The County of Santa Clara

Approved as Amended
Mar 20, 2018 9:30 AM

Consider recommendations relating to organizational structure of the County jails. (County Counsel)


Department:County CounselSponsors:

Multiple Recommendations

Possible action:
a. Receive report prepared by CGL Companies, LLC, providing an assessment and recommendations relating to the organizational structure of the County jails.
b. Direct County Counsel to report to the Board with a proposed ordinance code amendment reflecting the Board's preferred organizational structure or extending the sunset date of the existing ordinance.



There are no fiscal implications associated with receipt of this report.  The report prepared by CGL Companies, LLC (“CGL”) recommends that the Board establish a correctional administrator position.  If the Board adopts this recommendation, further analysis will be required to determine the fiscal impact of establishing such a position. 


In connection with ongoing jail reform efforts, the Board has considered whether to maintain the existing management structure for the County jails, in which the Department of Correction (DOC) operates the jails in conjunction and cooperation with the Sheriff, or to adopt an alternative structure.  On September 27, 2016, the Board adopted an ordinance to codify the existing structure for jail operations on a temporary basis while the Board continued to explore issues of jail management and oversight.  This ordinance will expire on June 30, 2018, unless the Board amends the ordinance code to extend the June 30, 2018 sunset date or adopts more permanent provisions governing the operations of County jails before then.  Under Charter section 509, Board action related to the jail organizational structure requires a 4/5ths vote.

On December 20, 2016, County Counsel provided a report and memorandum to the Board outlining four legally permissible options for the organizational structure of the jails: (1) maintain some version of the current structure in which the DOC operates the jails in conjunction and cooperation with the Sheriff; (2) revert to the previous structure in which DOC had sole responsibility for jail operations, but contracted with the Sheriff to provide a sufficient number of peace officers and to provide direction to any correctional officers who carry or use firearms in the performance of their duties; (3) transfer authority over all jail operations and staff to the Sheriff; or (4) transfer authority over all jail operations and staff to DOC and contract with one or more chiefs of police to provide necessary peace officers and to direct any correctional officers who carry or use firearms in the performance of their duties.  County Counsel advised that only the first and third options are likely to be feasible.

On February 7, 2017, the Board directed County Counsel and Administration to obtain organizational consulting from an outside entity to evaluate the legally permissible options and to provide recommendations regarding the organizational structure for the jails.  Following a competitive procurement process, the Board awarded a contract to CGL on December 5, 2017.  Pursuant to this contract, CGL conducted a detailed examination of the current jail organizational structure; validated an organizational chart reflecting all aspects of existing jail operations; evaluated the legally permissible options for the organizational structure of the jails, as well as other possible organizational changes; and assessed the benefits and drawbacks of each organizational option considered.  CGL’s analysis and recommendations are reflected in the attached report.


The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on children and youth.


The recommended action will have no/neutral impact on seniors.


The recommended action will have no/neutral sustainability implications.


Charter Section 509 permits the Board, by ordinance supported by a 4/5ths vote, to convey jurisdiction over any or all jail operations to the Sheriff, to the Department of Correction, to any other appropriate agency, or any of these entities jointly.  On September 27, 2016, the Board adopted an ordinance to codify the existing structure for jail operations while the Board considered related issues of jail management and oversight.  This ordinance will expire on June 30, 2018, and was adopted with the intent that the Board would adopt more permanent provisions governing the operations of County jails before that date.

At its December 20, 2016 and February 7, 2017 meetings, the Board considered a report and memorandum from County Counsel outlining the legally permissible options for the organizational structure of the County jails.  A copy of that memorandum is attached for additional background.  At its February 7, 2017 meeting, the Board directed County Counsel and Administration to engage an outside entity to provide organizational consulting and make recommendations regarding the organizational structure for management of the County’s jail operations and personnel.  On December 5, 2017, the Board approved a contract with CGL to provide the requested organizational consulting services.


The Board would not receive CGL’s report on the organizational structure of the County jails.  The Board also would not direct County Counsel regarding a proposed ordinance code amendment relating to the organizational structure of the jails, and the ordinance code provision codifying the existing jail organizational structure could be allowed to expire. 

Meeting History

Mar 20, 2018 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Supervisor Yeager left his seat at 2:26 p.m.

At the request of Vice President Chavez, the Board requested that the Office of the Sheriff provide a report to the Board concurrently with the draft Ordinance amendment, relating to exploring opportunities to enhance staffing options and alternatives within the organization.

At the request of Supervisor Cortese, the Board directed County Counsel to prepare an amendment to Ordinance No. NS-300.901 to extend the sunset date to coincide with the final adoption of a new Ordinance, or no later than December 31, 2018, whichever comes first; and, provide a draft of the new Ordinance to the Board within six months, that would transfer all jail operations and staff operations to the Office of the Sheriff, preserving the Board of Supervisors' control over policy and budget, and leaving the Department of Correction, Chief of Correction, position in the Charter as is, leaving it vacant with the possibility to be repurposed for the future jail monitor position.

MOVER:Dave Cortese, Supervisor
SECONDER:Mike Wasserman, Supervisor
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, S. Joseph Simitian
ABSENT:Ken Yeager


Mar 20, 2018 9:30 AMVideo (Windows Media) MP4 VideoBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

1:50 PMBooking area.
This matter will be handled by matt who's here with us.
1:51 PMWith the changes that have gone on we put in privacy screens that are similar to what you will find at one of the health clinics. Um, we have separate tracks for both male and females there. And i'll take I think the rept itself I can take any questions that folks have. Supv simitian: thank you for that. Are there questions on this item, colleagues in. Could we then ask the clerk to please post the screen. For members to vote.

