SFDSA’s Relentless Campaign Amplified London Breed’s Failures Like No One Else

November 10, 2024

The SFDSA ran the most aggressive and far-reaching campaign against London Breed, ensuring her failures dominated the public narrative. While other groups hesitated to directly confront Breed’s record, the SFDSA fearlessly led the charge, making her leadership synonymous with the city’s most pressing crises. With precision, strategy, and bold execution, the SFDSA amplified Breed’s shortcomings to a larger audience than any other organization in the race, setting the tone for the entire mayoral election.

What makes this victory even more significant is that the SFDSA was the only public safety union to endorse Daniel Lurie as a candidate for mayor. This bold and independent move proved pivotal in securing his victory, positioning the SFDSA as a leader in shaping the future of San Francisco.

Exposing Breed’s Failures and Championing Change

The SFDSA’s campaign focused on holding Breed accountable for six years of ineffectiveness. By emphasizing her mismanagement of critical issues—like the fentanyl crisis, homelessness, and the defunding of law enforcement—the SFDSA became the loudest and most impactful voice in the election.

Unmatched Endorsement Strategy: While other public safety unions avoided directly challenging Breed, the SFDSA endorsed Daniel Lurie, a candidate whose platform aligned with our mission to restore public safety and accountability in San Francisco.
Dominating the Narrative: Viral nicknames like “Fentanyl Breed,” “Defunder Breed,” and “Homeless Czar Breed” became shorthand for her administration’s incompetence, shaping how San Franciscans viewed her leadership.

This bold decision to endorse Lurie and attack Breed set the SFDSA apart as a driving force for change, influencing public opinion and the course of the election.

Daniel Lurie: The SFDSA’s Vision for Leadership

The SFDSA’s endorsement of Daniel Lurie wasn’t just a political move—it was a commitment to addressing San Francisco’s most pressing challenges. Lurie’s platform focused on:

Restoring Public Safety: Increasing staffing for law enforcement and addressing the city’s spiraling crime rates.
Fighting the Fentanyl Crisis: Implementing meaningful reforms to curb overdoses and hold drug dealers accountable.
Solving Homelessness: Pursuing innovative and effective solutions to get individuals off the streets and into supportive housing.

By endorsing Lurie, the SFDSA sent a clear message: public safety and accountability must be at the heart of San Francisco’s future.

SFDSA’s Multi-Pronged Campaign Strategy

The SFDSA executed a highly focused campaign that leveraged both modern and traditional outreach tools to ensure its message reached San Francisco voters.

Social Media Campaigns with Over 2 Million Views

The SFDSA’s social media campaigns were a game-changer. With over 2 million views, our posts and videos ensured that San Francisco voters repeatedly encountered our messaging in various forms.

Targeted Messaging: Ads and videos zeroed in on Breed’s most glaring failures, linking her directly to rising crime, the fentanyl epidemic, and homelessness.
Viral Impact: The SFDSA’s online content didn’t just inform—it sparked outrage. Nicknames like “Fentanyl Breed” trended locally, driving conversations across social platforms and further embedding her failures in the public’s mind.

Mailers That Left No Room for Doubt

We sent out approximately 300,000 mailers citywide, detailing Breed’s disastrous record.

Farrell-Focused Mailers: Two versions promoted Mark Farrell, emphasizing his strong stance on public safety and fiscal responsibility as a direct contrast to Breed’s weak leadership.
Anti-Breed Messaging: The remaining mailers honed in on her failures, ensuring that voters were armed with the facts about her inability to govern effectively.

Online Videos and TV Commercials

The SFDSA didn’t stop at social media. Professionally produced online videos and TV commercials reached voters on multiple platforms.

Unflinching Criticism: Videos showcased Breed’s failures in stark detail, leaving no ambiguity about the consequences of her policies.
Expanding the Conversation: By reinforcing these messages on television and online, we ensured Breed’s shortcomings were part of every voter’s conversation leading up to Election Day.

Partnering with Breexit.org

Recognizing the need to expand our reach even further, the SFDSA became the largest donor to Richie Greenberg’s Breexit.org, an anti-Breed PAC dedicated to exposing her failures and unseating her.

Collaboration for Maximum Impact: While Breexit.org provided an additional platform for anti-Breed messaging, our significant contributions helped amplify their efforts, ensuring the message spread widely.

No other organization matched the SFDSA’s commitment to exposing Breed. Our partnership with Breexit.org further underscored our leadership in the fight to unseat her.

The SFDSA: A Bold Voice for Change

What sets the SFDSA apart is that we stood alone in holding Breed accountable while supporting Daniel Lurie as the candidate to lead San Francisco into a new era.

Unique Endorsement: As the only public safety union to endorse Lurie, the SFDSA demonstrated both foresight and commitment to bold, necessary change.
Relentless Advocacy: The SFDSA’s campaign was uncompromising in exposing Breed’s failures and elevating Lurie’s vision, providing voters with the truth that no one else was willing to share.

The Result: A New Era for San Francisco

Daniel Lurie’s victory marks a turning point for San Francisco. With Lurie as mayor-elect, the city now has a leader ready to prioritize public safety, tackle the fentanyl epidemic, and implement meaningful solutions to homelessness.

The SFDSA’s campaign was instrumental in this outcome. By exposing Breed’s failures and promoting Daniel Lurie as the city’s best hope, the association not only influenced the election but also demonstrated the power of strategic advocacy in shaping the city’s future.

As San Francisco moves forward, the SFDSA remains committed to working with Lurie to ensure that public safety, accountability, and reform remain top priorities. This campaign wasn’t just about defeating London Breed—it was about setting a new standard for leadership that truly serves the people. And we delivered.

