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

The Impact of Operant Conditioning on Criminal Mindsets: San Francisco’s Lenient Approach under Scrutiny

open-air-drug-marketOperant conditioning, a psychological concept that examines how behavior is influenced by consequences, has far-reaching implications in various aspects of our lives. In the realm of criminal justice, the application of operant conditioning principles can have profound effects on the mindset of offenders. This article delves into the concerning issue of San Francisco’s lenient approach to offenders who violate the conditions of their electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project. By exploring the inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through operant conditioning, we shed light on the significant impact this leniency has on the criminal mindset and its implications for public safety.

Operant Conditioning and Criminal Mindsets: Operant conditioning, as developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner, posits that behaviors are shaped and maintained by their consequences. In the context of criminal behavior, the principles of operant conditioning can play a pivotal role in reinforcing or discouraging criminal actions. When offenders consistently experience minimal consequences or repeated chances without facing severe repercussions, they inadvertently learn that their wrong behavior can go unpunished. This forms the foundation for the development of a criminal mindset, where individuals perceive that their actions have little accountability or deterrence.

Leniency in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System: San Francisco’s lenient approach towards offenders who violate electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project is a cause for concern. Instead of imposing substantial consequences for violations, offenders are granted multiple chances and minimal penalties. This leniency inadvertently reinforces the wrong behavior, undermining the principles of accountability and deterrence. As a result, offenders develop a distorted perception that their actions carry no significant consequences, contributing to a culture of impunity.

The Reinforcement of Wrong Behavior: The lenient application of operant conditioning in San Francisco’s criminal justice system inadvertently reinforces wrong behavior among offenders. By repeatedly granting chances and minimal penalties, the system fails to establish a strong connection between criminal actions and negative outcomes. Offenders perceive that their actions have little impact on their freedom or future, further entrenching the belief that criminal behavior can go unpunished. This reinforcement of wrong behavior creates a vicious cycle, leading to an increase in criminal activity and posing a threat to public safety.

Implications for Public Safety: The lenient approach driven by operant conditioning principles in San Francisco has significant implications for public safety. When offenders perceive that their actions have minimal consequences, it erodes the deterrent effect that a robust criminal justice system should have. The lack of accountability not only emboldens offenders but also sends a detrimental message to the community, instilling a sense of insecurity and a loss of trust in the justice system. As a result, crime rates escalate, innocent lives are shattered, and neighborhoods suffer the consequences of a flawed approach to rehabilitation.

Moving Towards a Balanced Approach: Recognizing the detrimental impact of operant conditioning on criminal mindsets, it is essential to adopt a more balanced approach in San Francisco’s criminal justice system. Striking a balance between rehabilitation and accountability is crucial. Implementing structured consequences that are proportionate to the severity of offenses can create a stronger deterrent effect. By ensuring that offenders face meaningful repercussions for their actions, we can break the cycle of wrong behavior and foster a greater sense of accountability and responsibility.

The inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through leniency in San Francisco’s criminal justice system, driven by operant conditioning principles, poses a significant challenge to public safety. The development of a criminal mindset, wherein offenders perceive little accountability or deterrence, perpetuates a cycle of wrongdoing. It is imperative for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and community stakeholders to address this issue. By adopting a more balanced approach that incorporates accountability, proportional consequences, and a commitment

High Crime in San Francisco and the Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog

San Francisco, like many other cities, faces the challenge of crime in certain neighborhoods. In such areas, residents often seek ways to enhance their security measures and protect their homes and families. One effective option is owning a protection dog, which can serve as a deterrent to intruders and provide a sense of safety. In this article, we will explore the high crime rate in San Francisco and discuss the benefits of owning a protection dog. Additionally, we will highlight some of the best breeds of dogs that are commonly used as protection dogs.

Protection Dogs

High Crime in San Francisco: San Francisco has faced challenges with crime, particularly property crime, in certain neighborhoods. According to recent data from the San Francisco Police Department, there has been an increase in crimes such as burglary, theft, and auto theft in some areas of the city. These incidents can cause residents to feel vulnerable and anxious about the safety of their homes and families.

Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog: Owning a protection dog can offer several benefits, especially in high-crime areas like San Francisco. Here are some advantages of having a protection dog:

  1. Enhanced Security: A well-trained protection dog can serve as a visible deterrent to potential intruders. The presence of a protection dog can deter criminals from attempting to break into a property, as they are less likely to risk encountering a trained and vigilant dog.
  2. Effective Crime Prevention: Protection dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential threats, such as intruders or suspicious activity. Their keen senses, such as heightened hearing and scent detection, can help prevent crimes from occurring or escalating.
  3. Companionship: In addition to providing security, protection dogs can also be loving and loyal companions. They can offer companionship and emotional support to their owners, which can be particularly comforting in high-crime areas where residents may feel anxious or unsafe.
  4. Peace of Mind: Knowing that you have a trained protection dog can provide peace of mind for homeowners and their families. Protection dogs can provide a sense of security, knowing that they are trained to protect their home and loved ones.

Best Breeds of Dogs for Protection: Not all dog breeds are suitable for protection work, as temperament, size, and behavior traits vary among different breeds. Here are some of the best breeds of dogs commonly used as protection dogs:

  1. German Shepherd: German Shepherds are known for their intelligence, versatility, and loyalty. They are often used as police and military dogs due to their ability to be trained for various tasks, including protection work.
  2. Belgian Malinois: Belgian Malinois are highly energetic and intelligent dogs that excel in protection work. They are known for their speed, agility, and strong work ethic, and are often used in police and military roles.
  3. Doberman Pinscher: Doberman Pinschers are known for their loyalty and protective instincts. They are intelligent and trainable, with a natural ability to guard their home and family.
  4. Rottweiler: Rottweilers are powerful and protective dogs that have a natural instinct to guard their family and territory. They are known for their strength and courage, making them effective protection dogs.
  5. Boxer: Boxers are strong and athletic dogs that can excel in protection work. They are known for their loyalty, intelligence, and protective nature.
  6. Great Dane: While not as common as some of the other breeds on this list, Great Danes can also make excellent protection dogs. Despite their large size, they are known for their gentle and friendly nature, but can also be protective when needed.

Protection DogIt’s important to note that while these breeds are commonly used as protection dogs, not all individual dogs of these breeds may possess the necessary temperament, training, and behavior traits to excel in protection work. Proper training and socialization from a young age are crucial to ensure that a protection dog is well-behaved, obedient, and capable of handling potential threats in a controlled manner.

Conclusion: In high-crime areas like San Francisco, owning a protection dog can provide an added layer of security and peace of mind for homeowners and their families. The presence of a well-trained protection dog can deter intruders, prevent crimes, and offer companionship and emotional support. However, it’s important to carefully consider the responsibilities and requirements of owning a protection dog, including proper training, socialization, and ongoing care.

If you’re interested in owning a protection dog, it’s recommended to work with a reputable breeder or professional dog trainer who specializes in protection dogs. They can help you choose the right breed and individual dog that fits your specific needs and lifestyle, and provide guidance on training and care.

Remember that owning a protection dog is a significant commitment, and it’s important to be prepared for the responsibilities and challenges that come with it. However, for those who are willing to invest the time, effort, and resources into proper training and care, a well-trained protection dog can offer invaluable benefits in enhancing home security and providing peace of mind in high-crime areas.

SFPOA’s “SFO Training” Debunked

The San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has recently raised concerns on Twitter about advanced officer training requirements for San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to work at the city’s airport, SFO. However, upon closer examination, it is clear that the training in question is not as difficult or time-consuming as the SFPOA suggests.

SFO Airport Police

The “training” referred to by the San Francisco Police Officer Association is the California POST Aviation Security Training, a one-week, 40-hour course available to all law enforcement officers, not just the SFPD. The course covers the history of aviation security, introduction to the airport environment, criminal threat to the aviation industry, agencies and jurisdictions involved in airport security (such as the TSA, FBI, CBP, and USSS), legal aspects of aviation security, and the responsibilities of law enforcement officers working in an airport setting.

This training is not particularly difficult, and can easily be completed by San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to meet the requirement to work at SFO. By allowing the SFPD to shift some of the police officers currently working at the airport back to the city, it will alleviate the staffing pressures on the SFPD and allow for a more efficient use of resources.