1:51 PMWrote. We are waiting on just one member that takes us then to item number 15, organizational structure of the jail. How are we going to handle this one?
1:52 PMI'll be introducing the item. this item is a report back fr the board's request related to having an independent done is cult -pbt examine the jail's organizational structure as the board will recall we previously provided an analysis of the legally permissible options related to the organization of the jail and that memo is also included again in the packet for the board's convenience. We went through a competitive process, cgl companies that was awarded the contract, is prepared a report. Carl becker with cgl is her present that report and answer the board's questions and then i'll just add at the outset that we are eking some direction fr the board on how to proceed.
1:53 PMIn this report, we were asked to assess four different models for yale governance that could be applied here in santa clara county. One being the current system, where by the department of corrections operates the jails inconnu junction and cooperation with the sheriff an alternative to basically transfer authority for the management of the jails entirely to the sheriff's office which is the model found more typically in other counties in california. And contact the sheriff's office or local law enforcement agencies for peace officers to staff the facilities. The current organization of the department of correction and its responsibilities, chain of command and management structure within the jail and the impa of the current system on basic factors based on accountability, transparency, and management efficiency. In going through all of the analysis our recommendation is that you retain the current system. One of the things we were wanting to take a look at is whether the duel system of management if you will had any impact on the confusion in the chain of command itself. That is absolutely not the case. That is no confusion. The jail is ran by the sheri office. The sheriff controls the internal operations of the jail it basically facilitates working relationships, and facilitates cooperation. Facilitates having to work together on issues such as resource allocations, policy and management issues that working together is the only way you really address some of the key issues facing the jail system so that's an important factor as well. We do believe the county would benefit from a modification of the current system. Many jail systems have been dealing for years with some of the bigger issues you are faci in your jail reform initiatives and there's been a lot of work done on how to address these types of issues. We believe that the county would be well-served by leveraging as much experience as is out there around the country. To that end we recommend you establish a correctional administrative position in the sheriff's office with responsibility for being the point person, direct manager for the jail system. Such a position would have qualifications, extensive management experience, large correctional systems, familiarity with correctional professional standards, correctional operational best practices. Experience in the development and management of correctional policy. And experience in the successful management of court decree cases involving correctional systems meeting court-imposed standards. If you establish this type of position within the current framework under the appointment authority of the sheriff we believe that you would have the opportunity to accelerate the already significant progress you've made in developing reforms to your jail system. Likewise if you also designate this person as director of correction, effect -b establish a proven experienced correctional professional as the county's point person on all issues relating to corrections and I think that would standu very well in terms of going forward and implementing yale reforms in the future. That's the report in a nut shell and i'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Supv simitian: thank you, let me look to my colleagues to see if there are comments or questions. Supervisor - - let's begin with supervisor cortese. Supv cortese: thank you, president simitian. In the report,. In your overview just now you talked about the jails run by the sheriff's office meaning that you were trying to address the question as to whether or not there's confusion given the current, um, motus operandi. I don't disagree with you that there's not a lot of confusion, it begs the question I want you to respond as to why then have four operational areas, commissary, laundry, and so forth separated out when the perception and perhaps the reality is that the sheriff's office is fundamentally in charge.
1:58 PMTo be honest, I don't believe that serves any functional operational process - - purpose. Operating up through the sheriff's office.
1:59 PMThat's fine so and if I question something that you're actually recommending and I didn't hear it that way, obviously I expect you to immediately correct me but where i'm going with this is why h those areas in a separate department of correction what would be lost in rather than the status quo in sort of collap those into the sheriff's direct perview and using the department of corrections perhaps for the jail monitor position or just leave it vacant.
The issue I guess is wheth you look at this functionally how it operates or looks on the organizational table. You could make those, um, you could take those four bureaus and place those under the sheriff's office organizationally. Nothing's going to change, because that's the way they operate currently. It would probably be a better recognition of the reality of how this jail operates, but is not going to change anything, not going to provide any improvements in the actual operation or the management of those bureaus.
2:00 PMIn one sense and let me just test this on you, we look at the chain of command from sheriff in doc down - - I think we're in agree for whatever that's worth that doing it or not doing it perhaps would not result in a lot of change but you have a chain of command above that so the board of supervisors has a direct report in the chief of correction requires separate evaluation, and whatever managerial effort we need to put in to regularly connecting, if you will, with a d-o-c chief that's essentially operating these four relatively cursory operational areas. Not that they're not important, but they're relatively unrelated to the enforcement of the law and justice in the yales themselves. In the jails themselves. You can respond if you want, b we do have one other level of effort, if you will, effort that needs to be maintains. We have a direct report that as you said, and I think i'm in agree with, is areas that can be really handled without the sheriff and direct reporting to the board of supervisors. Are we in disagreement?
