Supervisors Keep Jail Measure Off Ballot : Government: Sheriff’s Department will continue to operate county’s trouble-plagued corrections facilities.

The Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday not to place a measure on the June ballot calling for the creation of a corrections department, instead deciding to seek the cooperation of the Sheriff’s Department in improving operations of the troubled county jail system.

Frustration over Sheriff John Duffy’s repeated cost overruns in running the jails and recent reports about mismanagement spurred Board Chairman Leon Williams and Supervisor George Bailey to draft the proposal that would strip control of the jails from the sheriff and turn it over to a corrections department.

But, with Duffy’s announcement that he will not seek reelection, the remaining three board members--Supervisors Susan Golding, Brian Bilbray and John MacDonald--voted against the proposal, saying they would rather give a new sheriff an opportunity to propose and implement jail management reforms.

The supervisors, however, unanimously approved a separate motion reserving the right to place a similar measure calling for a corrections department on the November ballot if the candidates for sheriff fail to offer solutions or cooperate with the board to help solve the county’s jail woes.

“We have an opportunity to hear from the candidates and the public has an opportunity to ask some real hard questions,” said Golding, who expressed concern that the board had not had enough time to study the proposal and was rushing unnecessarily to make a decision now. “I think this debate should be continued vigorously until August,” which is the deadline for placing a measure on the November ballot.

Golding had said earlier that supporting a corrections department now would destroy any chance of building “a spirit of cooperation” with the Sheriff’s Department, which has vigorously opposed such an action.

Although Bailey and Williams welcomed cooperation with the Sheriff’s Department, they insisted that the only way to ensure accountability is to have a board-appointed civilian director running the county’s detention facilities. Unlike the sheriff--an elected official who responds independently to voters--a corrections director hired by the supervisors would be under the direct control of the board, the two supervisors argued.

“The new sheriff may have the good will and be very cooperative, but the sheriff who succeeds him may not,” Williams said. “It is better to have the law clear rather than depend on somebody’s good will.”

Bailey added: “Accountability is the main thing. If it was possible to immediately establish a department of corrections, I would.”

J. Phil Franklin, foreman of the San Diego County Grand Jury that recently released a report supporting creation of a corrections department, also expressed disappointment with the board’s decision.

“All they’re doing is postponing a decision that should be made now,” Franklin said. “When the sheriff overspends by millions . . . and the county is powerless to raise taxes, the cost (overrun) must come at the expense of other county programs. There is a better way.”

In addition to gaining accountability, Williams’ and Bailey’s interest in creating a corrections department was piqued when they heard about the financial success achieved by Santa Clara County, which removed control of jails from its sheriff and turned it over to a new corrections department in January, 1989.

A corrections department that employed correctional officers--who are lower-paid and receive less training than sheriff’s deputies--helped Santa Clara County save $6 million during the first 18 months of operation; a savings of more than $10 million is expected by June, according to the San Diego County Grand Jury report that studied Santa Clara’s switch in detention operations.

But a subsequent county staff report, stating that San Diego County could trim jail costs by hiring correctional officers without creating a corrections department, coupled with Duffy’s unexpected announcement that he eventually intends to replace all sheriff’s deputies working in the jails with correctional officers, derailed the move toward a new system.

The three supervisors who opposed placing a measure on the June ballot said they did so not because they are against the creation of a corrections department but because they had not been persuaded yet that a new system is needed to achieve the board’s goals.

“There are two issues here that must and will be addressed,” Bilbray said. “One is that whoever runs the jails must be accountable to the budgetary process, and two, we must and will establish a correctional officers system. How we best implement these two strategies, however, remains unanswered.

“Several of the (sheriff) candidates said they would be financially accountable,” Bilbray added. “I think it’s time to cooperate, but if they don’t, I’ll support a mandated program.”