Tag: car break ins

The Progressive Justice System in San Francisco: A Case Study in Failure

In recent years, San Francisco has been at the forefront of implementing progressive justice reforms aimed at reducing incarceration rates, addressing systemic inequalities, and promoting social justice. However, the outcomes of these policies have sparked significant debate, with mounting evidence suggesting that the progressive justice system in San Francisco has failed to achieve its intended goals. Instead, these policies have exacerbated homelessness, addiction, and crime rates, creating a public safety crisis that continues to worsen.

Progressive Justice System

Rising Homelessness and Addiction

San Francisco has seen a dramatic increase in homelessness despite substantial financial investments aimed at tackling the issue. From 2016 to 2021, the city’s spending on homelessness increased by over 500%, reaching $1.1 billion in 2021 alone. Despite this, the homeless population grew by 64% during the same period​ (Hoover Institution)​​ (The San Francisco Standard)​. This paradoxical outcome raises questions about the effectiveness of the city’s strategies.

A significant portion of the homeless population in San Francisco is comprised of individuals struggling with addiction. The city’s approach to drug addiction, heavily influenced by progressive policies, focuses on harm reduction rather than recovery. While harm reduction efforts, such as providing clean needles and safe injection sites, aim to minimize the immediate risks associated with drug use, they do little to address the root causes of addiction or promote long-term recovery. Critics argue that this approach effectively maintains the status quo, allowing addicts to continue their destructive behavior without meaningful intervention​ (The San Francisco Standard)​.

Escalating Crime and Public Safety Concerns

The progressive justice system’s emphasis on decriminalization and leniency for nonviolent offenses has also contributed to rising crime rates. Proposition 47, passed in 2014, reclassified certain nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, leading to a significant reduction in penalties for crimes such as shoplifting and drug possession. While the intention was to reduce incarceration rates and alleviate overcrowded prisons, the unintended consequence has been an increase in repeat offenses and a sense of impunity among offenders​ (The San Francisco Standard)​.

San Francisco has one of the highest rates of drug overdose deaths in the country, with 80 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2021. Despite having the largest per-capita budget for harm reduction in the nation, overdose deaths continue to rise, highlighting the ineffectiveness of current policies. In 2021, the city recorded 806 overdose deaths, a 24.5% increase from the previous year​ (The San Francisco Standard)​.

Financial Mismanagement and Lack of Accountability

The “homeless-industrial complex,” a term used to describe the network of nonprofits and government agencies involved in managing homelessness, has come under scrutiny for its inefficiency and lack of accountability. Critics argue that billions of dollars are being funneled into this complex without producing tangible results. Instead of reducing homelessness and addiction, the funding seems to perpetuate these issues, with resources often being misallocated or poorly managed​ (The San Francisco Standard)​.

Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward

To address the failures of the progressive justice system, a shift in policy is needed. Here are some recommendations:

  1. Emphasize Recovery: Instead of solely focusing on harm reduction, policies should prioritize long-term recovery and rehabilitation. This includes increasing access to treatment programs, recovery-based housing, and job training centers.
  2. Strengthen Law Enforcement: Reassessing leniency measures and ensuring that laws are enforced can help reduce crime rates and address public safety concerns.
  3. Improve Oversight and Accountability: Establishing transparent oversight mechanisms for the allocation and use of funds can help ensure that resources are effectively used to tackle homelessness and addiction.
  4. Community-Based Solutions: Involving local communities in the development and implementation of policies can lead to more tailored and effective solutions.

The progressive justice system in San Francisco, while well-intentioned, has failed to deliver on its promises. Rising homelessness, addiction, and crime rates, coupled with financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability, highlight the need for a reassessment of current policies. By shifting the focus to recovery, strengthening law enforcement, and improving oversight, San Francisco can begin to address the root causes of these issues and create a safer, more equitable city for all residents.

Mayor London Breed’s Dangerous Move: Civilianizing Law Enforcement and Undermining Public Safety

Mayor London Breed’s recent push to expand the use of civilian ambassadors in place of traditional law enforcement officers has sparked significant concern among public safety advocates. By hiring Transit Ambassadors instead of increasing the number of law enforcement Fare Inspectors, Breed is advancing a strategy that many argue undermines effective law enforcement and jeopardizes public safety in San Francisco.

