One Office, Two Messages: Internal Damage Control vs. Public Transparency

The Fourth of July is a time of unity, national pride, and celebration of American freedom. But this year, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) marred that tradition with a glaring and deeply inappropriate error: posting an image of the American flag upside down on official social media accounts.

Under the U.S. Flag Code (4 U.S. Code § 8(a)), the upside-down flag is a distress signal, not a festive decoration. What was meant to be a message of celebration quickly became a symbol of confusion, embarrassment, and public outrage.

SF Sheriff Posts Upside Down FlagSF Sheriff Posts
Upside Down Flag

Grill Chill Post
Flag Post Reactions
Flag Still Visible

The Timeline of Concern and Silence

  • 3:49 PM, July 4 – SFSO posts an Independence Day graphic prominently displaying the flag upside down.
  • 5:15 PM – The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) tags SFSO, alerting them to the error.
  • 5:22 PM – SFDSA issues a public post calling the image unacceptable and demanding accountability.
  • 6:26 PM – SFDSA asks whether the Sheriff authorized the post, reiterating that law enforcement must remain apolitical.
  • 7:38 PM – SFDSA President sends a formal email to the Sheriff, requesting removal and corrective action.

Despite being notified multiple times, the post remained online well into July 6, continuing to visibly display the upside-down American flag across SFSO’s public X and Facebook accounts.

Accountability Evaded, Public Ignored

  • July 5, 10:21 AM – The post is still up. SFDSA files a formal complaint with California POST.
  • 11:45 AM – A new image is posted by SFSO, avoiding the flag controversy entirely.
  • 11:55 AM – The Sheriff privately texts SFDSA, calling it a “mistake by the comms team” and referencing the new post.
  • July 5–6 – The upside-down American flag remains publicly displayed on SFSO’s social platforms, garnering continued visibility and criticism.
  • July 6, 11:27 PM – Only then is the original upside-down flag graphic quietly taken down.

July 7: Private Apology, Public Silence

At 3:49 PM on July 7, the Sheriff addressed the situation in a video—but only internally, to staff. He acknowledged the concern raised and reaffirmed that the department honors the flag. However, this message was not made public. The video does not appear on the SFSO’s public Vimeo page, and no statement was issued on the same social platforms where the mistake occurred.

Are there two versions of the Sheriff’s Office? One face shown to employees, and another presented to the public? If the department acknowledges mistakes privately but refuses to address them publicly, it suggests that the SFSO may be playing politics—presenting one version of events to employees and possibly another to the public.

Why It Matters

According to guidance from the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office and long-standing departmental policy, engaging in political messaging or conduct while on duty is prohibited. This raises an additional concern: if the delay in removing the upside-down flag post was intentional, could it represent a form of political messaging using official resources? If so, this would not only be inappropriate—it may be a violation of policy.

Was someone in the Sheriff’s Office playing politics? An upside-down American flag was posted for all to see on Independence Day. Whether the post was accidental or intentional, the delayed removal—left in place for days after the holiday—speaks volumes. This delay raises serious concerns about judgment, accountability, and whether the decision to leave the image up was calculated rather than careless.

This wasn’t just a simple error. It was a public misrepresentation of a powerful national symbol on one of our most meaningful holidays. When the issue was brought to light, the department failed to act promptly and later addressed it only behind closed doors.

If the Sheriff and his command staff recognize the mistake internally, they must also acknowledge it publicly. A silent correction is not accountability. The same social media platforms used to spread the error must be used to correct it. Anything less suggests a dual standard: one face for employees, another for the public.

The Public Deserves Better

The SFSO represents the people of San Francisco. Respecting national symbols and engaging with the public honestly is part of that duty. A formal apology on public platforms is not just appropriate—it is necessary.

We call on the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office to:

  • Issue a public apology on X and Facebook
  • Clarify how the mistake occurred
  • Commit to training staff on flag protocol and public communication standards

Transparency and accountability must be more than internal talking points. They must be demonstrated values. And that starts with owning mistakes publicly.

舊金山縣警長協會要求民事大陪審團對警長辦公室進行調查

由於囚犯攻擊囚犯、護士、警長代表和文職僱員,舊金山監獄的工作人員已經變得非常不安全。舊金山警長辦公室和舊金山市縣的監獄人手不足,已經到了危險的低水平,他們沒有優先考慮為僱傭警員提供資金,他們甚至沒有優先考慮留住現任警員。

在舊金山縣治安官協會主席 Ken Lomba 給宮本警長的一封電子郵件中,Lomba 總統表示,十多年來,舊金山縣治安官協會一直在倡導招聘並警告治安官辦公室管理層人員配備問題。宮本在其中擔任警長兩年半。隆巴總統說,由於故意缺乏招聘而增加的工作負擔已經變成了“血汗工廠勞動”。舊金山縣治安官協會已提交民事大陪審團投訴,要求對治安官辦公室和舊金山市和縣進行調查。

自 2014 年以來,SF Civil 大陪審團發布了 3 份單獨的報告,警告稱低於最低人員配置水平和加快招聘而不是強制加班的影響。如果沒有任何變化,甚至會警告未來可能違反第 15 條。不幸的是,警長辦公室未能聘請適當數量的警員來為警員和囚犯創造安全的工作環境。最低人員配備水平變得更糟,而且底線是:代表們已經筋疲力盡了。

在過去的報告中,大陪審團發現,由於舊金山市和縣僱用的代表總數減少,過度加班和屍體短缺導致現有的重要囚犯計劃無法實現,更不用說增加囚犯了推薦的節目。此外,為代表推薦的培訓無法進行或不足以處理心理健康和藥物濫用以及居住人口經歷的許多其他問題。

最終,這個大陪審團在 2014 年、2016 年和 2017 年的三個不同場合建議“加快招聘以減少加班”。大陪審團的建議從未得到遵循,而且由於代表人數現在比大陪審團提出這些強烈建議時的人數少,情況變得難以為繼。

最終,這個大陪審團在 2014 年、2016 年和 2017 年的三個不同場合建議“加快招聘以減少加班”。大陪審團的建議從未得到遵循,而且由於代表人數現在比大陪審團提出這些強烈建議時的人數少,情況變得難以為繼。

舊金山監獄現在定期低於最低人員配置

就在幾天前,也就是 2022 年 6 月 9 日,宮本警長向舊金山市和縣的所有監獄工作人員發布了一份備忘錄,明確了他在未來 8 到 9 個月內的意圖——低於最低限度的工作人員!舊金山市和縣已經清楚地認識到,假裝達到最低人員配置是徒勞的,現在承認它無法履行其職責。

舊金山市和縣與其鄰近的阿拉米達縣和聖馬特奧縣正在激烈競爭監獄工作人員。阿拉米達已經根據一項同意法令僱用更多的監獄工作人員。舊金山市和縣受到類似的政府監督將是一種恥辱。舊金山市和縣可以加快招聘工作人員,但並未將其作為優先事項,代價是過度勞累和筋疲力盡的監獄工作人員。

民事大陪審團針對治安官辦公室和舊金山市縣的投訴於 2022 年 6 月 20 日提交。該大陪審團應要求舊金山治安官辦公室就其未能遵守其 3 項單獨建議的原因作出答复自 2014 年以來。

在此處查看投訴,針對舊金山警長的民事大陪審團投訴

接觸:

舊金山縣治安官協會主席肯·隆巴
415-696-2428
加利福尼亞州舊金山

網站:https://sanfranciscodsa.com
推特:https://twitter.com/SanFranciscoDSA
臉書:https://www.facebook.com/SanFranciscoDeputySheriffsAssociation

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: