A Step Forward: Sheriff Moves to Advance Administrative Code Proposal

September 25, 2025

We’re pleased to report a positive development in our long-standing effort to update San Francisco’s Administrative Code to include clear recognition of the Sheriff’s Office. After months of internal review, the Sheriff’s Department has now taken a significant step forward.

Sheriff Refers Proposal to City Attorney

On September 24, Undersheriff Katherine Johnson informed us that the department’s legal team has completed its review of our proposed Administrative Code amendment. The Sheriff has now directed that the matter be sent to the Office of the City Attorney for formal drafting of legislative language.

“Once that is completed, someone will follow up with you.”

– Undersheriff Katherine Johnson

We commend the Sheriff’s Office for advancing this process and look forward to the next stage of collaboration.

What This Means

This action brings us closer to correcting a structural oversight: the absence of the Sheriff’s Office in the Administrative Code. Unlike Police and Fire, the operational responsibilities of San Francisco’s elected law enforcement agency are not formally codified in city law.

Our proposal seeks to fix that by defining the functions the Sheriff’s Office already performs under Penal Code § 830.1(a), the San Francisco Charter, and longstanding public safety practice. These include:

Jail operations
Law enforcement services
Court security
Emergency and mutual aid response
Civil process enforcement
Transportation of persons in custody

By placing these responsibilities in the Administrative Code, we strengthen institutional clarity and ensure legal consistency across the City’s public safety departments.

A Shared Path Forward

This step confirms that the Sheriff’s Office recognizes the value of codifying its role — not only for operational stability but for long-term transparency and accountability. We stand ready to assist the City Attorney as they begin crafting legislative language that reflects both the constitutional authority and the day-to-day realities of the Sheriff’s Office.

We believe this shared path will benefit the people of San Francisco and provide a stronger foundation for the professionals who serve under this Office every day.

Message to Our Members

To the members of the SFDSA: your voice, your work, and your service matter. This action is a direct result of continued advocacy and persistence. We believe this change will support your work and reinforce the legal structure behind your service.

To the public: we are committed to ensuring that our city’s elected law enforcement agency receives the same legal foundation as other departments. This is about fairness, function, and future readiness.

What’s Next

We will continue to monitor the drafting process and provide monthly updates to our members and the public as the City Attorney prepares formal language for introduction to the Board of Supervisors.

Our next public update will be issued in October 2025.

Thank you to Sheriff Miyamoto and his team for this important step forward. We look forward to working together in good faith to complete this process.

For questions or feedback, contact us at president@sanfranciscodsa.com

A Hard-Capped Bitcoin Reserve for an Uncertain World

September 9, 2025

Why SFDSA is building a Bitcoin Reserve

In 2021, SFDSA took its first step into Bitcoin. In 2025, we added more. Those decisions weren’t about chasing headlines; they were about building a durable Bitcoin Reserve—a portion of assets set aside to protect our members’ future purchasing power across decades, not news cycles. A reserve is the opposite of speculation. It is quiet, disciplined, and designed to endure.

What a “reserve” really means for members

Every public-safety organization keeps cash for near-term operations. A reserve is different: it’s the long-horizon ballast that isn’t meant to be spent next month or even next year. Historically, gold served that role for nations because no one could print it. Bitcoin extends that idea into the digital era—a bearer-style asset with a fixed maximum supply of 21,000,000. That cap is not a policy promise; it’s embedded in open-source code and enforced by thousands of independent nodes worldwide.

The practical implication for members is straightforward: when the world is noisy—deficits, inflation scares, banking stress—a portion of our assets sits outside that noise, in a network where issuance is known ahead of time and cannot be increased to solve political problems. The goal isn’t to “beat the market” next quarter. It’s to preserve purchasing power through the kinds of long arcs that shape retirement and family security.

Why Bitcoin fits the reserve role

Hard cap, transparent schedule. Bitcoin’s supply is capped at 21 million, released on a schedule that becomes less inflationary over time. Approximately every four years, the “halving” reduces new issuance; today roughly ~450 new BTC are mined per day—a number that will keep falling until issuance effectively approaches zero. Everyone can verify this, in real time, on a public ledger.

Portability and neutrality. Unlike a bank deposit, Bitcoin is not someone else’s liability. It can settle globally, any hour of the day, without waiting for a custodian to open on Monday morning. For reserve purposes, that portability is a form of resilience.