The Rise of Civilian Ambassadors

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) recently announced job openings for Transit Ambassadors. These roles are designed to provide customer service and promote safety on public transit, aligning with Mayor Breed’s broader initiative to replace traditional law enforcement officers with civilian roles across various sectors of the city.

Ambassadors vs. Fare Inspectors: A Critical Difference

The new Transit Ambassador positions are fundamentally different from the existing role of Transit Fare Inspectors. Fare Inspectors, who hold limited peace officer powers under California Penal Code 832, have the authority to issue citations to fare evaders—a crucial function given that fare evasion has surged to over 20% of riders. This increase in fare evasion is a serious problem that significantly impacts the SFMTA’s budget, reducing the income necessary for maintaining and improving transit services.

The Dangers of Civilianization

Mayor Breed’s expansion of the civilian ambassador program presents several critical issues:

  • Lack of Enforcement Power: Transit Ambassadors do not have the authority to issue citations or make arrests. Their role is limited to providing information and promoting compliance through education. This lack of enforcement power could undermine efforts to curb fare evasion, which is already a growing problem that threatens the SFMTA’s financial stability.
  • Public Safety Risks: The shift towards civilianization in law enforcement roles raises serious questions about public safety. Fare Inspectors are trained to handle confrontations and enforce laws, whereas Ambassadors are primarily focused on customer service. The presence of Fare Inspectors can deter potential fare evaders and ensure a safer transit environment.
  • Erosion of Law Enforcement Effectiveness: By replacing trained law enforcement officers with civilian roles, the city risks diluting the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts. Fare Inspectors not only enforce fare compliance but also play a crucial role in maintaining order and safety on public transit. Their absence could lead to increased disorder and crime.

The Broader Impact on Law Enforcement

Mayor Breed’s approach to civilianization extends beyond the transit system. This strategy reflects a broader trend in San Francisco’s law enforcement policy, where civilian roles are being prioritized over traditional law enforcement positions. This shift raises concerns about the long-term implications for public safety and the ability of law enforcement agencies to effectively perform their duties.

Tough Talk on Crime, but Do Actions Match?

Mayor Breed frequently talks tough on crime, asserting that criminals will be held accountable. However, her actions paint a different picture:

  • Inaction on Sheriff’s Office Recruitment: Despite the critical need for more deputies, Mayor Breed has not taken significant steps to increase recruitment for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. There have been no substantial efforts to enhance the wages and bonuses for sheriff’s deputies, unlike the measures taken for the police department.
  • Civilianization Over Law Enforcement: Instead of bolstering the ranks of trained law enforcement officers, Breed has focused on expanding civilian roles. This approach aligns more closely with the policies of former District Attorneys Chesa Boudin and George Gascon, who advocated for reducing traditional law enforcement in favor of civilian oversight and intervention—a stance often criticized as part of a socialist agenda.

A Call for Pro-Law Enforcement Policies

It is crucial for city leadership to prioritize effective law enforcement and public safety over the expansion of civilian roles. While the role of Transit Ambassadors can enhance customer service and community engagement, it should not come at the expense of enforcing laws and maintaining public safety. Expanding the number of Fare Inspectors, who possess the authority and training to handle fare evasion and other violations, would provide a more balanced and effective approach to managing the city’s transit system and overall public safety.

Mayor London Breed’s push for civilianization through the expansion of the Transit Ambassador program represents a significant shift in San Francisco’s approach to law enforcement. This strategy raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of fare enforcement and the broader implications for public safety. The decision to prioritize Ambassadors over Fare Inspectors could ultimately compromise the safety and security of all residents. It is essential to recognize the value of traditional law enforcement roles in maintaining order and ensuring public safety. Investing in trained law enforcement officers, rather than expanding civilian roles, is crucial for the well-being and security of San Francisco’s communities.

Mayor Breed’s tough talk on crime must be matched by actions that support and enhance law enforcement capabilities. Anything less risks aligning her more with the controversial policies of Chesa Boudin than with a genuine commitment to public safety.