2:01 PMNo, I agree. one area where that could change in the future is if, in fact, the direct or -f the corrections was determined - - was appointed to be somebody under - - other than the under sheriff or somebody not working in the sheriff's office. Then, if that person so desired, chain of command could be changed at that point, if there was a value to be determined by having that person more actively involved in managing the specific bureaus. That's certainly not the case now. Supv cortese: understood.
2:03 PMHelp you develop your perspectives and your positions on those key issues facing the jail system. So it's a different level of engagement, I believe. Supv cortese: possibly so. Let me qualify my next question by saying that I think from my perspective we have been very fortunate to have very candid individuals who don't pull any punches with regard to how th see it. That said, what are the arguments for if indeed we wt without, if we were to change the status quo and not have type of correction of a jail monitor providing even more candor or independence with regard to what we need to kn or what might conflict some h with the sheriffs. Do you see a difference?
2:05 PMThe pongsal you always - - the potential you always have with external monitors is the potential for that relationship to devolve into adversary i'm relationship because they're viewed as adversaries. It doesn't have to be that wa but there's the potential for that where you have an external agency pretty actively involved in monitoring. If doesn't have to be that way depending on the managing perspective of the sheriff's office. You're not going to have that same tape of adverb arielship.
2:06 PMI'm not convinced you couldn't have the same kind of ack ramoney. If we had a different sheriff some point in time, and a different under sheriff and yet a third person as you're recommending operating as the chief the second in command especially the budgets of candor as the board of supervisors. I think that concludes my questions and I appreciate having the chance to talk with you directly about this out he and thank my colleagues for listening in while I ask a few questions. I'd like to see, I want to say now. I would like to see us comek with a model essentially competes with what the consultant's recommending, but i'd like to see us work up a ordinance changes or whatever needs to be done in that re at least to give the board an fusion option to vote on or . While at the same time board control and look at repurposing the board as well. Whether it can repurpose that direct report that's in the charter right now for the chief of corrections to a jail monit if we decide to go with an employee at some point in time, as opposed to a contractor or n either case. I'm more concerned about do we violate the charter in sort of altering what that position is supposed to do because it seems like when I look at it it looks like we have a moveable piece there that's import tonight this discussion going forward.
2:09 PMWe can certainly come back with intent to operate change - . The memo gives us options in an either options to extend the sunset days existing ordinance. Organizational structure now or very soon. The work i'm suggesting here, m colleagues agree it would be worth having this model brought back as an option, time is it realistic to get that all done between now and June or is tt something we might need after the recess?
We certainly appreciate additional time and my recommendation would be in that regard to extend the sunset date and let us bring it back after the recess. Supv cortese: okay. Well, that would be my flavor of the day. That's what i'd like to see tt option. If that requires a motion, now, president simitian, i'm happy to make it. If not, I don't know where we are in terms of discussion and debate here. Supv simitian: why don't I ask you to hold off until we he about where other members of the board are. Supv chavez: I have, i'm glad Dr. Smith is back. would your recommendation have been structured differently if the employment make-up of the department was different. For example, as we look at t new construction of the jail w could likely have probation officers working in the reentry section of it. We need to look at increasing staff. I'm concerned about having different chain of commands. If the make-up of the staff w different, would your recommendations still is have been the same?
2:11 PMWe can model a department of corrections runs the jail whe basically they're not constrained by hiring sheriffs peace officers. Hire and train, and certify the staff then that May have lead to a different type of recommendation, but that's not the case here. That wasn't one of the organizational alternatives available to you. But I don't think i'm answering your question. Supv chavez: I guess what i'm wondering and I hear what you' saying is that it's a self-contained total control and command. I actually wonder about the whether or not that is a good model given - - I think my insolar institutions have a harder time managing all kinds of issues. Lead us to provide the best types of medical services, or the best even having the most appropriate staff with the kind of activity we're trying to implement around programming as an example. I do understand your response.
2:13 PMWe're not - - and I want to go to Dr. Smith. I want to be very clear the comments any current occupants of any positions, they're generic comments along of your line of inquiry which is generic to the challenges. It's been my view that the sheriff's office and the operation of the jail will wk best where there is a clear l of authority and that the current system we have fuzzes up that clear line of authority. The comments today and in the presentation you've stated what's real. The functions resting in the hands of somebody else, I find myself coming back again and again to that same question, I think it fuzzes the lines and i'd rather say the sheriff I responsible for the operation of the sheriff's department including the jail lack of clarity round that set of issues. Never mind the department of corrections or chief of corrections. Each that can exist your notion is that the structure at the sheriff's department.