Fentanyl Breed: 3,000+ Deaths, Empty Promises, and a City Abandoned

October 27, 2024

San Francisco is a city in crisis, and every year, the toll of the fentanyl epidemic grows more devastating. Despite public statements on enforcement and treatment, the reality in San Francisco tells a very different story. The alarming spread of open-air drug use from downtown into neighborhoods like the Mission District reflects a policy approach that isn’t working, leaving our communities, businesses, and city economy to suffer. For three years, the people of San Francisco have watched Mayor London Breed promise change while drug overdoses skyrocket, crime rises, and businesses close their doors.

In August 2021, SFDSA President Ken Lomba took this crisis to a national stage during an interview on CNN with Erin Burnett. In a profound statement, Lomba pointed out that while COVID-19 had tragically taken around 130 lives in the city that year, overdose deaths were approaching 700. He questioned why overdose deaths weren’t being treated with the same urgency and called for the city to recognize the fentanyl crisis as an emergency. Lomba’s statement resonated worldwide, drawing praise from leaders across city departments who thanked him for raising the issue. Yet despite this urgent call to action, Mayor Breed has consistently failed to act meaningfully, leaving lives, livelihoods, and the city’s future at risk.

A Crisis Ignored: The Spread of Open-Air Drug Use Across San Francisco

Mayor Breed’s re-election platform claims a firm stance on ending open-air drug dealing, stating, “Open-air drug dealing and use are not acceptable in this city. Not in the Tenderloin or SoMa. Not anywhere.” Yet the reality is that drug activity, once concentrated in these neighborhoods, has spread to other areas like the Mission District, which has become an increasingly unsafe environment for residents and businesses alike. The city’s inaction has made San Francisco a known destination for drug users and dealers, and the continued spread shows that her administration’s policies are ineffective.

Breed’s platform highlights increased arrests and partnerships with agencies like the SFPD, SF Sheriff’s Office, and even the National Guard, claiming these steps doubled drug arrests in 2023. But arrest numbers alone don’t capture the reality in our streets. Simply pushing drug activity from one neighborhood to another doesn’t solve the problem—it merely shifts it, leaving the underlying crisis unaddressed.

A Hollow Approach to Treatment and Prevention

Breed’s platform points to expanding treatment options, including an additional 400 treatment beds and initiatives like Prop F, which requires treatment for adults receiving city assistance. However, the absence of a dedicated, abstinence-based rehabilitation center shows a critical gap in her approach. Treatment programs are vital, but without a facility providing structured, supportive, abstinence-focused recovery, the city lacks the resources to make a real difference. For those struggling with addiction, these facilities offer a chance for long-term recovery in a controlled environment, addressing the underlying issues that lead to drug dependency.

By failing to implement a comprehensive rehabilitation center, Breed’s administration has left residents without the options they need to overcome addiction and rebuild their lives. The city’s continued reliance on harm reduction alone, without a balance of recovery-focused initiatives, has kept overdose numbers high while ignoring the broader needs of those affected by addiction.

Prioritizing Policies that Undermine Public Safety

Instead of focusing on addiction treatment and community safety, Mayor Breed has chosen to direct resources toward policies that allow repeat offenders back onto the streets under ankle monitoring. This “reform” approach has not only failed to deter crime but has put communities at risk. When violent felons and drug offenders are repeatedly released, they not only continue to engage in drug activity but also contribute to rising crime rates. This trend has driven small businesses out of neighborhoods, frightened away tourists, and left families and residents feeling unsafe in their own city.

A Disregard for Human Life and the City’s Economic Health

Each overdose death represents not just a statistic but a lost life—a person with friends, family, and a future cut short. Mayor Breed’s lack of a proactive, life-centered plan demonstrates a disregard for the value of human life. For three years, the city has seen overdose deaths rise with no effective intervention. President Lomba’s statement on CNN highlighted this urgency, yet Breed’s administration has failed to respond with the necessary focus and resources to address the crisis.

The impact extends beyond personal tragedy; it has crippled San Francisco’s economy. Drug use and the associated crime have emptied once-thriving business districts, as shoppers and tourists avoid areas plagued by open drug markets and theft. The economic repercussions are far-reaching—small businesses that have served communities for years are closing, and prospective businesses are wary of setting up shop in a city unable to maintain safe public spaces.

The Need for Real Leadership and a Unified, Effective Response

Mayor Breed’s approach has failed San Franciscans. To truly address this crisis, the city needs a leader who values human life, supports recovery and rehabilitation, and will take decisive action to save lives, restore public safety, and rebuild the city’s economy. Effective change demands:

A Comprehensive Rehabilitation and Recovery Center: Establishing a dedicated, abstinence-based rehabilitation center that provides a structured environment for recovery. This is not only a public health measure but a crucial step toward helping individuals reclaim their lives.
Public Safety Measures Focused on Accountability: Ending the cycle of releasing violent offenders and repeat drug users onto the streets, instead pursuing policies that balance compassion with accountability to ensure public safety.
Support for Small Businesses and Economic Recovery: Addressing the public safety crisis and the overdose epidemic is essential to reviving San Francisco’s economy. By focusing on safe streets, San Francisco can once again become a welcoming environment for shoppers, tourists, and new businesses.

San Francisco deserves leadership that puts people before politics, that values every life lost, and that is committed to the safety and prosperity of the entire community. Mayor Breed’s record shows a troubling lack of regard for these principles. San Franciscans need a leader who will take action to end the cycle of addiction and crime, protect lives, and revitalize the city. After three years of broken promises, the time for change is now.