Unveiling the Truth Behind Mayor London Breed’s Budget Increase for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office

Recent news reports have celebrated an 11% budget increase for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office, amounting to $32.5 million. At first glance, this appears to be a significant investment in public safety, aimed at addressing chronic understaffing and other challenges. However, a closer look reveals that this increase is not as substantial as it seems and highlights a broader strategy of civilianizing law enforcement rather than prioritizing the recruitment of trained officers.

Breeds Lopsided Budgeting

 

The Real Numbers Behind the Budget

Out of the reported $32.5 million budget increase, a significant portion is allocated to specific categories that do not directly enhance the department’s core staffing and operational needs. Here’s the breakdown:

  • Union Contracts: $14.3 million
  • Overtime: $6.4 million (compared to current FY24)
  • Grant Programs: $4.1 million (mostly for CalAIM)
  • Capital Projects: $4.7 million
  • Jail Food Costs: $1 million
  • Interdepartmental Workorders: $0.5 million
  • CBO Contracts: $0.75 million
  • Transport Vehicles: $0.7 million

This means that the remaining portion allocated to genuinely new investments is minimal when considering the overall budget.

Misleading Public Perception

The administration’s presentation of this budget increase might lead the public to believe that there are significant new investments aimed at enhancing the capabilities and staffing of the Sheriff’s Office. However, this perception is misleading. Here’s why:

  1. Routine Increases Masked as New Investments:
    • The $14.3 million included in the budget is a result of standard contract negotiations. These are expected adjustments and do not represent new or innovative investments to attract new applicants or improve current working conditions.
  2. Overtime Expenses:
    • The increase in overtime funding, while necessary, does not address the root cause of understaffing and merely patches over the immediate need for additional hours. This does not contribute to long-term solutions or improvements in the working conditions for deputies.
  3. Specific Program Funding:
    • Funds allocated to specific grant programs, capital projects, and other targeted expenses do not translate into direct enhancements to the department’s primary functions.

Breakdown of the Budget Allocation

The proposed budget of $323.6 million for the Sheriff’s Office is $32.5 million higher than the previous fiscal year. Here’s a detailed look at where the additional funds are being spent:

  • Union Contracts: $14.3 million
  • Overtime: $6.4 million increase compared to the current FY24
  • Grant Programs: $4.1 million, primarily for CalAIM
  • Capital Projects: $4.7 million for capital, COIT, and COP projects
  • Jail Food Costs: $1 million increase
  • Interdepartmental Workorders: Approximately $0.5 million increase
  • CBO Contracts: $0.75 million cost-of-doing-business allowance
  • Transport Vehicles: $0.7 million for two transport buses

Civilianization: A Silent Defunding Strategy

A particularly alarming aspect of the proposed budget is the continuation and expansion of civilianization efforts. According to the budget proposal:

“Continue Safety Ambassadors and Civilianization to provide non-law enforcement response. The proposed budget continues and expands civilianization efforts and alternatives to law enforcement. This includes funding Police Service Aides, citywide Public Safety Community Ambassadors, and retired Police Officer ambassadors. It also continues to fund the City’s Street Response Teams, which provide non-law enforcement responses to 911 and 311 calls for people in behavioral health crisis and people experiencing homelessness”​.

Analysis and Implications

  1. Reduced Law Enforcement Presence:
    • The shift towards civilian roles for tasks traditionally handled by law enforcement officers diminishes the overall presence of trained officers on the streets. This can lead to slower response times and reduced capability to handle emergencies effectively.
  2. Undermining Law Enforcement Effectiveness:
    • Civilianization efforts, while beneficial in some non-critical areas, can undermine the overall effectiveness of law enforcement. Trained officers possess the necessary skills and authority to handle a wide range of public safety issues that civilians cannot.
  3. Public Safety Perception:
    • Treating law enforcement as a secondary priority in the public safety framework sends a message that their contributions are less valued. This could diminish the public’s trust and confidence in the city’s ability to ensure safety and security.

A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Change

If Mayor Breed was truly pro-public safety, she would have stopped feeding the overtime budget and instead dedicated money to strike out the first step in pay. This would allow the Sheriff’s Office to advertise a higher starting rate to attract more applicants. By not addressing this fundamental issue, the administration missed a critical opportunity to make a substantial impact on recruitment and retention within the Sheriff’s Office.

The Need for Genuine Investment

For San Francisco to effectively address its public safety challenges, there needs to be a clear and transparent commitment to investing in trained law enforcement officers. Here are some steps that could make a real difference:

  1. Transparent Budget Reporting:
    • Clearly separate routine contract negotiation increases and overtime allocations from new budget investments to provide an honest picture of financial commitments.
  2. Develop New Recruitment Incentives:
    • Introduce signing bonuses, enhanced benefits, and career development opportunities specifically designed to attract new law enforcement officers.
    • Eliminate the first step in pay to offer a higher starting salary and make the position more attractive to potential recruits.
  3. Invest in Long-Term Solutions:
    • Focus on improving working conditions, providing competitive salaries, and offering comprehensive support programs to retain current staff and attract new recruits.

Moving Forward with Honesty and Clarity

As we move forward, it is crucial for the administration to present budget information transparently. Only then can we have honest discussions about what is needed to support our law enforcement officers and ensure public safety in San Francisco. The city needs real, substantive changes to overcome its current challenges and meet the expectations of the community.

By addressing these issues head-on, we can work towards a future where San Francisco’s law enforcement agencies are fully staffed, well-supported, and able to provide the highest level of public safety services to our city. Let’s ensure that every dollar allocated truly makes a difference.

Addressing the Extreme Shortage of Deputy Sheriffs: A Call to Action

In a recent open letter addressed to Mayor London Breed, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, and the Members of the Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) has proposed a critical solution to the severe understaffing of Deputy Sheriffs in our city. The proposal, submitted on May 23, 2024, aims to eliminate the first step of the salary schedule for Deputy Sheriffs (positions 8302 and 8504), intending to attract more applicants and, importantly, to secure higher quality candidates.

The Urgent Need for Action
As many of you are aware, our Deputy Sheriffs are operating under dangerously low staffing levels, leading to unsafe conditions for both our Deputies and inmates. Despite the DSA’s proactive efforts to assist with recruitment through advertising funded by our own association, the current pay scale for entry-level Deputies remains a significant barrier. Comparable agencies in the region offer substantially higher starting salaries, making it challenging for us to compete for top-tier talent.

Learning from the Police Department
The San Francisco Police Department has successfully addressed their recruitment challenges by increasing their starting pay, which has proven effective in attracting more applicants. Additionally, the Mayor’s Office supported this effort by implementing a $5,000 signing bonus for new police recruits, distributed as $2,500 upon completion of the Field Training Program (FTO) and an additional $2,500 upon successful completion of the probation period. This incentive underscores the importance of competitive compensation packages in attracting new talent. Currently, we lack such a signing bonus, making it even more critical to remove the first step of our pay scale to attract new applicants.

The Impact on Quality of Life and Safety
The understaffing crisis not only endangers our Deputies but also severely impacts the quality of life for inmates. The shortage of staff has led to more frequent lockdowns, disrupting rehabilitation programs, educational classes, legal interviews, and family and friend visitations. More alarmingly, violence has increased within the jails, exacerbating stress and frustration among inmates. This situation is unacceptable. San Francisco’s jails once served as a model for others, but now they face the same challenges and issues typically associated with prisons.

The Proposal
Our proposal recommends the removal of the first step in the salary schedule. By doing so, we aim to make the Deputy Sheriff position more competitive in the job market, thereby improving our recruitment capabilities and attracting more qualified candidates. This strategy has proven effective for the San Francisco Police Officers’ Association, and we are confident it will yield similar results for our Department.

 

A Test of Commitment to Public Safety
The implementation of this proposal is more than just an administrative change—it is a test of our city leadership’s commitment to public safety. By offering a more attractive compensation package, we can enhance our ability to recruit and retain the best candidates, ultimately ensuring a safer and more effective environment for both our Deputies and the communities we serve.

The time to act is now. The DSA has laid out a clear, actionable plan to address the extreme shortage of Deputy Sheriffs. We urge city leadership to take immediate action on this proposal to safeguard the well-being of our Deputies and the individuals in our care. The coming weeks will reveal where our leaders truly stand on the issue of public safety.

Will they implement this critical change and demonstrate their commitment to protecting our community, or will they allow the status quo to persist, further endangering the lives of Deputies and inmates alike? The answer will speak volumes.