One solution is to grandfather in any SFPD officers close to retirement at the airport, and then work with the Sheriff to create a phased staffing plan that would allow for a percentage of police officers at the airport to return to SF to patrol in the City. This phased approach would ensure a smooth transition and allow for adequate staffing at the airport while also relieving pressure on the SFPD.

In conclusion, the minimum training requirements for San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to work at SFO are not as difficult or time-consuming as the SFPOA suggests. By allowing the SFPD to shift some of its officers back to the city, it will alleviate staffing pressures and allow for a more efficient use of resources. The SFDSA will work with the Sheriff to create a functional staffing plan and assist with recruiting to ensure a smooth transition.

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs are Highly Trained Individuals

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs are highly trained individuals who play a crucial role in maintaining law and order within the city. As 830.1 Peace officers, they have the same level of training and qualifications as a SFPD Police Officer.

The training process for a recruit deputy begins with a 6.5-month Post Certified Academy, which is currently held at the South Bay Regional Academy in San Mateo or Santa Rosa Junior College. Once the recruit graduates from the POST Academy, they must pass a four-week Board of State & Community Corrections Certified Jail Corrections Course.

SF Deputies

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office places a strong emphasis on ongoing training for their sworn staff. In addition to the 24 Hrs. of Certified POST training that must be completed biennially, all SFSO sworn staff attend an additional 24 Hrs. of certified Board of State and Community Corrections BSCC training annually. This means that San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs receive more mandated training than a police agency.

In addition to standard training, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has trained their sworn staff on a 16 Hr. mandatory Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) which emphasizes de-escalation and situational awareness when dealing with individuals with mental disorders, developmental disabilities, and altered mental status. This training was conducted FY 2019-2020 and was again offered FY 2021-2022. Deputies also receive 4 Hrs. of Force Option Simulator Training which emphasizes situational awareness, de-escalation, and Use of Force decision making. All sworn personnel attended in FY 2019-2020 and recently attended 4 hrs. during the recent 2021-2022 cycle.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office also has a POST certified Field Training Program (Like the SFPD) and was one of the first agencies to develop their manual to meet the new POST requirements.

In terms of investigations, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has their own Criminal Investigations Unit staffed with trained investigators who receive the same POST Training as SFPD Investigators. All investigators have attended the 76 Hr. Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigation Training and 40 Hr. Behavioral Awareness Training Institute. They are trained and equipped to investigate all crimes that fall under the Sheriff’s Office jurisdiction, including non-custody felony crimes in the field.

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office also has an Emergency Services Unit (ESU) with 150 Sheriff’s Deputies assigned to it. All ESU staff are chosen after passing a written and physical exam and receive a 40-hour course that covers advanced firearms training, crowd control, building search, active shooter training, and medical rescue. ESU members receive an additional 40 Hrs. of training minimum.

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs are highly trained individuals

The Special Response Team (SRT) is a highly trained unit within the ESU. To qualify, members must first be part of the ESU and pass a physical challenge, firearms proficiency exam, simulation exercise, written exam, and oral interview panel. Chosen members are then required to attend an 80 Hour SWAT school and receive additional monthly training.

Finally, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has a K-9 Unit, where a K-9 Team must attend a 40 hour dog handler course. A K-9 handler must partake in 16 Hrs. of monthly training minimum to meet POST standards to maintain basic patrol and/or detection proficiency.

In conclusion, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs are well-trained and highly qualified individuals who play a vital role in maintaining law and order within the city. They undergo rigorous training and ongoing education to ensure they are equipped to handle any situation that arises.

What We Did Christmas Day

On Christmas Day, Ken Lomba, President of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, and his wife and son, delivered prime rib and salmon meals to the Deputy Sheriffs and Medical Examiner Investigators.

Ken Lomba has been a Deputy Sheriff for over 20 years, and has been the President of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association for the past 5 years. As President, he has worked tirelessly to support and advocate for the rights and needs of the Deputy Sheriffs in San Francisco.

