers in Dow’s presentation, and did not recommend providing any additional funding.

Pontes said Dow submitted his request after the budget was tied up in March and that his office had not reviewed Dow’s requests.

“What frustrates me the most, on May 29,  Pontes said he would support my positions in front of my staff,” Dow said. “He said he would support three of my position through Prop. 172 funds and the opioid settlement. Then, at the meeting he hemmed and hawed and then said he was only recommending the proposed budget.”

During Tuesday’s hearing, Supervisor Jimmy Paulding argued that they hired Pontes as administrator, and that they should adopt his recommended budget.

However, it is the elected Board of Supervisors who set policy and are responsible for the budget. In the past, yearly budgets went through mutiple changes during the hearings.

In January, chair Paulding called for a deputy to be in the chambers during all Board of Supervisor meetings at a cost of approxamatly $20,000 a year. In response to a question about the addition, Pontes’ office responded that it was a long-standing practice in the county.

During the past 10 years, there was one other board chair who wanted law enforcement for one year at all meetings.

Gibson argued that many departments need funding, before claiming Dow’s office has a very low conviction rate. The board then voted 3-2 to deny Dow’s funding request.

In response to Gibson’s claim of low-conviction rates, the District Attorney’s Office released the California Judicial Council Court statistics reports for fiscal years 2020–2021 through 2024–2025, which refute Gibson.

“The office’s felony conviction rate has remained remarkably stable and strong over the five-year period and significantly higher than the state average:

• 81.8% for fiscal year 2020–2021
• 82.0% for fiscal year 2021–2022
• 83.2% for fiscal year 2022–2023
• 85.8% for fiscal year 2023–2024
• 82.4% for fiscal year 2024–2025 — a five-year range of 81.8% to 85.8%.

“These figures reflect verified, county-level data for San Luis Obispo County Superior Court and speak to the consistent, professional work of this office’s deputy district attorneys on behalf of victims and the community,” Dow said.

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, this requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.