Stay tuned and stay engaged. The safety of our city depends on it.

Ken Lomba
President, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

Undersheriff Freeman said Sheriff Miyamoto has NO PLAN!

Matt FreemanOn May 14, 2024, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors convened a meeting on the impacts of lockdowns in the San Francisco County Jail.

Of particular concern is the health and well-being of deputy sheriffs and the impacts on the inmate population as a result of jail lockdowns.  The presenters at the hearing included the Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff’s Inspector General, and Public Defender’s Office.

While each presenter and subsequent questions by the board members warrant merit for further discussion, it is the Sheriff’s presentation that requires further examination.  It is very important to keep in mind that this hearing was called due to the voluminous and violent attacks on deputies and the jail lockdowns that were caused by the aforementioned.

One would expect the Sheriff to present a plan that expedites the hiring of deputies in large numbers, details a training strategy to minimize attacks on deputies, states how he will modernize the deputy recruitment plan, and address the significant deficiencies in the county jail infrastructure.

We did not hear that.

Instead, the Sheriff spoke of hiring more discharge planners, securing funding for more behavioral health personnel, and purchasing more body-worn cameras.  Each of these initiatives has merit in consideration of county jail operations.

But, they completely miss the point and fall well short of what is needed to address the crisis in the San Francisco County Jail.  Deputies are under constant assault and risk of great bodily injury and possibly death. Inmates do not feel safe and lack adequate living quarters to include access to outdoor recreation.

The Sheriff’s presentation offered no solutions to these most pressing issues.  So the public, the deputies, the inmates, and loved ones of both are left wondering, what is the Sheriff’s Office plan?  The Sheriff’s Office has about 175 vacant deputy sheriff positions. What is the plan to fill the vacancies?
No plan.

The SFSO has an outdated, understaffed, and underfunded recruitment operation.  What is the plan to address this?
No plan.

The county jail facilities are decrepit and do not provide adequate living spaces, nor sufficient outdoor recreation.  What is the plan to address this?
No plan.

Too many deputy sheriffs are assigned to non-jail assignments. Not enough deputies are assigned to background investigations and personnel to support hiring efforts. What is the plan to rectify improper resource allocation?
No plan.

Overtime expenditures are consistently high including involuntary deputy overtime that causes exhausted deputies. Command-level staff are allowed to accrue overtime exasperating skyrocketing costs. What is the plan to decrease overtime spending?
No plan.

During the hearing, the Sheriff was asked if he had the funds in his budget to fill the deputy vacancies.
The answer was yes.

The question was followed by, so if you could hire the bodies, you have the funds to pay them?
The answer was yes.

It begs the question, why are these vacancies not being filled? What motivation could exist to subject deputies and inmates to such unsafe staffing levels?

Key to addressing all of these issues is leadership and the courage and strength to advocate.  The Sheriff is an elected Constitutional Officer and a Chief Executive Law Enforcement Officer.  The authority of the office must be used to educate, advance, and solicit the needs of the
agency.

The Sheriff must speak forcefully and directly at every opportunity to the electorate, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor about these mission-critical needs:

● Fill the deputy vacancies
● Fund a robust SFSO recruitment program
● Fund a fully staffed SFSO background investigation unit
● Fund the training needs of the Sheriff’s Office
● Approve significant capital improvements to the infrastructure of the county jail

Each of these is required to ensure a safe, humane, and secure county jail.

That must always be the priority of the Sheriff.

Matthew Freeman
The Undersheriff (Ret)
San Francisco Sheriff’s Office

Deputy Sheriffs Working the Toughest Beat in San Francisco

Amidst the bustling streets and vibrant neighborhoods of San Francisco, there exists a group of dedicated individuals who work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of our communities. These unsung heroes are the deputy sheriffs who guard the county jails, facing unique challenges and pressures that come with the territory.

Recent data paints a stark picture of the realities these deputy sheriffs confront daily. Incidents of prisoner fights have been on the rise, placing a significant strain on the already stretched-thin staffing levels. In 2022, there were 172 prisoner fights, averaging 0.276 fights per deputy sheriff. By 2023, these numbers had increased, with 240 fights averaging 0.393 fights per deputy sheriff. These statistics underscore the challenging and often volatile environment in which these deputies operate.

