Tag: paul miyamoto

Mayor London Breed’s Controversial Defunding of San Francisco’s Law Enforcement

In the heart of San Francisco, a maelstrom of controversy has emerged, centered around Mayor London Breed’s persistent efforts to curtail the city’s law enforcement capabilities. From her early career as a member of the Board of Supervisors to her current mayoral tenure, Mayor Breed’s commitment to dismantling the criminal justice system has remained a focal point. Despite her intentions to reform, recent actions have evoked questions about the implications of her approach on public safety and the city’s security landscape.

A Legacy of Reform:
Mayor Breed’s crusade against the traditional incarceration system, stemming from personal experiences with incarcerated individuals, has been a driving force behind her political career. Her 2015 declaration to dismantle the system of mass incarceration signified a radical departure from conventional policies, setting the stage for a series of transformative changes within San Francisco’s criminal justice system.

 

Shifting Priorities in San Francisco:
San Francisco has long been recognized for its progressive criminal justice approach, emphasizing rehabilitation over imprisonment. However, the city’s recent shift toward diverting criminals from traditional incarceration has sparked public outcry. The surge in open-air drug dealing and drug-related fatalities has highlighted the limitations of this lenient approach, leading to a palpable sense of insecurity within the community.

Ambiguous Stance and Public Backlash:
Amid mounting pressure, Mayor Breed’s attempts to increase law enforcement presence have been met with skepticism. Despite minor increases in the jail population, street-level crime rates remain alarming, calling into question the city’s commitment to public safety. The city’s reputation as one that uses leniency without firm enforcement has intensified public frustration and concern.

The Defunding Declaration and Contradictory Actions:
Mayor Breed’s 2020 endorsement of the nationwide movement to defund the police marked a significant turning point in San Francisco’s law enforcement landscape. Despite subsequent attempts to present herself as pro-public safety, her decisions to freeze deputy sheriff and police hiring in 2022 and allocate $120 million from law enforcement to the African American community in 2021 indicate a consistent trend of budget cuts and reallocation, casting doubts on the city’s ability to maintain law and order.

The Sheriff’s Office’s Struggle:
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has found itself in a precarious position, grappling with diminished resources and a surge in criminal activity. Mayor Breed’s persistent budget cuts and policy shifts have strained law enforcement capabilities, leaving the city more vulnerable to crime. The reduction in law enforcement officers and the introduction of civilian-led crisis teams have brought into question the effectiveness of Mayor Breed’s reformist approach.

 

Civilianization of Law Enforcement and Its Implications:
The city’s embrace of civilian-led initiatives has drawn attention to the broader ideological conflict between reformist agendas and the imperative of upholding public safety. While proponents argue for a more community-oriented and empathetic policing approach, critics highlight the inadequacy of such strategies in addressing the complex challenges of urban safety, as evidenced by the continued prevalence of crime and insecurity on San Francisco’s streets.

Silent Defunding and Unaddressed Police Shortages:
Board of Supervisor Safai exposed Mayor London Breed for quiet cutting.  Recent revelations have shed light on Mayor Breed’s discreet budgetary maneuvers, including the failure to increase the Police Department’s recruitment budget despite multiple requests from Police Chief Scott. This inaction has left the SF Police Department with a significant shortage of 700 officers, highlighting the consequences of silent defunding on law enforcement capabilities and public safety.

 

Mayor London Breed’s fervent commitment to reforming San Francisco’s criminal justice system has resulted in a contentious and turbulent period for the city’s law enforcement agencies. While her advocacy for reform and resource reallocation aligns with progressive ideologies, the adverse impact on public safety and the growing concerns about the city’s security underline the pressing need for a balanced approach that prioritizes both reform and the maintenance of law and order. As San Francisco continues to grapple with rising crime rates, the imperative for a comprehensive and sustainable strategy that addresses both community needs and public safety remains paramount.

San Francisco’s Task Force Launch Sparks Questions Over Sheriff Miyamoto’s Omission

In the latest effort to combat the fentanyl crisis in San Francisco, Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor London Breed announced the establishment of a joint law enforcement task force. However, the absence of Sheriff Paul Miyamoto and his department from this crucial collaboration has led to discussions and concerns about the comprehensiveness of the initiative and its potential impact on effective law enforcement coordination.