The people of San Francisco deserve a city where lives are valued, where communities are safe, and where businesses can thrive. It’s time for real leadership to make that vision a reality.

“Paid for by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC. Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.”

London Breed’s Leadership: Enabling Chaos, Facilitating Addiction, and Failing San Francisco

October 24, 2024

San Francisco is in crisis. The city that was once the pride of the West Coast has become a symbol of lawlessness, addiction, and failed leadership. London Breed’s policies, flip-flopping on key issues, have taken us to this point. Under her watch, San Francisco has experienced record-high overdose deaths, rampant open-air drug use, and an escalation of public disorder.

In 2023, San Francisco witnessed the deadliest year on record for overdose deaths. More than 3,000 lives have been lost to fentanyl during Breed’s tenure, and the city has spiraled into chaos. Yet, despite these catastrophic numbers, Mayor Breed continues to mislead San Franciscans with failed policies, political opportunism, and inconsistency.

As the 2024 mayoral election approaches, San Franciscans must ask themselves: Is this the future we want for our city?

Breed’s Flip-Flopping on Safe Consumption Sites: A Failed Experiment

In 2020, Mayor Breed announced her plan to create safe consumption sites, where individuals could use drugs under supervision. Breed championed these sites as part of a broader “harm reduction” strategy to address the opioid crisis. But as overdose deaths skyrocketed, it became clear that these policies were not solving the problem. Instead, they were enabling it.

Breed’s support for the Tenderloin Linkage Center, a “state of emergency” experiment in the heart of San Francisco’s Tenderloin District, allowed drug users to openly consume narcotics under the guise of harm reduction. In just 11 months, the center reversed 333 overdoses, but rather than addressing the root cause of addiction or cleaning up the streets, the site became a symbol of Breed’s failure to get control of the crisis.

Breed’s response? Close the center without explanation in December 2022. Her experiment ended, leaving the city with nothing but higher death tolls and continued disorder. Instead of delivering solutions, Breed’s leadership amounted to little more than an expensive failed experiment.

Inconsistency at the Helm: Political Survival Over San Francisco’s Well-Being

Breed’s recent pivot to law-and-order rhetoric is nothing more than an attempt to salvage her political career as the 2024 mayoral election approaches. After years of enabling open-air drug use through her harm reduction policies, she has now begun increasing police patrols and arrests in a transparent effort to convince voters she’s serious about public safety.

This shift isn’t based on conviction or a real plan—it’s pure political calculation. Mayor Breed has seen the writing on the wall. She knows San Franciscans are fed up with the lawlessness, the crime, the rampant drug use, and the neglect of public safety. But after years of facilitating and perpetuating addiction, her sudden crackdown rings hollow.

Where was this concern for public safety when she allowed open drug use in the Tenderloin? Where was the law-and-order approach when she pushed for safe consumption sites while overdose deaths surged to record highs?

Breed’s actions show a clear pattern: she panders to public opinion only when it benefits her politically. In 2020 and 2021, it was politically expedient to push for harm reduction. Now, with an election looming, she’s flipped to a tougher stance on crime. But after years of enabling the very disorder she now claims to be addressing, can San Franciscans trust her sudden shift?

Safe Consumption Sites: Enabling Lawlessness, Perpetuating Addiction

Breed’s support for safe consumption sites has had devastating consequences. While these sites were supposed to reduce harm, they normalized drug use and contributed to the public disorder that now defines San Francisco’s streets. And the evidence is clear: under Breed’s leadership, overdose deaths soared.

Governor Gavin Newsom, recognizing the dangers posed by these sites, vetoed a state bill that would have allowed them to operate legally. Yet, even after this veto, Breed continued to push for local sites, defying state law and ignoring the public’s safety.

Her insistence on opening safe consumption sites, even when faced with overwhelming evidence that they were failing, shows a clear disregard for the well-being of San Francisco’s residents. Instead of providing treatment and recovery options, these sites acted as enablers of addiction, keeping people trapped in a cycle of drug use and dependence.

San Francisco needs leadership that prioritizes recovery, safety, and accountability. Mayor Breed’s harm reduction strategy has failed. Her inconsistency and opportunism have created an environment where addiction flourishes, crime rises, and families feel unsafe.

Mark Farrell: The Leader San Francisco Needs

In contrast to Breed’s failed leadership, Mark Farrell has a clear, consistent, and actionable plan to fix San Francisco. He understands that law and order are essential to rebuilding the city, but he also knows that addiction must be treated with a recovery-first approach.

Farrell’s plan focuses on:

Declaring a fentanyl state of emergency, with more armed California National Guard officers to address open-air drug markets and trafficking.
Building a large-scale, 24/7 centralized intake center, staffed with social workers and medical professionals, to triage those in need and guide them through recovery.
Scrapping Breed’s failed Overdose Prevention Plan, which has enabled drug use, and shifting the focus to recovery-first and abstinence-based options.
Increasing police staffing levels to serve as a deterrent to drug dealing and public drug use, while also providing more recovery beds and detox opportunities for those in need.
Reforming pretrial detention to end the cycle of catch-and-release policies that Breed allowed to flourish, and ensuring that individuals revived with Narcan receive mandated treatment.

Mark Farrell’s vision is one of a cleaner, safer, and thriving San Francisco—a city where families can walk the streets without fear, where businesses can prosper, and where addiction is treated as a public health crisis with real solutions, not empty promises.

Time to Choose: Failed Leadership or Real Change?

San Franciscans deserve better than London Breed’s inconsistency and political gamesmanship. Under her watch, our city has fallen into chaos. Her policies have facilitated addiction, enabled lawlessness, and contributed to the deterioration of public safety.

Mark Farrell offers the real leadership San Francisco needs. He has a plan to save lives, restore safety, and clean up our streets. This election is a choice between more of the same chaos under Breed or a better, brighter future for San Francisco with Farrell at the helm.

The choice is yours. Vote for Mark Farrell. It’s time to fix San Francisco.

“Paid for by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC. Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.”

Exposing the Lack of Action: How the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is Failing Recruitment and Retention

August 30, 2024

In the competitive landscape of law enforcement, the ability to attract and retain qualified personnel is not just a goal—it’s a necessity. For the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO), however, this has become an area of significant failure. The challenges we face are not solely due to external factors or the inherent difficulties of law enforcement recruitment. Instead, much of the problem lies within the SFSO itself, particularly due to the lack of decisive action and strategic use of available resources by its leadership.

The Opportunity: Funding for Top Step Salaries

Every year, the City of San Francisco allocates a budget to the SFSO that is designed to fully fund each deputy position at the top pay step. In simple terms, this means that the Sheriff’s Office has the financial backing to offer new hires a higher starting salary than what is currently being offered. This could be a significant advantage in a job market where competitive pay is a major factor in attracting qualified candidates.

However, despite this opportunity, the SFSO continues to start new deputies at Step 1—the lowest possible salary step. This approach not only underutilizes the budget but also puts the SFSO at a disadvantage compared to other law enforcement agencies that offer higher starting salaries. Potential recruits, when faced with the choice between a higher starting salary elsewhere and the lower offer from the SFSO, are understandably choosing the better pay.

The Authority: The Power to Hire at Higher Steps

What makes this situation even more concerning is that Sheriff Miyamoto has the authority to hire new deputies at higher steps—such as Step 2 or higher—especially in circumstances where there is a severe and documented recruiting and retention problem. This isn’t just a policy buried in bureaucratic paperwork; it’s a practical tool designed to help departments like ours overcome recruitment challenges by making the job more attractive to prospective hires.

Currently, the SFSO is experiencing exactly the kind of staffing shortages that this authority was meant to address. Our recruitment efforts have not kept pace with the demand, leading to understaffing that strains our existing deputies and compromises public safety. And yet, despite having both the financial resources and the authority to offer more competitive starting salaries, the Sheriff has not taken this critical step.

Lagging Behind: The Competitive Landscape

To understand how far behind the SFSO is in its recruitment strategy, consider the practices of other law enforcement agencies across California. For instance, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), Oakland Police Department, and Alameda County Sheriff’s Office have adopted more flexible and inclusive hiring practices. These agencies accept multiple written examination options, including the POST Entry-Level Law Enforcement Test Battery (PELLETB) and the National Testing Network (NTN) Frontline exams. Additionally, they recognize Basic Police Academy certifications and associate degrees as valid qualifications.

This flexibility allows these agencies to draw from a larger pool of applicants, including those who may have already passed the PELLETB exam or who have pursued higher education. By contrast, the SFSO’s exclusive reliance on the NTN exam as the sole written examination option unnecessarily narrows our applicant pool. We are effectively telling qualified candidates that they need to jump through additional hoops just to be considered for a position, while other agencies are offering a more straightforward and accessible path to employment.

Missed Opportunities: The Consequences of Inaction

The consequences of these missed opportunities are severe. Every unfilled position increases the burden on our current deputies, who are already stretched thin. This not only affects their morale but also their safety and effectiveness in carrying out their duties. Furthermore, the public’s safety is at risk when we do not have enough deputies to adequately patrol our streets, manage our jails, and provide necessary services to the community.

In his public and internal communications, Sheriff Miyamoto has expressed support for eliminating Step 1 pay for certain positions, acknowledging the need to make the SFSO more competitive. However, words without action are meaningless. The Sheriff has yet to implement the necessary changes to take advantage of the budget that already exists and the authority he possesses.

A Call to Action: What Needs to Be Done

It’s time for the SFSO to stop lagging behind and start leading. The funding is there. The authority is there. What’s missing is the will to act. Sheriff Miyamoto must use the resources at his disposal to hire new deputies at competitive rates, starting at Step 2 or higher. Additionally, the SFSO should align its hiring practices with those of other forward-thinking agencies by offering multiple written examination options and recognizing academy certifications and degrees.

The stakes are too high for inaction. The safety of our community, the well-being of our deputies, and the effectiveness of our law enforcement efforts depend on a fully staffed and motivated force. The time for change is now.

The SFSO’s leadership needs to recognize the urgency of our recruitment challenges and take immediate, decisive action. The tools and resources are available—it’s time to use them effectively. By doing so, we can ensure that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office not only meets the current demands but also sets the standard for law enforcement recruitment and retention in California.

Addressing the Inefficiency of the Sheriff’s Hiring Process Compared to the SFPD

July 31, 2024

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) is currently facing significant challenges in its hiring process, particularly when compared to the more streamlined and efficient practices of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). The inefficiencies within the Sheriff’s hiring process have contributed to prolonged recruitment times and hindered our ability to attract and retain qualified candidates. It is essential to highlight these issues and propose actionable solutions to address them.

Inefficiency in the Written Exam Process

One of the primary areas of inefficiency within the Sheriff’s hiring process is the written exam. The Sheriff requires candidates to take the NTN (National Testing Network) exam, which is not as widely accepted as the PELLET B exam used by the SFPD and many other law enforcement agencies across California. The PELLET B exam offers several advantages:

Acceptance by Multiple Agencies: PELLET B scores are accepted by numerous law enforcement agencies, allowing candidates to use their existing certified scores from other jurisdictions. This eliminates the need for candidates to take multiple written exams and streamlines the application process.
Accessibility: There are more testing locations for the PELLET B exam throughout California, making it more convenient and accessible for candidates.
Efficiency: Offering both the PELLET B and NTN exams would provide candidates with more options and streamline the hiring process, making it more efficient and candidate-friendly.

Despite these clear advantages, the Sheriff has refused to fully adopt the PELLET B exam, opting instead to continue using the NTN exam. This decision has resulted in unnecessary barriers for potential candidates and has contributed to longer recruitment times.

Comparison of Hiring Timelines

The inefficiencies in the Sheriff’s hiring process are further highlighted by comparing the recruitment timelines of the Sheriff and the SFPD. The SFPD has managed to streamline its hiring process, achieving recruitment times of 6 to 8 months. In contrast, the Sheriff’s recruitment timeline ranges from 9 to 18 months, significantly longer than that of the SFPD. This extended timeline is a major deterrent for potential candidates and hampers our ability to fill critical positions promptly.

Use of Technology in the Interview Process

Another area where the Sheriff lags behind the SFPD is in the use of technology for interviews. The SFPD has embraced modern technology by conducting interviews via video conferencing platforms such as Zoom. This approach not only speeds up the hiring process but also makes it more convenient for candidates who may have scheduling or geographical constraints. In contrast, the Sheriff still insists on in-person interviews, which are time-consuming and less flexible. Adopting video conferencing for interviews would be a significant step towards modernizing our hiring process and reducing recruitment times.

Implemented Suggestions

While the Sheriff has accepted our suggestion to waive the online test fees for the NTN exam, this partial measure does not fully address the underlying inefficiencies in the hiring process. Waiving the fees is a positive step, but it falls short of the comprehensive changes needed to make the Sheriff’s hiring process more efficient and competitive.

Authority to Hire Above Entry Step

Another inefficiency in the Sheriff’s hiring process is the refusal to hire above the entry step, despite having the authority to do so. In 2022, Employee Relations Director Ardis Graham confirmed that the Sheriff has the power to hire above Step 1 to attract more entry level applicants. However, this authority has not been utilized, further hindering our entry level recruitment efforts. Hiring at Step 2 would make the Sheriff more competitive and attractive to potential candidates, yet this strategy remains underutilized.

The current inefficiencies in the Sheriff’s hiring process are a significant barrier to attracting and retaining qualified candidates. By adopting the PELLET B exam, offering both test options, utilizing video conferencing for interviews, and exercising the authority to hire above the entry step, the Sheriff can streamline its hiring process and reduce recruitment times. These changes are essential to ensuring that our department is adequately staffed and capable of meeting the demands of our community.

It is time for the Sheriff to take decisive action to address these inefficiencies and implement the necessary changes to improve our hiring process. The SFDSA remains committed to advocating for these improvements and will continue to push for the adoption of more efficient and effective recruitment practices.

Mayor London Breed Betrays Employees by Manipulating the Health Board

July 25, 2024

In a controversial and widely criticized move, Mayor London Breed has been accused of betraying San Francisco’s city employees and retirees by manipulating the Health Service Board (HSB) to switch from United Healthcare (UHC) to Blue Shield of California (BSC). This decision, allegedly driven by budget concerns, has sparked outrage among employees, retirees, and advocacy groups.

The Initial Decision and Controversy

On June 7, 2024, the HSB voted 4-3 against replacing the UHC plan with BSC, a decision influenced by significant concerns about the potential negative impact on retirees. Dr. Stephen Follansbee, a long-serving board member, highlighted the potential disruption to physician-patient relationships and the inferior quality of care under BSC compared to UHC. This vote was seen as a victory for the thousands of retirees and their families who rely on UHC for their healthcare needs.

Mayor Breed’s Intervention

Despite the HSB’s initial decision, Mayor Breed took immediate action to reverse the outcome. She removed Dr. Follansbee from the board and appointed Dr. Fiona Wilson in his place. This strategic move ensured that the vote would be reconsidered. Conveniently, another board member who voted against the switch, Jack Cremen, was on a planned holiday, further tipping the scales in favor of the mayor’s agenda.

On June 18, 2024, with the newly constituted board, a re-vote was conducted, resulting in the adoption of the BSC plan. This reversal has been criticized as a manipulation of the board to serve budgetary goals rather than the best interests of the retirees.

Impact on Retirees

The decision to switch to BSC is expected to save the city approximately $20 million annually but at a significant cost to the retirees. Many retirees will be forced to change doctors, and those living out of state may not have adequate coverage, leading to fear and confusion about their healthcare benefits. The move has been described as balancing the budget on the backs of the city’s most vulnerable residents.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

The actions taken to achieve this switch have raised legal and ethical concerns. The law firm representing Protect Our Benefits, Inc. (POB), has argued that the re-vote on June 18 was procedurally incorrect and illegal. The firm has threatened litigation to protect the rights of the retirees affected by this decision, emphasizing the mayor’s lack of adherence to proper procedures and the board’s own rules.

Public Outcry and Opposition

Numerous unions and advocacy groups, including the Police Officers Association, Firefighters Local 798, and the Retired Employees of the City and County of San Francisco, have voiced their opposition to the switch. The decision has not only sparked public outrage but also risks further damaging the city’s ability to attract and retain employees, especially in critical areas such as law enforcement.