2:16 PMExplain to you all and stakeholders in the county what it's going to take to achieve your goals in terms of where the system needs to go. You just need to leverage the best experience and the best skills that are out there right now and it's a proven model bringing out is s-d people with that type of experience into a system, new sets of eyes, new perspective.
2:17 PMI see that as these are all obviously related but I see it as a separate and distinct set of issues in part from the question - - supervisor cortese highlighted that are part of a chief of corrections role. So i'm still more inclined to say let's take those four functions put them in the sheriff's department, if the sheriff is going to meet the officer responsible for running the jail and have clarity about all that. This would be a very different conversation if we were back in one of our previous iterations where we were talking about in agree with the sheriff to provide us - - fire arms and performance the duties. Means that county council has suggested that we focus on one of these two models and again supervisor cortese noted my hope and expectation is that once we've got a monitor in place w very explicitly is not responsible for running anything - - I think for today think having a chief of corrections is in theory reports to the five members of the bod but who also simultaneously is employed as under sheriff and necessarily appropriately reports to the sheriff creates a clear conflict for that person whoever he or she May be in terms of serving two masters. I think it's legally not supportable under the doctor o incompatible offices in california. At the risk of stating the obvious, i'm not the attorney general so I don't even get to make an official opinion about that. Even if it weren't, I don't know how we can expect somebody in that role to serve two masters. I'd rather say let's acknowledge what's real the model for running the jail and not break off these former ancillary functions and consistent to who they're reporting to on which day of the week. I'm anxious to see sort of the duel options supervisor cortese comes back to us for. If we need a little more time because we have an ordinance that is expiring on June 30 of this year would an extra six months or a year make you more comfortable in terms of sorting out our structure issues here?
2:20 PMI will absolutely not turn it down.
I would certainly not turn down additional time. I wouldn't want the board's decision-making jammed up by te sunset date and of course it could be subsequently extended. Whatever the pleasure of the board is, I would say minimum six monthses but a year would be fine as well. Obviously we will bring forward our item at the earlier opportunity we're not going to wait we'll bring forward our item but in the vent that t board then wants additional information or subsequent iterations that allows for that opportunity but whatever the board's pleasure is on sunset date. Supv simitian: great. Back to supervisor cortese if he wishes to peek, - - speak, if not Dr. Smith next. great. Dr. Smith.
2:21 PMI missed a bit of the conversation, but if you're asking me my opinion about the four options I first of all ty to make the strong point that this is not just a legal decision. This is an operational decision. It has major significant. Um effects on operations, costs and everything else, policy in the board, in the gallow the question of what you can do - - so the question of what you can do legally and the question of what you should be operational I think is very important also. The two options I hope were totally eliminated were giving the control over to a chief of police or reverting back to the previous structure where there was a contract between the bd and the sheriff to provide peace officers. I think turning it over to the chief of police makes it even more confused. For number two, reverting back to the previous structure, I think it would ignore the fact that once the department of corrections was created by the board, there was 15 years of litigation and confusion that occurred because of that mou that didn't work. That leaves two options - - one turn it over to the sheriff completely, and the other one to leave the current operations. Not having anything to say about this current sheriff, but just remembering the structure of the jail is not dependent upon individuals. I want to remind the board that turning the jail over to the sheriff puts the board completely at risk for financial decisions made by the sheriff. There's no compelling argument that the correctional officers would be continued. Most jails in california have are staffed with deputy sheriffs, which are much more expensive than correctional officers and I think that's what would cause the previous board. I think that's a very significant concern. I would argue for number one, leave it as is at least for awhile. Um, because you're making a lot of changes all at the same t, bringing in a monitor. We've made a whole lot of operational changes. We've made physical plant changes. We've got a new jail coming on board. I think it would be prudent leave it the way it is for awhile while we see the way the other thing s afolk the operations of the jail. Because as you hire a monitor, you might well get a strong recommendation from that monitor to go one way or the other that would prevent the board from using that opportunity. My argument would be to leave it for a year the way it is. Watch all the other changes and then make a decision at that point. Supv simitian: let me just say i'm not persuaded by the county executive's remarks that moving the laundry or the warehouse or the food service to the sheriff puts us at substantially greater risk than we are at today. We are already at a financial risk. That's the nature of the structure. If there is a settlement, and we have had them, and we will have them again in the future, based on the conduct of the folks in the system, our county is liable. I don't recall that those settlements or financial liabilities have been a function of those four functions. They've been a function of the core duties of the sheriff's department and the jails. We need to figure out what our model is and move forward. And again, you know, the fa the matter is the sheriff fronts the jail I think most of us acknowledged with our comments today and thinking outcomes for people protecting ourselves from liability by hanging on to the liability of the food service or the warehouse is I think undy optimistic. I want to go back to the consultant, however, and say if we were in a positi shed the department of corrections responsibilities and let those rest with the sheriff, there's nothing in doing that that precludes the implementation of your recommendation for a correctional admin traitor position. Do - - administrator position. Do I have that right?
2:27 PMThat's correct, and you would still have the director of correction. You don't need those specific bureaus reporting up through the organizational structure, you can still maintain a director of corrections. Supv simitian: what would that director of corrections be doing in his or her duties absent te four functions that are currently there?
2:28 PMBasically, um, staffing you all. The board, what's going on wh the system, what needs to happen. Supv simitian: I think that's why supervisor cortese's earlier question about the role of a monitor with a research and policy function is compelling. Supervisor wasserman, you did have a comment now. Then ask supervisor cortese if he wants to offer a motion. Supv wasserman: just for clarification, Dr. Smith, when you were talking about costs, you were talking about the cost saves and the cost as far as department of corrections people manning the jails as compared to deputy sheriffs manning the jails?
2:29 PMYes, as I hope the board remembers, I said not with this particular sheriff, but with a future sheriff if you turn over the entire function of the jl to the sheriff there's no control over the process. Supv simitian: excuse me, Dr. Smith - - .
Can I finish? supv simitian: no. This board sets the budget so to say that there is no control on its face is inaccurate. Does this board set the budget? We do. Is that specifically called out in section 2503 of the code, that. Have I misstated the law.
Misstated your authority. you don't have independent constitutional authority over the sheriff. Supv simitian: we have authority over the budget, do we not - .
If I could finish. supv simitian: please, and could I ask the county council to produce a copy of 25303 so w can read the authority into the record today so that there is n lack of clarity about that. Could county council, could we ask for a copy, please. Go right ahead.
2:30 PMForget it. supv simitian: if you have a point to make, Dr. Smith, now's the time.
I think I made my point, y made it clear that you don't want to hear my point. That's okay, that's fine. Supv simitian: four members of the board that are still here, the other three clearly do, as do, but I just want to be clr about what our authority is o not, and I want to make sure a statement of fact remains on record unchallenged.
My concern is that with a different sheriff and a different approach the decisions could be made that would be extremely expensive for the county. For example, moving to from correctional officers to deputy sheriffs, I don't think you really have control over that because your - - although you do control the budget, you don't have independent constitutional authority over the sheriff row you can't tell the sheriff how to do their job. Right now, you happen to hav good sheriff who's willing to listen, but the entire effort that the board has gone through with the 600 different recommendations, the whole issue of policy, the monitoring, oversight with a different sheriff could have gone completely differently. They could have easily said go away, i'm not interested in hearing your opinion. So i'm just suggesting that preparing for the future, and a future sheriff, you probably don't want to replay the past with which happened with sheriff winters and other sheriffs. Deficit budget that had to be made up by the general fund. It's only my suggestion.
2:32 PMIf I can just conclude mine.
The cost between the correctional officers and the deputy sheriffs. And when the deputy sheriffs were staffing, under the old model prior to the change that cost was exceedingly higher than the costs we have now.
Right. if you had a bad sheriff get elected in this next election, who said i'm not comfortable directional deputies being in charge of the jail, I want to replace that with all dsa. Supv wasserman: thank you, that was the clarification.
2:33 PMYou don't have the authority as board members to say you can't do that. Supv wasserman: under stood. The clarification I was making was that was your cost concern rather than the laundry or whatever we call the food, the three other items that currently, um, are under is separate purview.
If it's not about those four functions why would sending those four functions over to the sheriff compromise whatever authority we have? [inaudible] supv simitian: yes, I do.
I think it's been mischaracterized the department of corrections only has charge of the four functions. What it says in the charter, and miguel and I wrote the charter amendment, so what it says is s that the board has the authority to transfer any or all responsibilityies for the jail to another qualified individual. What the board chose by ordinance was to transfer the correctional component. But you can always take it . You know, you can always take the doc back and say it's somebody else. That is a little bit of levera that provides you with the control over the sheriff's custody operations. If you permanently give it to the sheriff, it's gone. Supv wasserman: thank you, through the president, if I may. Supv simitian: please. Supv wasserman: james, we amended the charter prior to our being here. The charter was amended previously to provide the board more flexibility?
2:35 PMYes, that's correct. supv wasserman: okay, thank you. Supv simitian: so, just to be clear, looking to the county council now we could send all four of those functions to the sheriff which would not in itself affect the authority we have - - it's only if we eliminate the charter provision that we lose that authority.