Governor Newsom and Mayor Breed emphasized the urgency of the fentanyl crisis and the need to hold those involved in drug trafficking accountable. The newly formed task force, which includes the San Francisco Police Department, the District Attorney’s Office, the California Highway Patrol, and the California National Guard, aims to handle opioid-related deaths as homicide cases, demonstrating a unified approach to addressing the devastating effects of fentanyl on the local community.

Gov Newsom and Mayor Breed Excluded SF Sheriff
Gov Newsom and Mayor Breed Excluded SF Sheriff

Sheriff Paul Miyamoto’s exclusion from the task force, despite the active involvement of his deputies in patrolling and making arrests in the Tenderloin and SOMA areas, addressing the fentanyl crisis, has raised questions about the decision-making process and the potential implications for effective collaboration among law enforcement agencies. The Sheriff’s Department’s hands-on experience and in-depth understanding of the local communities could significantly contribute to the overall effectiveness of the task force’s operations and strategies.

Critics have also questioned the participation of the California Highway Patrol and the California National Guard, highlighting the importance of including the Sheriff’s Department, actively engaged in tackling the fentanyl crisis on the ground in the Tenderloin and SOMA areas. The exclusion of the Sheriff’s Department has prompted concerns about the comprehensive approach of the task force in addressing the fentanyl crisis, especially considering the experience and contributions that the Sheriff’s Department could offer.

As San Francisco continues to grapple with the far-reaching consequences of the fentanyl crisis, the inclusion of all key stakeholders, including the Sheriff’s Department, remains crucial. A collaborative and inclusive approach is essential to effectively address the challenges posed by the fentanyl crisis and ensure the safety and well-being of the community. It is imperative for local authorities to foster transparent communication and a spirit of cooperation among all law enforcement agencies to effectively tackle the ongoing crisis.

Unmasking Mayor London Breed’s Aggressive Defunding of San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office

In the heart of San Francisco’s ever-shifting political landscape, a storm of controversy is brewing. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is facing a stark and troubling reality – a calculated series of budget cuts and policy shifts that paint a disturbing picture of Mayor London Breed’s unwavering campaign to defund law enforcement in the city. In this article, we’ll meticulously dissect the timeline of events that make a compelling and nuanced case for the Mayor’s relentless assault on the city’s law enforcement agencies.

A History of Radical Reform

Mayor London Breed’s political journey began as a member of the Board of Supervisors, and from the very beginning, she made it clear that she was on a mission to overhaul what she perceived as a deeply flawed criminal justice system. Her 2015 statement sent shockwaves through the city, as she passionately declared her intent to “tear down the system of mass incarceration.” This declaration was not a mere political posture; it was deeply personal, rooted in her familial ties to individuals behind bars.

 

San Francisco’s Unique Approach Scrutinized

San Francisco has long prided itself on its progressive approach to criminal justice, prioritizing rehabilitation over incarceration. The city’s history has been punctuated by numerous chances given to offenders, emphasizing diversion programs and alternatives to conventional incarceration. However, this progressive leniency took an unprecedented turn when the city began diverting criminals away from traditional imprisonment. This drastic shift triggered widespread public outrage, driven by the brazen open-air drug dealing and an alarming surge in drug overdose deaths.

Mayor Breed’s Inconsistent Stance

Amid mounting public pressure, Mayor Breed reluctantly increased the presence of law enforcement on the city’s streets. However, her efforts appeared lukewarm at best, and the city continued to prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures. This approach left San Francisco with a troubling reputation – a city that wields the carrot without ever brandishing the stick. While the jail population did see a marginal increase from its lowest point two months prior, street-level crime continued unabated, further casting doubts on the city’s commitment to public safety.

The Mayor’s Bold 2020 Pro-Defunding Declaration

In 2020, Mayor Breed publicly embraced the nationwide call to defund the police, aligning herself with a movement that sought to reallocate funds away from law enforcement. This audacious proclamation heralded a seismic shift in the city’s approach to public safety and hinted at her intentions to fundamentally reshape the foundations of law enforcement in San Francisco.