Auditability. Reserves are most trustworthy when they can be observed, not merely reported. Bitcoin’s ledger is public. Balances can be proven on-chain without exposing operational details.

Scarcity, explained in human terms

There are roughly eight billion people and twenty-one million possible coins, ever. If divided evenly, that’s about 0.002625 BTC per person—262,500 satoshis. That simple ratio is the beating heart of the reserve concept: we are intentionally accumulating a slice of something the world cannot make more of.

How a Bitcoin Reserve operates—without bureaucracy

We are intentionally keeping this strategy rules-light and principle-driven:

Accumulate on weakness. Price volatility is the toll you pay for long-term scarcity. We add on meaningful pullbacks, in measured tranches, rather than trying to call tops or bottoms.
No leverage, no lending. A reserve should not depend on borrowed money or third-party rehypothecation. We own spot exposure and keep it unencumbered.
Never forced sellers. Operating cash and near-term obligations remain separate, so we are not compelled to sell into temporary downturns.
Periodic review, not constant tinkering. We look at the reserve in the context of total assets on a sensible cadence (e.g., annually), adjusting with a long-term lens.

This approach keeps the mechanics simple while aligning with the purpose of a reserve: endurance.

What members can expect to see

We’ll talk to members like owners—because you are.

Quarterly snapshot: holdings, cost basis, and current market value in plain English.
Context, not hype: how the reserve behaves alongside our cash and other holdings across rolling multi-year periods (because pensions and family plans are multi-year realities).
Education you can use: short explainers on topics like volatility, the 21-million cap, and how to read a reserve update.

Addressing the big questions directly

“Bitcoin is volatile—why put it in a reserve?”
Because a reserve is a long game. Volatility is the price of admission for an asset whose issuance shrinks over time. We handle it by only adding in drawdowns, avoiding leverage, and keeping operating needs separate.

“Is this all we hold?”
No. A reserve is one component of a diversified base. Cash and short-duration instruments fund operations; the Bitcoin Reserve is the hard-capped portion that aims to defend purchasing power over long horizons.

“What if the regulatory or technical environment changes?”
Bitcoin’s rules are public and globally distributed. Our process—accumulate gradually, avoid leverage, keep reporting simple—remains robust across regulatory headlines. The network has operated continuously for over a decade with transparent issuance. Our reserve is designed to adapt without panic or policy whiplash.

What success looks like over time

Success is not a single price target. It’s a profile:

The reserve grows in satoshis—our share of the 21-million cap—especially during periods when markets are fearful.
Members can verify what we report and understand the rationale for each addition.
Over 5–10 years, the reserve behaves like a stability anchor against creeping inflation in wages, equipment, healthcare, and family expenses that affect our membership in real life.
The strategy remains boring by design: steady, comprehensible, and hard to break.

Why now—and why us

Public-safety professionals know better than most that calm isn’t guaranteed. You prepare in the quiet moments for the turbulent ones. The Bitcoin Reserve is that preparation applied to finance: an asset with known, finite supply accumulated with discipline so that our members’ future purchasing power isn’t left at the mercy of policy cycles.

We began in 2021, reinforced the position in 2025, and we’ll keep building—quietly, consistently, on the dips—because scarcity is on our side and time is the ally of patient reserves.

SFDSA: protecting those who protect San Francisco—and protecting their future with a reserve measured in satoshis, not speculation.

Why We’re Going Public: The Fight to Define the Sheriff’s Role in San Francisco Law

August 16, 2025

After over a year of stalled progress and unanswered letters, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association is officially going public with monthly reports on our efforts to correct a long-standing legal omission in San Francisco’s Administrative Code — an omission that affects every resident’s public safety and the future of the Sheriff’s Office.

The Problem: A Department with No Definition

While the San Francisco Police and Fire Departments are fully defined in both the City Charter and the Administrative Code — with operational duties, funding mechanisms, and emergency roles clearly outlined — the Sheriff’s Office is not. This omission is not only outdated, it’s dangerous. It leaves our city’s elected law enforcement agency out of the very legal framework that governs how city departments operate and cooperate.

This is not about politics or power grabs. It’s about codifying what the Sheriff’s Office already does, aligning it with Penal Code § 830.1(a), the San Francisco Charter, and state law.