The way the charter was amended in 2012 section 509, o it is an ordinance that requis a 4/5 vote whatever the structure is, the board can assign any or all pieces of the jail operations to the department of correction, to the sheriff, to both or to any or entity that could lawfully have such such authority, and you can divide it up in any way that would like. One way would be 100% assignmt to the sheriff. One caveat I would add is te ability to have a department of correction at all, also requires authorization from state law. We are one of three counties grandfathered from state law because we had a doc in existence before I believe it's 1994. As long as that statute stays s is, that's fine. That's an outside legal factor. The current state statute is fine but that's an outside factor the board should be aware of.
2:37 PMJust to explore that a little bit more the way that you've outlined one of the options that could is have come before us would have been a fifth option which would have been to retain authority over the department of correction component like would have been to undo what you a fixed when you came back to create more harmony within the institution. Is that accurate?
One iteration of that was of the options that was examined which would be the pre-2010 model where everything was under the d-o-c except there was a contract with the sheriff to supply the necessary peace officers required under state law for the operation of a jail. So there's that constraint which I think carl referenced in part of his presentation, but there is that legal constraint that there's a necessity for some involvement by the sheriff, or theoretically by a chief of police to provide peace officers because as state law has been held under different court decisions, emanating from this county, the doc itself lacked the ability to confer - - .
2:38 PMSo that is reflected in option two in the executive summary.
Yes, and it's also explained in the attached memo from county council.
I got thrown a little bit. that's helpful, thank you. The only thing that I wanted t I appreciate the approach. I think the thing that's been that i've been really struggli with is that even with all of the alignment being recommended we still have so much activity in the jail that's not under corrections or the sheriff. That's mental health. What would an appropriate staffing model be given the changes we're making the in te new jail. Girvin the new kind of programming we're trying to do, and given that I think in ts of the help of the people of the people who both work there. The entire time that they're unemployment and working - - . I think that's just healthier for folks and I think one oe benefits that the sheriffs have is being able to have sheriffs work in custody, and then be able to go work on the streets or work on special. Task forces which I think makes them more well-rounded and strengthens a lot of their experience for us. While I think supervisor cortese, that you're, um, that getting that information is really important, and I really appreciate it, i'm going to be really looking for the staff's report on staffing opportunities and options prior to taking any final vote because I do think that the old ways are important to understand what worked and didn't work. If we're really thinking about new ways of dealing with public safety, lowering recidivism I want to understand how any structure to the jail is going to contribute to that or not. It's complicated and we're putting something together that's going to last another 25 years or 50 years we hope in terms of operations. Supv simitian: anything else?
2:41 PMSupervisor simitian and I May totally agree on this now. Under number three, when it said transfer the jail operations over to the sheriff I was presuming you meant eliminate the d-o-c. If you keep the d-o-c in existence then I totally agree with you, it doesn't matter. But if you eliminate the d-o-c, then you've eliminated your ability to control any of the operations and any of the staffing decisions and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So maybe we completely agree and I was just misunderstanding. Supv simitian: I think any opportunity that I can take to have the county executive completely agree with me, I should grasp and in all seriousness, entirely apart from any of the individuals past, present or future I by now gin the concerns i've expressed or the past five years it's probably obvious to most observers that I would not and would not support anything that would diminish our legal authority to, um, play a role insuring the proper conduct of our sheriff's department and the jail within that department which is part of the reason I was referencing government code 25303 because that's where the language is very clear, the government code. Nothing shall be construed to limit the authority of the board of supervisors over the distri attorney or the sheriff. To essentially double down on the point the county executive's making, - - department of corrections we have the further budgetary authority, which means there will always be, and I me this quite literally, a healthy tension between the board and the independently elected officials, whether it is the sheriff or the district attorney, for example.
2:43 PMCan I is ask you to make motion to expunge all my comments from the minutes? Supv simitian: not even remotely necessary. I'm just going to say this here, not to turn this into a group therapy session, but look, the are important matters. People feel strongly about them. Occasionally there's going to be catchy scratchy language. It's part of a healthy department. Part of the debate is bringing the debate to a close. Supervisor cortese you have a - - to get us there? Supv cortese: I hope so. First I would propose we extend the sunset date beyond its current date in June and let m pause in the motion that's not good way to make a motion - - understanding is that the sunset date really should coincide at the latest or should be synchronized with the final adoption of an ordinance, not the initial sun shine of the ordinance because other wise we'd have a gap with nothing happening, basically.