Mixed Signals in 2022

However, as the year 2022 dawned, Mayor Breed deftly pivoted her public messaging to appear more pro-public safety, even as her actions told a different story. She imposed a nine-month freeze on deputy sheriff and police hiring, a decision that severely impacted staffing numbers, rendering the city more vulnerable to crime.

Budgetary Maneuvers Speak Volumes

Budget allocations often serve as a clear reflection of a leader’s priorities. In February 2021, as part of the budget process, Mayor Breed orchestrated a staggering redirection of $120 million from law enforcement to investments in the African American community. This financial maneuver underscored her commitment to resource reallocation.

In 2023, Mayor Breed’s office continued to raise eyebrows with significant slowdowns in the hiring process, a subtle but potent form of budget reduction. In April of the same year, she denied a longevity incentive designed to retain deputy sheriffs, despite a glaring shortage in the ranks. In July, she initially proposed a 5% budget cut to the Sheriff’s Office but ultimately executed a 2.5% reduction. And in September, it came to light that funding for crucial law enforcement tools like body cameras, tasers, and ammunition had been mercilessly slashed.

 

The Sheriff’s Office’s Apprehensive Response

In the face of relentless budget cuts and policy shifts, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office finds itself not only stunned but deeply concerned, particularly in the context of soaring crime rates plaguing the city. It appears that Mayor Breed’s actions are inextricably linked to her personal commitment to criminal justice reform, resulting in a reduction in law enforcement officers and an aggressive push for the civilianization of the police.

The Civilianization of Law Enforcement: Aligning with the Extreme Left’s Agenda

One prominent shift that has sent shockwaves through the San Francisco law enforcement landscape is the introduction of street crisis teams composed of Urban Alchemy workers, who now act as first responders in select situations. This marked transition towards civilianization of certain aspects of law enforcement has not only raised eyebrows but also drawn attention to its alignment with the extreme left’s agenda for criminal justice reform.

It is no secret that progressive elements on the political spectrum have long advocated for the civilianization of law enforcement, viewing traditional policing as inherently flawed and overly punitive. San Francisco’s embrace of this approach reflects a broader ideological shift, where the emphasis on community-based solutions and de-escalation tactics takes precedence over traditional law enforcement methods.

However, all one has to do is look around San Francisco to see that this approach is not working. The city’s streets are marred by open-air drug dealing, rampant crime, and a palpable sense of insecurity among its residents. Critics argue that while civilianization may have noble intentions, it has resulted in a system ill-equipped to address the complex and persistent challenges of urban safety.

While proponents argue that civilianizing law enforcement can lead to more empathetic and community-oriented policing, critics express concerns about the potential ramifications on public safety and law enforcement effectiveness. The debate over the civilianization of law enforcement is emblematic of the larger struggle between reformist ideologies and the need for maintaining public safety—a battle that is currently playing out in San Francisco’s streets and city halls.

Conclusion: A Critical Crossroads

The mounting evidence leaves little room for doubt – Mayor London Breed’s relentless assault on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office is not just a byproduct of her commitment to criminal justice reform; it’s a calculated and multifaceted agenda. As the city grapples with these complex issues, the delicate balance between reform and public safety teeters on a precipice. The choices made in the coming months will undoubtedly have profound and lasting consequences for the city and its residents, defining the future of criminal justice in San Francisco.

San Francisco Sheriff’s Office Takes Bold Action as Mayor Breed’s Strategies Fall Short in Drug Crisis

In a stunning turn of events, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has emerged as the driving force in the fight against the escalating drug crisis, as Mayor London Breed’s strategies continue to fall short. With the city grappling with drug-related issues, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto has taken decisive action, unveiling a courageous plan to deploy 130 additional deputies to the troubled Tenderloin and South of Market (SoMa) neighborhoods.

SF Sheriff Tenderloin Initiative
SF Sheriff Tenderloin Initiative

While Mayor Breed’s approach has faced criticism for its ineffectiveness, Sheriff Miyamoto has stepped up to lead the charge in tackling the deep-rooted drug problem. With resolute determination, the Sheriff’s Office has presented a comprehensive strategy to address drug dealers and individuals openly using drugs in public. The deployment of additional deputies, starting this month, signifies a seismic shift in the battle against crime and substance abuse.