In addition to the increase in prisoner fights, attacks on deputies have also been on the rise. In 2022, there were 121 attacks on deputies, averaging 0.194 attacks per deputy sheriff. By 2023, this number had surged to 216 attacks, averaging 0.354 attacks per deputy sheriff. These attacks not only pose a direct threat to the safety of the deputies but also impact their morale and well-being.

Deputies Attacked 2024

Despite these challenges, deputy sheriffs in San Francisco’s county jails continue to demonstrate unwavering dedication and professionalism in the face of adversity. They work long hours, often in high-stress situations, to ensure the safety and security of both inmates and staff. Their commitment to upholding the law and maintaining order in a challenging environment is commendable and deserving of recognition.

However, the city’s failure to address the issue of understaffing in the jails puts additional strain on these already overburdened deputies. With inadequate staffing levels, deputies are forced to work longer hours and take on increased responsibilities, leading to fatigue and burnout. The city’s proposal to eliminate staffing minimums at the Sheriff’s Office further exacerbates this issue, putting the safety of both deputies and inmates at risk.

It is crucial that we recognize the invaluable contributions of these deputy sheriffs and advocate for the resources and support they need to carry out their duties safely and effectively. By investing in additional staffing and implementing measures to improve working conditions, we can ensure that our deputy sheriffs have the support they need to continue serving our communities with professionalism and dedication.

San Francisco’s Homelessness Crisis: A Misuse of Funds and a Betrayal of Public Trust

In a shocking revelation, the City and County of San Francisco’s approach to tackling homelessness has been marred by mismanagement and fraud, further exacerbating the crisis on its streets. Despite a budget of $672 million allocated to the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing in fiscal year 2023, the city has little to show for its efforts, with more than 60% of the funds designated for housing, 20% for shelter, and the rest for prevention, outreach, and staffing.

Recent investigations have uncovered rampant fraud among the non-profits and organizations receiving funds from the city to address homelessness. These revelations highlight a gross misuse of public funds and a betrayal of the trust placed in these organizations to effectively combat homelessness.

Compounding this issue is the city’s misguided focus on housing and shelter as the primary solutions to homelessness. The reality is that homelessness in San Francisco is not solely a product of poverty but more so a crime problem rooted in drug use. Despite this, the city has continued to pour exorbitant amounts of money into housing and shelter programs that have failed to address the underlying causes of homelessness.

Meanwhile, the Sheriff’s Department, responsible for maintaining public safety and order, is facing a severe staffing shortage of -178 deputy sheriffs. The City’s response to this critical issue has been woefully inadequate, offering Deputy Sheriffs a meager 1% longevity incentive, equating to a paltry $53 per paycheck for those who continue to work past 20 years.

In contrast, other law enforcement agencies, such as the police department and dispatchers, have received significant longevity incentives, with dispatchers receiving a 5% incentive totaling over $1.5 million and the police department receiving an additional 13% totaling $65.85 million. This disparity in treatment underscores the City’s disregard for the contributions and sacrifices of the Sheriff’s Department.

 

Adding to the challenges faced by the Sheriff’s Department, the City has also resumed defunding and divesting from the department, a move that could ultimately lead to the destruction of the San Francisco criminal justice system. This raises questions about the City’s motives and whether this was the goal all along.

As San Francisco grapples with these challenges, it is clear that a new approach is needed to address the homelessness crisis and support law enforcement agencies. The City must prioritize transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, equity, and efficiency in its spending to ensure that public funds are used effectively and responsibly. Anything less would be a disservice to the residents of San Francisco and a betrayal of the public trust.

San Francisco’s Betrayal: City Offers $53 Incentive to Keep Deputy Sheriffs

In a shocking turn of events, the City and County of San Francisco has revealed its true colors in the latest contract negotiations with Deputy Sheriffs. Despite years of dedicated service and sacrifice, Deputy Sheriffs are being offered a meager 1% longevity incentive if they continue to work past 20 years.

This offer is not just insulting; it’s a blatant disregard for the safety and security of San Francisco’s residents. While Deputy Sheriffs are offered a mere $53 per paycheck to delay their well-deserved retirement, the City has shown a stark contrast in its treatment of other departments.

In 2023, Dispatchers were given a 5% longevity incentive, totaling over $1.5 million distributed to eligible dispatchers, to retain them from retiring. The police department fared even better, with an additional 13% in longevity incentives, totaling a staggering $65.85 million distributed to eligible officers.

With 160 Deputy Sheriffs eligible to retire this year after dedicating at least 20 years of their lives to serving and protecting the City, the City’s offer is not just a slap in the face; it’s a betrayal of trust. It sends a clear message that the City does not value the contributions and sacrifices of Deputy Sheriffs.

Moreover, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) is facing a severe staffing shortage, currently short-staffed by -178 deputy sheriffs. This shortage has led to overworking of Deputy Sheriffs with forced overtime, putting additional strain on an already taxed workforce.

Adding to the problem is San Francisco’s notoriously long and slow hiring process. What will San Francisco do when $53 dollars a paycheck does not retain Deputy Sheriffs from retiring? The consequences could be catastrophic. The courts could come to a grinding halt, jails could become out of control, inmates and employees would be at risk, and there would be fewer deputies on the streets for public safety. The entire system could collapse under the weight of these challenges.

It’s time for the City to wake up and recognize the dedication and commitment of Deputy Sheriffs. They deserve a fair and respectful longevity incentive that reflects their years of service and ensures the continued safety of San Francisco. Anything less is a disgraceful betrayal of those who put their lives on the line every day to keep our city safe.

 

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) Files BAR Misconduct Complaint Against Deputy Public Defender Ilona Yanez

San Francisco, CA – Feb. 22, 2024 – The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) has filed a formal complaint against Deputy Public Defender Ilona Yanez for misconduct under the State BAR of California rules. This complaint comes in response to Yanez’s handling of a domestic violence case involving survivor Jordana Cahen, which was recently exposed in an investigative report by ABC7 News I-Team’s Dan Noyes.

The complaint alleges that Yanez displayed bias against the victim, minimized Jordana’s experience, and shifted the focus away from the abuser’s actions, in violation of the California State BAR rule against bias. Yanez is also accused of abusing her authority by intervening in a small claims court complaint filed by Jordana against the abuser, compromising Jordana’s pursuit of justice.

Furthermore, Yanez’s interactions with the jury after the verdict, including buying drinks for several jurors and discussing the case with them, demonstrate a lack of respect for the legal process and the integrity of the jury system.

SFDSA President Ken Lomba stated, “The conduct of Deputy Public Defender Ilona Yanez in this case is deeply concerning and undermines the principles of justice and fairness that are fundamental to our legal system. We urge the State BAR of California to conduct a thorough investigation into Yanez’s conduct and take appropriate disciplinary action.”

The SFDSA is committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethics within the legal profession and will continue to advocate for the rights of victims of domestic violence.

Contact:
Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Condemns Misconduct by Public Defender’s Office in Domestic Violence Case

San Francisco, CA – Feb. 22, 2024 – The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) is deeply troubled by the recent revelations of misconduct within the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office in the case of Jordana Cahen, a survivor of domestic violence. An investigative report by ABC7 News I-Team’s Dan Noyes uncovered disturbing actions by Deputy Public Defender Ilona Yanez, which included victim-blaming and unethical behavior.

The SFDSA condemns the actions of the Public Defender’s Office and Deputy Public Defender Ilona Yanez in their handling of this case. Survivors of domestic violence deserve to be treated with dignity, respect, and compassion, and to have their voices heard in the pursuit of justice. The conduct of the Public Defender’s Office in this case falls far short of these standards and is unacceptable.

Public Defender Mano Raju‘s apparent indifference to the misconduct within his office is also deeply concerning. As a leader in the legal profession, Raju has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards of ethics and professionalism. His failure to address the serious ethical violations and boundary violations committed by his office is unacceptable.

The SFDSA calls for accountability and reform within the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office to ensure that survivors of domestic violence receive the support and advocacy they deserve. It is essential that all individuals involved in the legal profession are held to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism.

The SFDSA stands in solidarity with Jordana Cahen and all survivors of domestic violence. We will continue to advocate for justice and support for survivors in our community.

Contact:
Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428