Mayor London Breed’s intervention to manipulate the Health Service Board’s decision in favor of Blue Shield of California has been widely condemned as a betrayal of San Francisco’s employees and retirees. The move, seen as a bid to address budget deficits at the expense of the city’s most vulnerable, raises serious legal, ethical, and practical concerns. As the debate continues, the affected retirees and their advocates are preparing for a potential legal battle to overturn this controversial decision.

How Mayor London Breed Defunded the Sheriff’s Office

July 20, 2024

San Francisco’s public safety has been in a precarious position due to Mayor London Breed’s approach to handling the city’s law enforcement agencies, particularly the Sheriff’s Office. Despite growing concerns about understaffing, rising violent incidents in jails, and the critical need for better resource allocation, Mayor Breed’s decisions have led to what many see as a strategic defunding of the Sheriff’s Office. This article delves into the details of how this has unfolded.

Civilianizing Police Positions

One of the key moves by Mayor Breed has been the civilianization of police and deputy sheriff positions. By replacing sworn officers with civilians in various roles and introducing so-called “ambassadors” without police powers, the Mayor has significantly reduced the number of operational deputies and police officers. While the intention is to increase the presence of mental health professionals and address crime as a mental health issue, this shift has left police officers and deputy sheriffs struggling to cope with the escalating demands of their jobs. This reallocation of responsibilities has effectively reduced the number of police and deputies available to handle the core functions of law enforcement, further straining the already overstressed system.

Denying Critical Funding Requests

The Mayor’s budgetary policies have directly impacted the staffing levels within the Sheriff’s Office. In recent years, the number of deputy sheriffs has been declining, leaving the department dangerously understaffed. The latest figures indicate that there are currently only 611 deputies, a number far below what is needed to ensure public safety and manage the city’s jails, courts, and booking facilities effectively.

A clear example of this is Mayor Breed’s denial of the Sheriff’s request for $500,000 specifically allocated for recruiting new deputies. This refusal to fund essential recruiting efforts has further exacerbated the staffing crisis, leaving the department unable to attract and retain the personnel needed to function effectively. Without adequate funding for recruitment, the Sheriff’s Office cannot compete with other law enforcement agencies offering better hiring incentives and support.

Pausing Hiring and Promotions

In June 2020, Mayor Breed took the drastic step of pausing all police and sheriff’s hires and promotions to conduct an audit of law enforcement exams to root out bias. While addressing bias is important, this move has significantly hampered the already strained Sheriff’s Office. The pause put on hold exams for hundreds of potential jobs and promotions, leaving 636 people eligible to become deputy sheriffs without the opportunity to be hired or promoted (SF mayor pauses police,…). This strategic pause has created a bottleneck in the hiring pipeline, delaying the entry of new deputies into the force and exacerbating the understaffing issue.

Progressive Justice System and Jail Closures

Mayor Breed’s focus on a progressive justice system has also contributed to the current challenges. She has been a strong proponent of closing jails and opposing the construction of new ones, aiming to reduce incarceration rates. In 2015, she led the effort to reject an $80 million grant from the State Public Works Board to build a new jail, favoring alternatives to incarceration such as mental health treatment and substance abuse programs (San Francisco superviso…).

As a result, San Francisco’s jails are now overcrowded and often on lockdown due to the high number of inmates, many of whom are violent offenders. The facilities were not designed to handle such a high concentration of violent individuals, leading to increased incidents of violence within the jails and making it even more challenging for the understaffed Sheriff’s Office to maintain order and safety. The progressive justice system has also led to several issues:

Lack of Sunlight: Inmates who do not receive adequate sunlight are at risk for vitamin D deficiency, which can lead to weakened bones, fatigue, and a weakened immune system. Additionally, the lack of natural light exposure can contribute to depression and other mental health issues.
Limited Recreation Space: Physical activity is essential for maintaining physical and mental health. The lack of recreation space in overcrowded jails leads to a sedentary lifestyle, increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and other health problems. Mentally, the absence of regular exercise can exacerbate stress, anxiety, and depression.
Reduced Rehabilitation Opportunities: The shortage of deputies has resulted in inadequate security for rehabilitation programs, including educational classes, vocational training, and religious meetings. Without sufficient deputies to ensure safety and security during these activities, many rehabilitation programs are curtailed or canceled, depriving inmates of critical opportunities for personal development and reintegration into society.
Crowded and Inadequate Facilities: The remaining jails were not built for maximum security and are ill-equipped to handle the increase in administrative separation inmates and protective custody inmates. This overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure compromise safety and security, both for the inmates and the staff.

Additionally, the overcrowded conditions and lack of deputies have severely hindered the ability to provide necessary supervision during rehabilitation activities such as educational classes, vocational training, and religious meetings. Without adequate security, these programs are often curtailed or canceled, depriving inmates of crucial opportunities for personal development and rehabilitation.

Public Safety Buildings Built Citywide

Despite the critical need for facilities and resources for the Sheriff’s Office, Mayor Breed has prioritized other public safety projects over addressing these needs. Significant investments have been made in building and renovating multiple public safety facilities citywide, including:

A new San Francisco Animal Care and Control headquarters, completed in March 2021 with a budget of $76.4 million (San Francisco Animal Ca…).
The new Fireboat Station No. 35, completed in February 2022 at a cost of $51 million (Fireboat Station No. 35…).
The new SFFD Station 49 (Ambulance Deployment Facility), completed in May 2021 with a budget of $50.1 million (New SFFD Station 49 (Am…).
The Ingleside Police Station Replacement, an ongoing project with a budget of $53 million (Ingleside Police Statio…).
The 9-1-1 Call Center renovation, an ongoing project with a budget of $9 million (9-1-1 Call Center | Pub…).
Disaster response facilities, including the renovation of Kezar Pavilion, with a budget of $137 million (Disaster Response Facil…).