Sheriff Miyamoto, flanked by concerned citizens and law enforcement officials, announced this groundbreaking initiative outside City Hall. With unwavering resolve, he highlighted the urgent need for effective action in combating the city’s drug crisis. The Sheriff’s Office, guided by a steadfast commitment to public safety, is now taking the reins in the quest to find real solutions.

While the Sheriff’s Office courageously assumes a leading role, it is no secret that Mayor Breed’s strategies have fallen short of expectations. The current approach has been marred by limited success and persistent challenges. Public health experts have long decried the idea of relying on incarceration and criminalization as effective means to address substance abuse disorders.


However, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office’s proactive stance offers hope for a different path forward. By increasing law enforcement presence and targeting drug-related offenses, they aim to restore order and offer a helping hand to those struggling with addiction. The Sheriff’s Office’s unwavering dedication to the community’s well-being is a testament to their commitment to creating lasting change.

Nevertheless, significant hurdles remain in this uphill battle. Both the San Francisco Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office confront staffing shortages that hinder their ability to effectively address the city’s safety concerns. Police Chief Bill Scott emphasized the importance of receiving adequate funding and support from elected officials to overcome these challenges. The commitment of city leaders to address staffing issues will be crucial in achieving tangible progress.

As the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office takes bold strides in confronting the drug crisis, it is evident that their approach stands in stark contrast to Mayor Breed’s faltering strategies. With their specialized training and unwavering dedication, the Sheriff’s Office deputies will fearlessly patrol the streets, tackling criminal elements head-on and extending a lifeline to those lost in the grips of addiction.

While the Sheriff’s Office shoulders the burden of this monumental task, it is vital for the community to rally behind them. Together, we can bring about meaningful change, ensuring a safer and healthier future for San Francisco. Let us unite in support of the determined men and women of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office as they lead the charge to reshape our city’s destiny in the face of a daunting drug crisis.

Mayor London Breed’s Covert Defunding Tactics: Undermining the Sheriff’s Department

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mayor London Breed’s strategic defunding of the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco has ignited concerns among law enforcement officials and citizens alike. Operating under the radar, these silent defunding measures, such as the denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, and disproportionate budget cuts, are adversely impacting the department’s staffing levels and compromising public safety. Let’s examine these covert actions and their potential ramifications on the Sheriff’s Department.

Denial of Longevity Incentive Proposal

One glaring example of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding strategy is the denial of the longevity incentive proposal. On May 15th, 2023, Mayor Breed rejected this proposal aimed at retaining experienced deputies eligible for retirement, and she also failed to come to the table with a counter proposal or offer any alternative ideas to address the issue. This lack of engagement and proactive effort from the mayor demonstrates a concerning disregard for the retention of deputy sheriffs and exacerbates the ongoing staffing crisis within the Sheriff’s Department. The loss of 50 to 110 deputies due to early retirement further strains the department, leading to increased workloads, reduced efficiency, and compromised public safety.

Budget Cuts and Disproportionate Allocation

Mayor Breed’s budget decisions further illustrate her covert defunding tactics. While slashing the Sheriff’s Department budget by 3%, the mayor simultaneously increased the budgets of other public safety departments, such as the police by 9% and the fire department by 3%. This disproportionate allocation sends a troubling message about the mayor’s priorities and undermines the Sheriff’s Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties.

Unused Funds and Overtime Reduction

The mayor’s claim of utilizing unused funds from vacant positions and reducing overtime within the Sheriff’s Office raises questions about the allocation of resources. If these funds were available, they could have been redirected to support initiatives like the longevity incentive proposal, thereby mitigating staffing shortages and reducing the need for overtime. However, the failure to do so implies a disregard for the long-term sustainability of the department and places an unnecessary burden on the existing workforce.

Implications for Public Safety and Financial Efficiency

The consequences of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding tactics extend beyond understaffing. Insufficient staffing levels compromise response times, limit the department’s ability to proactively address emerging challenges, and hinder the delivery of essential services to the community. Moreover, the reliance on overtime to fill vacant positions not only strains the budget but also places an additional burden on the dedicated deputies who shoulder the increased workload.

A Call for Accountability and Transparency

In light of these concerning developments, it is crucial for concerned citizens, deputies, and community stakeholders to hold Mayor London Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies. The Sheriff’s Department plays a vital role in maintaining public safety, and it deserves the necessary resources and support to fulfill its duties effectively.

