10/13/2026
If there is one thing that I will not tolerate as Union President, I will not tolerate the Sheriff disseminating false information regarding the DSBA or its members for political gains. The Sheriffs recent Facebook post titled “Thursday Thumper” clearly spews false information regarding the recent negotiations between the DSBA, County and Sheriff.
First and foremost, due to the County and the Sheriff being dual employers, the County decides the wages and the Sheriff decides the operational language. The DSBA has been actively negotiating since November 2023. The DSBA negotiations team was compromised of 7 experienced members that work in all different parts of the Custody Division. It took 5 meetings before the DSBA received a wage proposal. The wage proposals – which didn’t even cover the increases in costs of living - were accompanied by very large concessions that the Sheriff was requesting. After 3 mediation sessions, the wage proposals to the DSBA still did not even cover the increases to the cost of living, so the DSBA requested a fact-finding hearing as permitted by the Taylor Law. A neutral fact finder issued a report recommending that the DSBA receive 24% wage increases over 5 years in exchange for operational changes that all parties could live with.
Even after the fact-finder’s recommendation, the DSBA was offered a 22% raise – 2 % less than recommended - but which included terms to implement a new work schedule that left DSBA members found unacceptable. Schedules are a mandatory subject of negotiations under state law and the Sheriff wanted the DSBA to forfeit the right to negotiate schedules and allow him to unilaterally change schedules at his pleasure. Simply a strong-arm tactic. Although the negotiations team had doubts about the proposal’s success, we decided to put the proposals it to a membership vote. The members disapproved 167-24, a landslide rejection.
We sought member feedback on the ballots to better understand why they voted the first proposal down. After processing member responses, the employers were approached suggesting changes would allow for a second vote. The fact the Sheriff claims the DSBA requested a re-vote is false. We demanded changes to the proposals based on the members’ feedback. After discussion, the County and Sheriff approved proposals that did not include all the changes the DSBA sought. Because the new proposals were better that the first round, the new proposals were put out for another membership vote. The proposal was defeated 113-91. Again, the members’ feedback was solicited and communicated to the Employers. How did the Sheriff handle the feedback? He simply blamed the County stating that they control negotiations and the Sheriff plays no role. It was later communicated to the DSBA that the Sheriff was not interested in any more changes to the proposal but would allow a re-vote on the second proposal that was already rejected by the membership. Who would vote on something that has already been voted down?
After several emails, calls and certified letters, the employers finally responded to the DSBA’s request to continue pursuing a contract. The DSBA once again described the changes that members wanted to see to get a successful deal. In order to get the members’ concerns addressed, the County required, with the Sheriff’s full support, taking away 2% of the DSBA’s salary increases as a concession. That proposal was put out for a membership vote and passed 154-51.
The DSBA never “asked for a redo” as the Sheriff claims. The DSBA demanded changes to a mandatory subject of negotiations. The Sheriff could have stood alongside the DSBA members and advocated to improve the conditions they work in. Instead, he simply tried to defeat them from the shadows. Unions play a very critical role in the labor field and simply doing its job to protect its members.
The DSBA has always advocated for competitive wages, a safe working environment and fair scheduling. While this new contract improves wages and provides a fairer schedule, one thing that remains unchanged are the unsafe working conditions. The Justice Center continues to be extremely short staffed; the Jail is locked down frequently. The staff that work at the Justice Center every day are told “run it till you can’t”. The dangerously low staffing levels caused by the Sheriff’s neglect and purposeful starving of the Custody Department creates danger for both the staff and inmates. The Sheriff even requested in his budget presentation for 37 new positions to be created at Jamesville Correctional Facility and none for the Justice Center. The Sheriff supporting the reduction of salaries by 2% will affect who is attracted to this career field and will play its part in potential members choosing other agencies to work for.
