No Bargaining Ploy, Sheriff Says : Bailey Strikes Back, Blames Duffy for Jail Mess

Miffed over San Diego County Sheriff John Duffy’s frequent complaints that the Board of Supervisors is not doing enough to alleviate jail overcrowding, Supervisor George Bailey suggested Tuesday that Duffy himself has contributed to the problem by unnecessarily housing state prisoners in local jails.

In the latest verbal skirmish in the long-running battle over jail overcrowding, Bailey and other supervisors argued that Duffy, who last week threatened to release hundreds of prisoners unless he receives money to hire more deputies, has not done all he could to reduce the excess inmate population in county jails.

By shifting “state parolees”--people accused of violating the terms of their parole--to state prisons, Bailey said in a two-page letter to Duffy, the sheriff could ease the overcrowding in local jails. Instead, Duffy’s “inaction” has worsened the overcrowded conditions in county jails, Bailey said, clearly attempting to force Duffy to share blame that he has been quick to lay at the feet of the supervisors.

Escalating the war of words, Duffy later accused Bailey of misunderstanding state law and implied that the supervisor was grandstanding.

Most of Board Agrees

Bailey’s letter, in which he expressed sentiments shared by a majority of his colleagues, sets the stage for a showdown between the board and Duffy later this spring over the sheriff’s demand for a major budget increase. It also reflects the supervisors’ growing displeasure over Duffy’s criticism of their handling of the jail problem--as well as their anger over what some of them regard as the sheriff’s public posturing on the issue--since the board declared a state of emergency because of the overcrowding in February, 1986.

In the intervening 17 months, Duffy has often complained that neither the supervisors nor other public officials have provided funds to build new jails or to hire the added deputies he contends are needed to increase security in existing jails--a criticism that Bailey sought to deflect back toward Duffy himself on Tuesday.

“While you have repeatedly suggested that the county and the board are not implementing in a timely manner programs to expand bed capacity within the county’s detention system, I am very concerned about your inaction in failing to appropriately free up available beds . . . for persons awaiting trials,” Bailey said in the letter.

Bailey said that as of mid-April, 241 state parolees were being held in local jails pending hearings on whether their parole should be revoked.

Saying that it “makes neither fiscal nor operational sense” for the county to house state parolees in the already overcrowded local jails, Bailey pointedly instructed Duffy to tell officials in the State Department of Corrections that the accused parole violators should be held in state prisons.

While the removal of those prisoners from the county jails would make only a small dent in the overcrowding problem, Bailey described it as “a positive and definitive step” toward using the limited local jail cells for suspects awaiting trial in county courts.

Sheriff’s Department spokesmen, however, said Tuesday they are uncertain whether Duffy has the discretion to refuse to hold accused state parole violators in local jails or whether he is obliged to do so under state law. They also noted that the county is reimbursed by the state $43 per day for each such prisoner.

“I believe we may be stuck with those people, but we’re just not sure at this point,” said sheriff’s spokesman Lt. John Tenwolde.

‘Puzzled by Tone’ of Letter

In a prepared statement released late Tuesday, Duffy said he was “somewhat puzzled by the tone” of Bailey’s letter and questioned why the supervisor had not raised the issue during previous discussions on the jail overcrowding problem. Duffy also charged that Bailey cited a “non-existent” provision of state law to justify his contention that the county is not required to jail accused parole violators.

“Nonetheless, my office is reviewing his demand and we believe that he may be referring to another administrative code section on this subject,” Duffy’s statement said. “If that is the case, it would appear that Supervisor Bailey does not understand what the section means and does not understand what the law is regarding custody of persons charged with violating state parole.”

Bailey, however, said that the county counsel’s office had informed him that he is “on solid legal ground” in recommending that the state parolees be shifted to state prisons. Although such prisoners customarily are held in local jails pending parole revocation hearings, Bailey explained, exceptions can be made in cases where there is inadequate room in local jails.

“I’m sure it’s possible to be challenged by the state but there’s no doubt that we’d win,” Bailey said.

Tuesday’s developments came exactly one week after Duffy presented the supervisors with an ultimatum, saying that unless his budget is increased to enable him to hire 45 additional deputies, he will unilaterally impose a limit on jail populations that could result in hundreds of potentially dangerous prisoners being released weekly.

The inmate population in county jails, Duffy emphasized, currently is almost double the facilities’ capacity. As of last week, more than 3,000 prisoners were being held in six county jails with a combined official capacity of 1,689 inmates.

Seeks $5 Million More

To hire the extra deputies and take other steps to improve law enforcement generally, including reducing deputies’ response time to emergencies, Duffy told the supervisors that Chief Administrative Office Norman Hickey’s proposed $86.4-million fiscal 1988 Sheriff’s Department budget must be increased by about $5 million.

The coupling of Duffy’s warning on possible jail limits with his demand for more money led some county officials to read the sheriff’s remarks as a bargaining ploy intended to wring more law-enforcement dollars out of an already tight county budget. Duffy, however, has insisted that his warning is not a bargaining tactic, adding that unless he receives the additional funds, he will impose the jail limits this summer.

While the supervisors share Duffy’s concerns, from their perspective the sheriff has not exhibited sufficient understanding of the fiscal constraints facing them, but rather has simply faulted them for their failure to solve a complex problem not of their making.

“I think the board has bent over backwards to work with the sheriff on this problem that we all want to solve,” Supervisor Susan Golding said. “But that has to work both ways. It makes it more difficult when people point fingers just for effect.”

After enduring frequent barbs from the sheriff, the supervisors were quick to cite the housing of the state parolees in county jails as evidence of Duffy’s failure--despite his assurances to the contrary--to carefully scrutinize his own department’s budget and policies.

“I just thought (Duffy) ought to have a little something to work on, too,” Bailey said, smiling wryly.

“There’s an old story about people in glass houses,” Golding added. “After all the complaints about not having enough jail space, here’s a case where there’s room at the inn and it’s not being used the way it should be.”

The supervisors and other county officials, meanwhile, characterized Tuesday’s charges and countercharges as merely the opening salvos in what is likely to be a spirited debate over Duffy’s budget demands.

“You’ll see more of this during the hearings,” one supervisorial aide said. “If Duffy wants to play hardball, we’ve got ammunition, too.”