Additionally, transparency and open dialogue are imperative in addressing these budgetary concerns. Citizens must demand clear explanations and justifications for the disproportionate budget cuts and the denial of proposals aimed at retaining experienced deputies. By fostering transparency, the community can actively participate in shaping a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety.

Mayor London Breed’s covert defunding tactics targeting the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco have serious implications for public safety and the well-being of the community. The denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, without offering any alternative solutions, and the disproportionate budget cuts jeopardize the department’s staffing levels, hindering its ability to maintain law and order effectively. It is essential for citizens and stakeholders to voice their concerns, demand accountability, and advocate for the allocation of resources that align with the department’s needs. Only through open dialogue and collaborative efforts can we ensure a robust and secure future for the Sheriff’s Department and the community it serves. By holding Mayor Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies, we can work towards a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety and upholds the principles of justice and equality.

 

Media Contact:

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

Mayor Breed’s budget worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails

PRESS RELEASE

Mayor Breed’s budget – released yesterday –worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails at San Bruno and at 7th Street for inmates’; conditions which cause long term chronic illness, and increases the lack of safety for both inmates and deputies. The City is currently being sued for these unconstitutional conditions. Both the San Bruno Jail (County Jail 3) and the 7th Street Jail (County Jail 2) are in violation of Building Code, Title 24, and cannot meet California Regulations. Staffing is already woefully short, forcing the jail to regularly lockdown all prisoners, denying inmates out of cell time, and creating in essence solitary confinement. This is all unconstitutional. Recently the Mayor denied a longevity proposal that would retain needed deputies that are now going to retire but gave longevity incentives to Police and Fire. Yet, Mayor Breed’s budget cuts another 3% off the Sheriff’s budget, while increasing the police budget by 9%. The increase in police hiring is to encourage new arrests. New arrests will increase the inmate population and any increased inmate population will only make the unconstitutional conditions at County Jails worse.

Right now, we have inmates who have been incarcerated for years. At least 60 inmates have been incarcerated for over 4 years. These jails have no outdoor facilities, and so all inmates are housed 24/7 under fluorescent lights. With lockdowns, inmates are forced inside their cell without exercise, without showers, without meaningful human interaction and contact, at times for 24 hours or more. Studies show that forced isolation is one of the worst things that can happen to inmates. Stressed out and mentally ill inmates are a danger to themselves and to deputies.

The lawsuit, Norbert v. CCSF , 3:19-cv-02724 is set for trial on August 8, 2023. San Francisco has no defense for why our jails violate the building code. And the plaintiffs in Norbert claim that denying human beings – long term – outdoor sunlight causes chronic illness, including diabetes. One of the plaintiffs, M. Brackens has developed diabetes while incarcerated in San Francisco County Jail.

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association wants to do our job, and do it in a way that treats inmates humanely. The Sheriff’s Department Mission Statement says that the Sheriff is committed to the “constitutional detention” of inmates. The Mayor needs to allocate enough funding so that all inmates receive constitutional conditions of confinement.

We were forced to close 850 Bryant Street because it was so dilapidated that there were regular raw sewage spills in jail cells. That cost the City $2.1 million in a lawsuit.

San Francisco needs to provide jails that meet all building code and constitutional standards. And the Sheriff’s Department cannot do so, if the Mayor keeps cutting the Sheriff’s budget so there’s not enough staffing, and sufficient capital investment in the jails themselves so that the jails meet constitutional standards.

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

Support Pro Public Safety Candidates and Ballot Measures in San Francisco

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association PAC Pro Public SafetyThe San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC plays a vital role in promoting the interests of public safety and law enforcement within our city. Our mission is to advocate for pro public safety candidates and ballot measures that will enhance the safety and security of our neighborhoods, protect our communities, and provide our brave deputy sheriffs with the resources they need to serve and protect.

Your generous contribution will make a significant impact on our ability to endorse and support candidates who share our vision of a safer San Francisco. By supporting these pro public safety individuals, we can ensure that our city’s law enforcement agencies have the necessary support, tools, and policies to effectively combat crime, respond to emergencies, and maintain peace and order.