2:44 PMThat's correct. we want a sunset that's going to be after the second reading of the new ordinance. Supv cortese: okay, so i'm going to leave that. I'm going to make the motion in that way. Just let me strike what I just said and start off again by saying the motion would be to extend the sunset date to no later than the end of the calendar year, but soon enough to consummate a second reading before the board of for supervisors prior to the calendar year. I would explain in a moment why I am choosing that for now choosing that deadline, not that it couldn't be extended lateer. Supv simitian: I need to ask the clerk to please post the voting screen for us so that supervisor can make his motion, and i'm going to indicate that I was inclined based on what the county council said to go wi the year, but it sounds like you'd have a thoughtful reason to say you'd like to get us there sooner rather than later so i'm going to hold off on weighing in on that subject. Supv cortese: yes, hopefully it's thoughtful. So the motion is that we in addition to the extension of the sunset date, that we transfer, that we ask that we ask counl and the administration to bring back a model that would transr all back to the sheriff's office, but would preserve boa control over policy and budget and would leave the d. O. C. Cf position in the charter as it is. We can't change that by ordinance anyway but would lee that under this model vacant or repurposed to be utilized for the future jail monitor position . That county council I know you asked for at least six months put a draft ordinance together. Did that draft ordinance come back in the fall no later th the second meeting in november, preferably or potentially sooner. So i'm differentiating that from the deadline for actual adoptg an ordinance. We need to see it, um, i'm to amendments to the motion in terms of where it needs to g go to fgoc first - - . Supv simitian: just to be clear, the extension would last again until when? Supv cortese: until - - it would last no later than December 21, 2018, but soon enough that it would be established to coincide with the latest date we can adopt the ordinance before the end of the calendar year. Meaning sun shining requirements and so forth would all be accounted for. I'm asking them to bring - -o establish that date which is as much a legal analysis as it is an analysis of board meeting dates. Supv simitian: thank you. So that would require - - so your hope and expectation is that we would get to that sr and that it would be timed to coincide with whatever ultimate action our board took assuming some ultimate action is taken, but absent that December 31, unless there's some other action by our board, yes? Supv cortese: yes, i'd like to see either in committee or at the board the first draft of n ord nance - - of an ordinance that does this within six months. So we can begin looking at I and then to the extent that there's board direction to adopt - - the board direction - - the board looks so that we attempt to adopt a final ordinance as a board before te end of a calendar year. And if I can, I think that - - I think if this is from administrative to sheriff's office to cooperation to include supervisor chavez's request that the opportunity to enhance staffing options and alternative s in the department end on the doc side be brought back concurrently with our discussion of the adoption of the ordinance of making points at the committee at the board for the adoption of the new ordinance. I think that's what you were asking for so any leverage we have to try to enhance staff s opportune at that time. Absent at the moment so it's always a way to get signed for more work as we all know when you're on an elected bo feel that this board has and going to be very candid about this, that this board has worked through this issue for a number of years. Has the experience of working through the operation of the jail under two different models already. And supervisor yeager is in t district four seat is one of te supervisors that carries that, but also the entire jail refo institutional knowledge in terms of process and assimilation of information up to this point. I think it would be important try to conclude this process with the sitting board. Both from an efficiency standpoint, however people - - whether is supervisor yeager ultimately agrees with the options under a future ordinance, um, as would or whether he differs with me. I just think it's import tonight go forward with the - - . Important to go forward with the board for the reasons I just indicated and I think we can make that decision we haven't heard where supervisor yeager falls on this issue so I don't want to make it overly personal to the district four seat, but think we should be cognizant of the fact that we're in an election year and we have an opportunity to seize on the continuity of the board if indeed council can get this to us timely in six months we can vet it properly. We should be able to adopt it with the city board, it whatever it May be. Supv simitian: at some risk, i'm going to try and restate it to make sure i'm clear on what we're being asked to vote on. I believe the motion on the floor which you have made and supervisor wasserman has seconded is to ask the county council to return to us with n ordinance extension that would carry out the extension of t status quo to a date no later than December 31 of 2018 but with the further direction to come to us with other options prior to that at the earliest available time, and in a fashion that would allow us to, um, c the extension off at that sa time. Did I get that part right in.
2:53 PMYes. supv simitian: along with supervisor chavez's request that as we consider those matters te organizational and staffing issues that we look into today's conversation be brought back simultaneously so that we can have one big last conversation at which we will make some is set of decisions and move forward on all those things as bundle. Did I get it right? Supv cortese: yes, I only want to add for clarity in the interest of council and the county executive, being abundantly clear that I want among whatever options we continue to discuss, the option of the organizational structure that would - - a chance for the operational authority of those four units to the sheriff to be one of them. And I think that's been made clear in my earlier comments - over the operation in general. Supv simitian: motion by cortese, second by wasserman. We're going to please ask all supervisors to vote on the screen with the exception of supervisor yeager who's been called away on another matter, all members have voted so we're going to ask the clerk to tally the vote, display it over h and the motion passes 4-0 with one member away. Thank you very much, and thank you, sir.

2:54 PMNot have any speaker cards on that last item.

Powered by Granicus