While these projects address various public safety needs, the lack of comparable investments in the Sheriff’s Office highlights a clear disparity in resource allocation. This selective investment strategy suggests a bias and a lack of support for the Sheriff’s Office, further undermining its ability to function effectively.

Lack of Hiring Incentives and Public Support

Mayor Breed’s administration has also failed to implement any hiring incentives to attract new deputy sheriff applicants. Unlike other law enforcement agencies that offer signing bonuses, competitive starting salaries, and comprehensive benefits packages to attract talent, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has been left without similar support. This lack of hiring incentives makes it challenging for the Sheriff’s Office to compete in a highly competitive job market.

Despite the pressing need for more deputies, the Mayor’s office has not provided adequate funding for recruiting efforts or offered any substantial incentives for new applicants. The lack of urgency in addressing the hiring crisis is evident, as there have been no public statements or campaigns initiated by the Mayor to attract new recruits to the Sheriff’s Office. This oversight, combined with a misleading presentation of the budget figures—inflated by $13 million from contract negotiations—creates an illusion of increased funding and support that does not translate into tangible improvements for the deputies.

Shift in Policy Due to Public Pressure

Mayor Breed initially supported the “Defund the Police” movement, cutting $120 million from the budgets of both San Francisco’s police and sheriff’s departments in response to demands from Black Lives Matter protesters (Behind London Breed’s ‘…). However, as crime rates surged and public dissatisfaction grew, she shifted her stance, requesting more funding for the police to address rising crime, including open-air drug dealing and retail theft. Despite this shift, the Sheriff’s Office continued to face significant budgetary constraints and lack of support.

Public Safety Concerns

Public safety concerns have been on the rise since 2021, with a survey indicating that 70% of San Franciscans feel the quality of life has worsened over the past few years due to increased crime and public safety issues (San Franciscans concern…). Property crimes and violent crimes have seen significant increases, and the general public’s dissatisfaction has grown, highlighting the need for more robust law enforcement support and resources (Here’s what San Francis…).

Mayor London Breed’s approach to managing the Sheriff’s Office has led to a significant reduction in its effectiveness and resources. By civilianizing positions, neglecting critical staffing needs, pausing essential hiring and promotions, focusing on a progressive justice system, denying essential funding for recruiting, failing to make public statements to attract new applicants, and not implementing hiring incentives, the Mayor has effectively defunded the Sheriff’s Office. The result is an overstressed, understaffed department struggling to meet the demands of public safety in San Francisco.

It is imperative for the city’s leadership to reassess their priorities and provide the necessary support to ensure the safety and security of both the deputies and the public they serve. Without a strategic and balanced approach to resource allocation and support, the challenges facing the Sheriff’s Office will continue to grow, putting the safety and well-being of San Francisco’s residents at risk.

“Paid for by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC. Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate. Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.”

San Francisco Sheriff’s Office Faces Severe Staffing Crisis Due to Protracted Hiring Process and Lack of Support from City Leadership

July 16, 2024

San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office is grappling with a severe staffing crisis, exacerbated by an inefficient and prolonged hiring process that takes significantly longer than neighboring departments. Despite a clear need for more deputies to ensure the safety and functionality of the city’s jails, bureaucratic delays, administrative hurdles, and a lack of support from city leadership have hindered recruitment efforts.

Prolonged Hiring Process

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) boasts a hiring timeline of 6 to 8 months, a stark contrast to the 9 to 16 months it takes the Sheriff’s Office to hire a deputy sheriff. According to Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, getting applicants through the office’s background check process alone can take between four to five months. When combined with San Francisco’s notoriously slow civil service hiring process, the total time to hire a new deputy often exceeds a year (San Francisco Needs 4,0…)(Why S.F.’s workforce sh…).

This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency of the Sheriff’s Office’s internal processes. If a comparable agency like the SFPD can complete its hiring in 6 to 8 months, the extended timeline for the Sheriff’s Office suggests that the problem lies within its own department and decisions. This inefficiency hampers the office’s ability to attract and retain qualified candidates, exacerbating the staffing crisis.

Impact on Jail Conditions

The consequences of this staffing shortfall are dire. San Francisco jails are overcrowded and understaffed, leading to increased violence and chaos. Inmates, many of whom are mentally ill or addicted to drugs, are often left without adequate supervision or support. This has resulted in frequent lockdowns and violent confrontations, further straining the already limited resources of the Sheriff’s Office (SF jails_ Chaos is the …)(San Francisco doesn’t g…).

Former Assistant Sheriff Michael Marcum emphasized that jail inmates are part of the community and deserve better treatment. The lack of adequate staffing and resources not only affects the inmates but also the deputies, who are forced to work excessive overtime to cover the staffing gaps. This reliance on overtime is financially unsustainable and leads to burnout among deputies (San Francisco doesn’t g…).

Inefficiencies and Bureaucratic Hurdles

The current hiring process is riddled with inefficiencies. For instance, background investigators often require three people to verify an address, which is an undue consumption of time and resources. Additionally, there is a limited number of vehicles available for investigators, leading to further delays as they share cars to complete their tasks (240716 Letter to Sherif…).

The Deputy Sheriffs Association has proposed several solutions to address these issues, including employing outside vendors to assist with background investigations, prioritizing high-quality candidates, and offering higher starting pay to new hires. Despite these suggestions, the bureaucratic delays continue to impede progress (240716 Letter to Sherif…).