Furthermore, your donation will allow us to back critical ballot measures that address key public safety issues, such as improving community policing efforts, investing in modern law enforcement technologies, and strengthening crime prevention programs. Together, we can shape the future of public safety in San Francisco and create a safer environment for all residents.

As a valued supporter, you have the opportunity to influence the direction of our city’s public safety policies and the well-being of our law enforcement officers. Your contribution to the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC will directly impact the success of our endorsed candidates and initiatives, fostering positive change within our community.

We invite you to join us in our mission to enhance public safety in San Francisco. Your generous donation of $25 will help us amplify our collective voice and bring about the necessary changes to protect our neighborhoods, families, and businesses.

To make a donation, please visit our secure online donation portal at https://fundly.com/san-francisco-deputy-sheriffs-association-pac Alternatively, you can mail your contribution or contact us directly at 415-696-2428 to discuss other giving options or answer any questions you may have.

Together, we can build a safer San Francisco for generations to come. We sincerely appreciate your consideration and support. Join us in our commitment to public safety and make a difference today.

Thank you for your unwavering support.

Sincerely,

Ken Lomba
SFDSA President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC
P.O. Box 77590
San Francisco, CA 94107

Open Letter to SFO Director Ivar Satero

Dear Director Ivar Satero,

I am writing to you regarding the staffing of police officers at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). As you may be aware, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is currently short-staffed, which means that there are fewer officers available to patrol the city and the airport. This has resulted in a flawed system where SFPD staffing at SFO is dependent on the staffing levels of police officers in the city. This has resulted in a situation where the airport is not receiving the level of police coverage it requires, which can compromise public safety.

It is clear that the current system is not working, and I would like to propose a solution that I believe will be more effective. I suggest that the airport should be patrolled by a combination of SFPD officers and San Francisco Sheriff’s Office deputy sheriffs. This would provide a more stable and reliable source of police coverage at the airport, as it would not be dependent on the staffing levels of the SFPD in the city.

To be specific, I propose that the airport be staffed 50% by SFPD officers and 50% by SFSO deputy sheriffs. This would ensure that the airport receives the necessary level of police coverage at all times, regardless of the staffing levels of the SFPD in the city. This would also enable the SFPD to better allocate their resources and focus on improving public safety in San Francisco.

I understand that this may require some changes in policies and procedures, but I believe that it is a necessary step to ensure public safety at the airport. I urge you to consider this proposal and take the necessary steps to make it a reality.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Ken Lomba
SFDSA President
415-696-2428

SFDSA Files Lawsuit Against SF Sheriff

At some time prior to July 8, 2022, the City and County of San Francisco Sheriff’s Office decided to create a pilot program in County Jail #3 (“CJ3”) in housing unit 5. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office had two employees evaluate the functionality of the program and identify any concerns they saw with the changes proposed by the Sheriff’s Office. These deputies found numerous safety concerns that made it difficult to perform the regular safety checks of the inmates in some cases and completely impossible in other cases.

Despite the safety concerns, on July 8, 2022, the changes were implemented.

CJ3 has multiple housing units that are the shape of a circle with inmate cells on the perimeter of the circle. This circle is divided into to sides, the A and B sides. Inmates from A cannot cross over to B and vice versa. On one side of the dividing line is a “Crow’s Nest” or a tower with windows that can look out over portions of both the A and B sides of the housing unit. This Crow’s Nest has previously not been used.

Prior to July 8, 2022, CJ 3 has always had 2 deputies working a general population housing unit. One each on the A and B sides. These deputies worked on the floor with the inmates.

Safety Checks are required to be done every hour. There are state laws, known as Title 15 rules, as well as a San Francisco Sheriff’s Office policy, CODM 4.04, which outline the minimum requirements for these safety checks. The purpose of the checks is to maintain safety and security in the jail for staff, visitors and the inmates. Some of the requirements of these checks include noting the skin color of the inmate, the rise and fall of the chest, movement that indicates life, looking for any signs of illness or distress, inspection of cell doors and windows and a search for any apparent contraband or hazards.

These safety checks were completed by the deputies working on the floor but walking up to each inmate cell door and observing the inmate, the cell and surrounding area. Sometimes, at night, a flashlight would be required to properly check the welfare of the inmates.