What We Did

In collaboration with legal experts and legislative advisors, we proposed new Administrative Code language that would establish a simple section titled:

SEC. 2A.26 – Office of the Sheriff

This section mirrors the structure used for other public safety departments and affirms what the Sheriff’s Office already does every day — operate jails, conduct law enforcement duties, transport prisoners, serve court orders, and respond to emergencies. It brings transparency, consistency, and legal protection to a department that is vital to San Francisco’s safety.

We presented this language to both the Sheriff’s Office and Supervisor Matt Dorsey’s office earlier this summer. Supervisor Dorsey and his staff received it constructively and expressed openness to the effort.

The Silence — and the Delay

Despite our outreach and clear language confirming that the proposal does not restrict or redefine the Sheriff’s constitutional authority, we have received no written response from the Sheriff’s Office since July 7. Verbal confirmation was given that their attorneys are still reviewing it — but no timeline, no counter-proposal, and no forward movement has followed.

That silence is why we’re taking this to the public.

August 15: Public Reporting Begins

As of August 15, 2025, the SFDSA will release monthly public updates on the progress — or lack thereof — regarding this Administrative Code amendment. These updates will document all outreach, responses, delays, and resistance. The public has a right to know why San Francisco’s elected Sheriff remains undefined in city law while other departments are explicitly protected and empowered.

We hope these reports will spur action, not division. We remain fully willing to collaborate with the Sheriff and any City Supervisor ready to help fix this foundational oversight.

Why It Matters

This is about more than legal language. It’s about fairness. It’s about ensuring San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office — a department that touches thousands of lives daily — is no longer left out of the city’s own governing code.

The status quo leaves room for confusion, manipulation, and political interference. Defining the Sheriff’s Office in the Administrative Code brings clarity, stability, and accountability — not just for the department, but for the residents we serve.

🔔 Next Public Report: September 15, 2025

We encourage all community members, policymakers, and media to follow this process closely. Transparency starts here.

If you’d like to support this effort or have questions, please contact us at 415-696-2428.

Progress in Reforming the Testing Process and Recruitment Efforts for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office

September 9, 2024

Today, September 9th, 2024, marks a pivotal moment for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. President Ken Lomba met with Sheriff Miyamoto to address two critical issues impacting our staffing and recruitment efforts: reforming the testing process and implementing second-step pay for new applicants.

After a productive discussion, Sheriff Miyamoto agreed to make these vital changes. The agreement reflects a shared understanding of the pressing need to enhance our recruitment efforts and address the ongoing staffing shortages that have hampered the department’s ability to operate at full capacity.

Why These Changes Matter

For years, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has faced significant staffing challenges. Recruiting new deputies has become increasingly difficult due to a competitive job market and a hiring process that hasn’t adapted to these new realities. The proposed changes to the testing process and the introduction of second-step pay for new hires will make the department more attractive to qualified candidates.

Second-step pay, in particular, is a game-changer. It allows new recruits to start at a higher salary tier, making the financial package more competitive and enticing. This is a major step in retaining talent that might otherwise be drawn to other law enforcement agencies offering better starting compensation.

Impact on the Community and the Department

Sheriff Miyamoto’s decision to implement these changes is expected to significantly improve our ability to recruit and retain deputy sheriffs. The impact will extend beyond just filling vacant positions; it will enable the department to restore its full operational capabilities and ensure the safety of both our staff and the community.

With adequate staffing, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office will be better equipped to manage its duties across various sectors, including jail management, court security, and community policing. Enhanced staffing levels also mean reducing the strain on current deputies, many of whom have been working overtime to cover the shortfall, which has led to fatigue and increased safety risks.

Looking Ahead

We are optimistic about the future. These reforms will not only help us address the immediate staffing shortages but also position the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office for long-term success. A well-staffed department is essential for maintaining the safety and well-being of our city, and these changes represent a significant step toward achieving that goal.

We extend our thanks to Sheriff Miyamoto for his collaboration and leadership on this issue. His recognition of the need for reform will have a lasting positive impact on the department and the broader community we serve.

As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the progress of these reforms and ensure that they are implemented effectively. We are confident that these changes will lead to a stronger, safer, and more efficient San Francisco Sheriff’s Office.

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.