Lack of Support from City Leadership

Mayor London Breed’s administration has been criticized for not providing sufficient support to the Sheriff’s Office. Despite the pressing need for more deputies, the Mayor has not approved any money for recruiting efforts. During contract negotiations, there were no proposals for hiring incentives, and efforts to eliminate the first step in pay to attract more applicants have been delayed (Letter to Ardis Graham,…)(Mayor London Breed’s Co…)(Letter to Mayor, Sherif…).

The Mayor’s recent budget proposal, while claiming to invest in public safety, has disproportionately favored the SFPD over the Sheriff’s Office. The proposed budget includes funding for four new police academy classes and significant investments in public safety technology, but fails to address the critical staffing shortages in the Sheriff’s Office adequately (Mayor London Breed Prop…). The department that truly got defunded was the Sheriff’s Office and the Sheriff did nothing about it.

Additionally, the Sheriff has the authority to hire entry level deputies at a higher pay step with the approval of funds by the controller, but this has not been implemented effectively. The failure to utilize this provision has further hampered recruitment efforts (Letter to Ardis Graham,…)(Mayor London Breed’s Co…).

San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office is in the midst of a staffing crisis that threatens the safety and well-being of both inmates and deputies. The prolonged and inefficient hiring process, combined with a lack of political will and budget constraints, has exacerbated the situation. Immediate action is needed to streamline the hiring process, implement proposed solutions, and ensure that the Sheriff’s Office can recruit and retain the necessary staff to operate effectively. Without these changes, the cycle of understaffing and over-reliance on overtime will continue to undermine the safety and functionality of San Francisco’s jails. The city’s leadership must prioritize these reforms and provide the necessary support to address this urgent issue.

The Progressive Justice System in San Francisco: A Marxist Experiment in Failure

July 11, 2024

San Francisco’s progressive justice system, designed to create a more equitable society through extensive reforms, has instead led to catastrophic outcomes. The parallels between these policies and Marxist ideology are undeniable, and their failures are stark and undeniable. The city’s approach has exacerbated homelessness, addiction, and crime, creating a public safety crisis that continues to spiral out of control.

An Explosion of Homelessness and Drug Addiction

Despite the city’s substantial financial investment, homelessness in San Francisco has skyrocketed. From 2016 to 2021, spending on homelessness surged by over 500%, reaching $1.1 billion in 2021 alone. Yet, the homeless population grew by 64% during this same period (Hoover Institution) (The San Francisco Standard). This alarming rise highlights the ineffectiveness of the city’s strategies, which echo Marxist ideals of extensive social support without accountability or practical results.

The progressive justice system’s approach to drug addiction, focusing on harm reduction rather than recovery, has led to disastrous outcomes. San Francisco now has one of the highest drug overdose rates in the country, with 80 deaths per 100,000 residents. In 2021, the city saw 806 overdose deaths, a 24.5% increase from the previous year (The San Francisco Standard). Providing clean needles and safe injection sites has not addressed the root causes of addiction but has instead facilitated ongoing substance abuse and public health crises.

Skyrocketing Crime and Public Safety Concerns

San Francisco’s policies of decriminalization and leniency for nonviolent offenses, deeply influenced by Marxist views on systemic oppression, have led to soaring crime rates. Proposition 47, which reclassified certain nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, has resulted in increased repeat offenses and a pervasive sense of lawlessness (The San Francisco Standard).

The rise in property crimes, such as shoplifting and car break-ins, has left residents feeling unsafe and disillusioned with the city’s governance. This aligns with Marxist critiques of the existing legal framework but demonstrates that the progressive approach has failed to implement effective alternatives to ensure community safety while addressing systemic issues.

Financial Mismanagement and Ideological Failures

The “homeless-industrial complex” in San Francisco is a glaring example of financial mismanagement reminiscent of failed Marxist economic policies. Billions of dollars are funneled into nonprofits and government agencies without producing significant results. Instead of alleviating homelessness and addiction, the funding perpetuates these crises, with resources often being misallocated or poorly managed (The San Francisco Standard).

This mismanagement mirrors Marxist critiques of capitalism, where resources are viewed as being controlled by a few, leading to inefficiency and inequality. However, in San Francisco, the shift towards a collectivist approach has not resolved these problems but has instead created a new form of inefficiency and misallocation of funds.

The Ideological Underpinnings

The failures of San Francisco’s progressive justice system are deeply rooted in its ideological foundations, which bear striking similarities to Marxism:

Systemic Blame: Progressive policies often attribute homelessness and addiction to systemic failures, such as economic inequality and lack of social support, rather than individual circumstances and choices.
Redistribution of Resources: Significant financial resources are allocated to addressing homelessness and addiction, much like Marxist ideals of redistributing wealth to achieve equality.
Collectivist Solutions: The focus on harm reduction and decriminalization represents a collectivist approach, aiming to support the community as a whole but failing to address individual needs effectively.

San Francisco’s progressive justice system, with its roots in Marxist ideology, has failed spectacularly. The city’s experience demonstrates that while systemic reform is essential, it must be coupled with practical, individualized solutions. The focus on systemic blame, extensive resource redistribution, and collectivist solutions has led to a worsening of homelessness, addiction, and crime. To create a safer, more equitable society, policymakers must balance the need for systemic change with effective, targeted interventions that address the root causes of these complex social issues.

The progressive justice system in San Francisco, an experiment in Marxist principles, has proven to be a catastrophic failure, highlighting the need for a comprehensive reassessment and a move towards more practical, effective solutions.

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

July 10, 2024

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.

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:

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.
Strengthen Law Enforcement: Reassessing leniency measures and ensuring that laws are enforced can help reduce crime rates and address public safety concerns.
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.
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.