On July 8, 2022, this changed. No longer would there be any floor deputies. Now, only one deputy, instead of two, would monitor all the inmates by him/herself, from the Crow’s Nest. In the event of an emergency, the deputy in the Crow’s Nest was not to leave and assist an inmate having a medical emergency, being attacked, or attempting to harm himself, instead, the deputy is now required to call for help. Deputies who are roaming around the rest of the jail would then have to respond and handle the situation, wasting valuable time.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office was unable to remedy all the safety concerns raised by the two employees who evaluated the new Crow’s Nest plan. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office administration directed Crow’s Nest deputies to utilize binoculars to assist them in seeing the inmates better. While this may help with viewing some of the inmates when the lights are on, they do little to help at night and cannot solve the problem of the inability to see some of the cells at all, with or without binoculars.

The DSA sent a letter to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office on July 18, 2022 and it was resent to the Director of Employee Relations, on July 22, 2022. This letter demanded that the new Crow’s Nest practice stop until the parties can meet and confer over the impacts and effects of it. Numerous impacts and effects were listed in this notice.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office responded on July 26, 2022, refusing to maintain the status quo until the parties were able to meet and confer.

Within days of its implementation, a fight broke out in one of the cells in the evening and it was not discovered until the next morning. This is evidence of the lack of safety the DSA was concerned with when it demanded the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office cease and desist its new Crow’s Nest practice.

March 28, 2022 RFI.

On March 28, 2022, the DSA requested information necessary and relevant to ascertain the dates, times, and shifts that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office fell below the minimum staffing required by the MOU. (Exhibit X) Arbitrator Alexander Cohen previously resolved a grievance filed by DSA when the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office previously violated the Minimum Staffing section of the MOU. Arbitrator Cohen issued his ruling in favor of the DSA in 2017 in favor of the DSA. In his decision, he awarded damages to be paid to those members who worked on shifts that were below the minimum staffing required by the MOU. Because the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office continued to fall below the minimum staffing, the DSA filed a new grievance on March 4, 2022. The RFI filed on March 28, 2022 was to gather necessary and relevant information to calculate the damages incurred by the DSA members as the result of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office’s current grievance for again violating the MOU. (Lomba Decl. ¶ 9)

The March 28, 2022 RFI was acknowledged received by the City Attorney’s office and forwarded to the Employee Relations Division (ERD) to respond. No response from ERD was ever received. (Howell Decl. ¶ 6 and 9; Exhibit 3) On May 2, 2022, the DSA followed up with ERD and the City Attorney’s office and demanded production of the RFI by May 9, 2022, which never came. (Howell Decl. ¶ 10 and 11; Exhibit 5)

On May 13, 2022, the DSA filed a First Amended Unfair Labor Practice Charge in PERB Case No. SF-CE-1794-M to have this matter added to that current litigation. On June 7, 2022, after filing the amendment to the PERB Charge, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office produced documents responsive to the March 28, 2022 RFI. Judge Cloughesy declined to amend the Charge and Complaint in that matter to include this RFI issue but gave leave to refile this matter with PERB.

February 16, 2022 RFI.

On February 16, 2022, the DSA requested information necessary and relevant to ascertain the names, dates, and hours of Overtime Pay DSA members were denied. Information was also requested to ascertain the history, deliberation, changes, analysis and communications regarding Administrative Code section 18.13 involving the maximum permissible overtime. This information is necessary for the DSA to enforce the contract at a grievance proceeding and is unable to establish the damages or the individual DSA members affected, without the response to the RFI.

The February 16, 2022 RFI was acknowledge received by the City Attorney’s Office on February 22, 2022, via email. (EXHIBIT XX – email from KNS to Rapoport and back) Having received no responsive documents, the DSA’s counsel sent an email on August 2, 2022 to demand production. (Exhibit XX – Email KNS to)

 


 Contact:

Ken Lomba
SFDSA President
415-696-2428
San Francisco, CA

La Asociación de Alguaciles Adjuntos de San Francisco exige una investigación del Gran Jurado Civil contra la Oficina del Alguacil

El personal en las Cárceles de San Francisco se ha vuelto peligrosamente inseguro con reclusos que atacan a reclusos, enfermeras, ayudantes del alguacil y empleados civiles. La Oficina del Sheriff de San Francisco y la Ciudad y el Condado de San Francisco han faltado personal a las cárceles a un nivel peligrosamente bajo, no han priorizado la financiación para contratar agentes, ni siquiera han priorizado la retención de los agentes actuales.