Christmas Day Deputy Sheriffs

On Christmas Day, Ken Lomba and his family wanted to show their appreciation for the hardworking Deputy Sheriffs and Medical Examiner Investigators who work tirelessly, even on holidays, to keep the community safe. They decided to deliver meals to these dedicated public servants as a way of thanking them for their dedication and service.

The Deputy Sheriffs and Medical Examiner Investigators were grateful for the kind gesture and delicious meals, which provided a much-needed break during their long shifts. It was a small, but meaningful way for the Lomba family to show their appreciation for the hardworking men and women who serve and protect their community.

In a world where the news is often filled with stories of negativity and conflict, it is heartwarming to see acts of kindness and generosity like this. 

Overall, it was a heartwarming and thoughtful gesture that was greatly appreciated by the Deputy Sheriffs and Medical Examiner Investigators on Christmas Day. The Lomba family’s act of kindness was a reminder of the importance of showing appreciation and support for those who work to keep our communities safe. So, this was what we did on Christmas Day.

 

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

SF JAIL HEADED FOR DISASTER

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs have the honor of having served under the only progressive sheriff in California, Michael Hennessy. Our goal was to promote restorative justice, assist offenders into adopting law abiding lives, reduce recidivism, and improve community life.

The current Sheriff’s Department is headed for disaster. Currently, staffing of deputy sheriff’s is at 70% of what is required, and the current Sheriff has slashed programs, increased lockups (prisoners face 23 hours a day in confinement); blown holes in his budget through mandatory overtime, while increasing administration staff, non-essential programs and taken resources away from our core mission, which is running the jails. Sheriff Miyamoto claims there are 176 vacant positions and as a result inmates receive no family visits, inmates are locked in cells for longer, and all regular programs have been cut leaving only a few video/correspondence programs. Even religious services have been cut. No more Catholic services, no more Protestant services, no more Jehovah services, no Muslim services. And addiction services such as AA have been cut.

As a result, the jail’s current policies of increased lock downs and reduced programs have increased the mental health issues of inmates, imperil deputy sheriffs’ safety due to inmates taking out their increased anxieties and tensions on deputies, and cause more staffing issues by encouraging retirements and deputies to leave their jobs.

In the meantime, the Sheriff faces two class action lawsuits because the jails, ignoring Title 24, provides no outdoor access to inmates, so inmates are housed under fluorescent lights, 24/7, 365, and the Sheriff faces accusations of violating inmates’ constitutional right to sleep by forcing breakfast to wake up between 4 am and 4:30 am for breakfast. These lawsuits have the possibility of large judgements against the Sheriff’s Department.

The new DA Brooke Jenkins’ promise to increase prosecution i.e., of fentanyl pushers, as stated in her press interviews, means an increase in incarceration and we don’t have the deputy staff to properly run the jail.

To meet the needs of San Francisco, the Mayor and the Sheriff must adequately staff deputy sheriff’s, at minimum increase the staffing to the 2019 level, with additional hiring of 82 more deputy sheriffs. Recruiting and retention should be a priority and it hasn’t been. A revolving door at the jail serves the needs of no one. Properly staff our jails. Return all programs, particularly addiction treatment and anger management programs.

PROOF:
Exhibit A – staffing report for June 2022 (606 deputies, 23 senior deputies = 629, and 71 sergeants) versus July 2019 (712 sheriff’s deputies and 49 senior deputies = 759, and 57 sergeants). This shows more expensive officers increase at the expense of the line deputies who do the work.
Exhibit B – Consultant staffing analysis: Deputy vacancies are even higher than what Sheriff Miyamoto claims

SF Sheriff’s Office Sanctioned $2500.00 for Not Providing Documents

During a court proceeding between the Deputy Sheriffs Association against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office, the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association attorney requested information from the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff’s attorney refused to provide the requested documents.

After filing a motion to compel the Sheriff’s Office to produce the documents, a Superior Court Judge granted the DSAs motion ordering the Sheriff’s Office to produce the documents by February 5, 2021. The Judge sanctioned the Sheriff’s Office $2,500 for not initially providing the requested documents. Ken Lomba the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association President said, “The delays in providing the documents by the Sheriff’s Office is concerning.”

Attorneys Declaration and Evidence:

Judges Letter:

Judges Order and $2500.00 Sanction: