YOLO COUNTY, Calif. — The Yolo County Board of Supervisors appeared Tuesday to lean strongly toward appointing Acting District Attorney Melinda Aiello to complete the remainder of former District Attorney Jeff Reisig’s term, but ultimately agreed to pursue a shortened public appointment process culminating in interviews scheduled for June 23.
The discussion revealed broad confidence among supervisors in Aiello’s leadership and qualifications, but also underscored tensions between maintaining stability within the District Attorney’s Office and ensuring transparency through a public appointment process.
Supervisors repeatedly noted that the appointment comes at a critical time for Yolo County, particularly with the county handling the massive criminal case arising from the Esparto warehouse fire.
County counsel laid out two broad options for the board: either direct staff to return with an appointment item for Aiello at a future meeting or conduct a more extensive public process involving applications and interviews.
“Board has broad discretion or entire discretion in terms of determining and guiding and directing staff on the process that we’ll be undertaking for selecting the appointee,” a county official explained during the meeting.
The official added that the first option would allow supervisors to “direct the staff to come back at an appropriate time in an upcoming meeting with the item necessary for you to directly appoint the currently serving acting district attorney.”
The alternative, staff said, would involve collecting applications and conducting open-session interviews of qualified candidates.
Board Chair Sheila Allen noted early in the discussion that much of the process itself had to occur publicly.
“We’re going to be making a bit of the sausage here on the dais,” Allen said. “So bear with us while we figure out how it is that we’re going to move forward with it.”
Supervisors also explored the legal framework governing the appointment. County Counsel explained that state law does not impose a strict deadline but does require boards to act “within a reasonable time.”
“There’s not a clear standard as far as it goes,” county counsel said. “The attorney general said, ‘No, you can’t just let them serve indefinitely through the remainder of the term.’”
The board also clarified that Aiello automatically became acting district attorney by operation of law after Reisig’s resignation.
“In the case of the vacancy, the office of the district attorney created by resignation, the next in command takes that role so long as they’re willing,” county counsel explained. “In this case, district attorney Aiello is willing to do that.”
County counsel further explained that California law imposes only minimal qualifications for the office.
“State law simply requires that they be a registered voter of the county in which they’re appointed at the time of appointment and that they hold an active license to practice law in the state,” counsel said.
Allen responded bluntly: “Fairly low bar.”
The board also discussed the unusual timing of the vacancy. Supervisors noted that recent legislation temporarily extended district attorney and sheriff terms from four years to six years so elections would align with presidential election cycles.
“This was several years ago now or handful of years ago,” county counsel explained. “The legislature adopted a bill that extended the term of sheriffs and district attorneys to six years as a one-time thing.”
Counsel added that beginning in 2028 the offices will revert to four-year terms.
Supervisor Oscar Villegas emerged as the strongest advocate for directly appointing Aiello without an interview process, citing both institutional stability and confidence within the District Attorney’s Office.
“I think right now in the history of Yolo County, we absolutely need somebody in place in light of the challenges that we face on a magnitude never seen before in Yolo County relative to the Esparto fire,” Villegas said.
Villegas also noted the support Aiello has received from inside the office.
“I think we’ve all received a series of emails from DA staff who have tremendous confidence in Melinda’s ability to continue to move the DA’s office forward on the right level,” he said.
He further argued that appointing Aiello would mark a historic milestone.
“I think it would be a global opportunity for us to put somebody that’s incredibly qualified to continue to manage the DA’s office and be the first woman ever appointed as DA in Yolo County,” Villegas said.
Villegas concluded by urging supervisors to appoint Aiello at the next meeting.
“For that reason, I’ll just jump off front and say, I think right now would be the time to direct staff to come back at the very next meeting to make one of [the deputy DAs] the DA for the remainder of Jeff’s term,” he said.
Supervisor Lucas Frerichs took a different approach, arguing that a public process was important even if it ultimately resulted in Aiello’s appointment.
“I do think a public process, public appointment process may be a little more messy so to speak, but I think that’s the sort of policy making process,” Frerichs said. “It’s not always pretty.”
Frerichs emphasized that he also had confidence in Aiello.
“I do have confidence in Melinda Aiello who is currently the acting district attorney,” he said. “But I also have no problems with having some sort of a public process be initiated.”
He argued that the proposed timeline remained reasonable and would not leave the office rudderless.
“She’s already in the role first so there’s not like there’s a vacancy and there’s no one at the helm,” Frerichs said. “That’s absolutely happening.”
Frerichs repeatedly reiterated his support for a public process should not be interpreted as opposition to Aiello herself.
“I think it’s really unfortunate that it is going to get boiled down to someone… who support the person, some of us don’t,” Frerichs said later in the meeting. “I don’t think that’s really the case at all.”
Supervisor Mary Sandy strongly emphasized continuity and institutional stability, particularly given the pending Esparto fire litigation.
“The resignation of Jeff Reisig was a shock to the system,” Sandy said. “I think for the members of the team at the DA’s office, for all of us, for the community.”
Sandy warned that a broader appointment battle could destabilize the office during a critical period.
“My sense is that we’ve got an election two years out for the DA and that’s plenty of time for all interested parties to express their interests,” she said.
She added that a competitive appointment process could “seriously undermine the confidence of the team at the DA’s office.”
Sandy repeatedly returned to the issue of stability.
“The factors that are most important to me are first of all, they have to meet the legal requirements for eligibility,” Sandy said. “But that’s not enough. They have to be able to provide continuity and stability in this moment from my perspective.”
Supervisor Angel Barajas occupied a middle position during much of the discussion, voicing support for Aiello while also emphasizing the importance of public vetting.
“The public wants to know what is the difference,” Barajas said, referring to distinctions between Aiello and Reisig. “That’s what the process allows — the vetting of the campaign, the vetting of the individual.”
Barajas said the public appointment process would strengthen confidence in the eventual decision.
“I believe it is the right approach to have,” he said.
Allen ultimately sided with supervisors supporting a shortened public process, although she also voiced concern about instability inside the District Attorney’s Office.
“I absolutely understand and worry about any major change,” Allen said. “I don’t think that in the next month is a time to stir it all up at the district attorney’s office.”
Still, Allen said the public needed an opportunity to better understand Aiello and any other possible candidates.
“I do think that an abbreviated process would be the direction to go so that we can have more certainty up here and importantly out of the community about what it is that we’re signing up for,” Allen said.
As the discussion evolved, supervisors debated how applications would be screened and whether all applicants would receive interviews. Staff proposed a system in which applications would first be reviewed for minimum qualifications and then narrowed to a small number of competitive finalists.
County counsel said staff hoped to avoid turning the process into “a circus or a pony show.”
“We want to only have truly credible candidates presented to the board for interviews,” counsel said.
Counsel added that candidates should ideally possess “some substantial qualifications” in criminal law and management experience.
By the end of the meeting, supervisors appeared to reach consensus on a framework that would open applications immediately, return on June 2 to finalize screening criteria and supplemental questions, and then conduct interviews June 23.
County counsel summarized the proposed timeline.
“We can open it up today, tomorrow, as soon as HR can get it posted,” counsel said. “We’ll come back on the 2nd to have the board adopt screening criteria for staff to use and a list of questions for the applicants to answer.”
Counsel added that staff would “strive to bring back no more than three candidates for interviews on June 23rd.”
Supervisors also indicated that all applications and written responses would be made public as part of the process.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