En un correo electrónico del presidente de la Asociación de Alguaciles Adjuntos de San Francisco, Ken Lomba, al alguacil Miyamoto, el presidente Lomba declaró que la SFDSA ha estado abogando por la contratación y advirtiendo a la gerencia de la oficina del alguacil sobre los problemas de personal durante más de una década. Dos años y medio de los que Miyamoto fue Sheriff. El presidente Lomba dijo que el aumento de la carga de trabajo debido a la falta intencional de contratación se ha convertido en “trabajo de explotación”. La Asociación de Alguaciles Adjuntos de San Francisco ha presentado una Queja Civil ante el Gran Jurado exigiendo que se investigue a la Oficina del Alguacil y a la Ciudad y el Condado de San Francisco.

Desde 2014 ha habido 3 informes separados del Gran Jurado Civil de San Francisco advirtiendo sobre los efectos de ir por debajo de los niveles mínimos de personal y acelerar la contratación en lugar de horas extras forzadas. Incluso hubo una advertencia de una posible violación del Título 15 en el futuro si nada cambia. Desafortunadamente, la Oficina del Sheriff no ha podido contratar a la cantidad adecuada de agentes para crear un entorno de trabajo seguro tanto para los agentes como para los reclusos. Los niveles mínimos de personal han empeorado y, en definitiva, los diputados están agotados.

En los informes anteriores, el Gran Jurado encontró que debido a la disminución del número total de agentes empleados por la Ciudad y el Condado de San Francisco, el exceso de horas extras y la escasez de cuerpos no permitieron que los importantes programas de reclusos existentes y mucho menos aumentaran el número de reclusos. programas recomendados. Además, la capacitación recomendada para los diputados no pudo llevarse a cabo o fue inadecuada para tratar la salud mental y el abuso de sustancias, así como muchos otros problemas que experimenta la población alojada.

En última instancia, este Gran Jurado recomendó en tres ocasiones distintas en 2014, 2016 y 2017 “acelerar la contratación para reducir las horas extra”. Las recomendaciones del Gran Jurado nunca se han seguido y la situación se ha vuelto insostenible ya que el número de diputados es menor ahora que cuando este Gran Jurado hizo estas fuertes recomendaciones.

LAS CÁRCELES DE CCSF ESTÁN AHORA CAYENDO POR DEBAJO DEL PERSONAL MÍNIMO REGULARMENTE

Hace solo unos días, el 9 de junio de 2022, el alguacil Miyamoto emitió un memorando a todo el personal de la cárcel de la ciudad y el condado de San Francisco identificando sus intenciones de operar por debajo del personal mínimo durante un período de los próximos 8 a 9 meses. La Ciudad y el Condado de San Francisco ha reconocido claramente la inutilidad de dar la apariencia de alcanzar la dotación mínima de personal y ahora ha admitido que no puede ejercer su deber de hacerlo.

La ciudad y el condado de San Francisco compiten ferozmente con los condados vecinos, Alameda y San Mateo, por el personal penitenciario. Alameda ha estado bajo un decreto de consentimiento para contratar más personal penitenciario. Sería una pena que la ciudad y el condado de San Francisco estuvieran bajo una supervisión gubernamental similar. La ciudad y el condado de San Francisco pueden acelerar la contratación de personal, pero no lo han convertido en una prioridad, a expensas del personal penitenciario exhausto y con exceso de trabajo.

La Queja del Gran Jurado Civil contra la Oficina del Alguacil y la Ciudad y el Condado de San Francisco se presentó el 20 de junio de 2022. Este Gran Jurado debe exigir respuestas de la Oficina del Alguacil de San Francisco sobre por qué no ha cumplido con sus 3 recomendaciones separadas desde 2014.

Vea la queja aquí, Queja del gran jurado civil contra el alguacil de SF

Contacto:

Ken Lomba, Presidente de SFDSA
415-696-2428
San Francisco, CA

Website: https://sanfranciscodsa.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SanFranciscoDSA
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SanFranciscoDeputySheriffsAssociation