next on kqed newsroom. >> fighting in the back of the jail is a clear example of how they don't respect their leadership. >> i find it incomplete that president obama and everybody else wants body cameras on law enforcement in the streets of america. i can make ten times the reason as to why body cameras should be on every prison and jail in the country. >> i think body cameras are a fool. i think accountability, working day to day and no complacency. >> the candidates for san francisco sheriff square off. good evening. welcome to kqed newsroom. >> the san francisco sheriff's

race is one of the most closely watched contests. all three candidates are here for what we hope will be a sp spirited discussion. we rawant to welcome john robinson, the current sheriff, ross mercurimi and former int interrim sheriff vviki shermery >> did you fail a gun marksmanship test? >> no. i did not. the sheriff is not required to carry a weapon. my predecessor rarely did. i wanted to try a weapon that i was not familiar with. i went to practice. >> it was my understanding that date was the date set aside for qualification tests, not for practice.

>> that's why sheriff. it was the best day for me go. >> what was your score? >> it was below the standard that was required. that's why i said i will do it again. >> does this just much ado about nothing or does it say something about the sheriff or how he is being unfairly tarred by accusations like this? >> i think this one may have other elements in it. i don't think that -- i do think it's something that i don't think is a big issue. >> when you say other elements what are they? >> i'm not sure if everything is accurate as being portrayed in the newspaper. i'm not sure what's being told here is accurate. i just suspect that there may be other things behind it. but the ultimate thing is about setting an example. if the sheriff was practicing, that's one thing. if he was holding himself accountable because he was actually qualifying, that's another thing in terms of

holding himself accountable. that's all there. >> mr. robinson, how do you feel about this issue? >> being an operational commander in the department previously, i never expected the sheriff to be the one walking around with a gun. i see it as a non-issue. i see it as his staff being dissatisfied with him. so they're looking for anything that creates a bad image. the bigger issue is here is that the sheriff is our public safety officer. certainly, it would look good to the department if he could qualify successfully. but i don't think that's the thing that motivates the operation of the department. >> you should also note that tabloid way -- the chronicle, which isn't the first time, has sort of advanced this issue nearly two weeks before an election. the chronicle did this before with the tragedy of miss steinly when many times we asked them to print retractions and corrections and they did not. that's reflective of a changing

san francisco. we shouldn't tolerate the kind of bad journalism -- >> what do you mean by changing san francisco? >> i think i let my friends here to weigh in it on. this is a city where we like to celebrate our diversity, but the economic diversity of the city is literally being vang wished by city hall. i think that translates to the criminal justice system. >> i would say this. the deputies in urgency to point out some shortcoming of the sheriff have not necessarily dealt with the issues of their lack of protocol following policies and procedures. so i find it ironic that they point the finger at him for something that is minor as not qualifying because he is not expected to operate in a public safety role on a daily basis. he is the administrator of the department. but i do hold the deputies responsibility for how they approach the issue. when they left the woman in the stairwell for 17 days, that was a matter of lack of protocol. no respect for leadership.

>> let's change the subject. you mentioned kate stanley. they wanted to take him into custody. he was later arrested in the tragic shooting death of kate. do you stand by your decision not to notify the federal authorities before letting him go? >> i do. i think it would be a mistake for san francisco to get sucked into this where politicians are telling me with a wink and a nod to practice something different. we adhere -- i believe all of us want to adhere to all laws. there is a skitchizophrenia betn our laws and how it limits that contact with ice and changing federal procedures of immigration, customs and enforcement. they want local law enforcement

to get into the civil immigration business. where i hold my ground is that for everybody, we have to recognize the fourth amendment constitutional right. >> did they tell you they would like you to hand him over? >> no. in any request of a detention would not apply, because due process for all as it was written in the law signed by the mayor says if somebody has a non-violent felony, which is the case of mr. lopez sanchez, we would not contact. >> he had been deported five times, was about to be deported again. doesn't that require a judgment call in that case? i know what you are saying about what the protocol says. but as the lead administrator, as the sheriff, there are moments when judgment needs to come into play on something like that. >> absolutely. but the judgment also is to follow the laws. the laws have been set by san francisco. and ice knew -- this is what isn't being pressed effectively enough. ice knew when he was coming out

of the federal prison. he had served for four previous violations. they knew every step of his trajectory. when i met with the homeland security r.j. johnson, we told him the laws changed in san francisco. 300 plus other cities are in the same position. we require a court order or a warrant. that's the legal constitutional thing to do. >> what's the harm -- go ahead. >> i have to say i have to stop for a second. i think there's more to this than that. a degree it's a judgement issue. i would like to have seen some judgement used in this case. i think that the fact that he was in federal prison, it's kind of a routine operation for federal prison, state prisons to call jurisdictions and ask whether you want somebody back on a warrant. the sheriff's department asked for him on a warrant. it's likely the sheriff's department didn't know he had a hold at that time or had an immigration hold from the bureau of prisons. bureau of prisons released him. he came here. he didn't have the wo-- the

warrant was not held valid or they dismissed it. and then he was due to get out that day. he wasn't let go for next 17 or 18 days. i think you can say, you know, the federal bureau of prisons probably shouldn't have called san francisco on that warrant. the federal bureau should have let immigration pick him up. you see somebody with seven convictions, five depordeportat who doesn't meet the due process for all law but also you have to understand there's also another sanctuary city law that pertain to this. that's why there's i think the sheriff said it's schizophrenia between the two. the fact is, could yyou could h notified ice. there has to be a balance of public safety along with making sure that we're providing constitutional protection. >> the sheriff -- >> i think that he erred on the

wrong side of public safety. nobody could have known that francisco lopez would go out and -- what would happen would happen. what we did know was that he was a career criminal. we were releasing him into a city where he had no money, no relationships, he had nothing. >> doesn't that happen all the tim time. >> the sheriff's department doesn't operate in a vacuum. it has a responsibility to san francisco being only one of two elected public safety agencies. his responsibility to protect civil liberties as well as public safety is paramount. what would be the problem in just communicating? i was the first booking sergeant at city prison when we took over from the san francisco police department in 1975. immigration detainers are not something new. you have an obligation to relewis threlu release them in five days. this started over a money issue. originally, on sanctuary

policies. it's morphed into this battle over who is released and who is not. >> how would you have handled it differently? would you have called ice? >> i would have. what would have been wrong with simply saying, once that warrant was dismissed, what would have been wrong with simply saying, do you want this guy? >> i can answer that. i will tell what you would be wrong. the fact is is that we would be returning back to the very practices that motivated sanctuary city and due process for laws in the first place. >> that wasn't -- >> no, no. >> let me finish. when the deputies -- >> initially set for families who struggled. take a look at its history. even from the -- >> i can tell you as a member of the board of supervisors for two terms, intimately familiar with this. i was an advocate and critic where the laws were being developed, leading up to 2013. >> i'm going back to the first -- >> and then what is clear and what the state sheriff's association just wrote on

september 28th -- september 28th, 58 county association sent a letter to the president that completely refutes what mr. robinson is saying and reflects what we have been characterizing, that it's an untenable position for municipal sheriff's departments to be in the detainer civil detainer business unless you indemnify our department. you cannot cherry pick because it feels good to call and notify somebody to see ice come around with their vans when somebody leaves our property and hijacks them -- >> a couple weeks ago, los angeles decided to let immigration officials in very narrowly in cases where there were people in jail who had criminal histories who were actually violent histories and were wanted by the ice. >> here is the -- >> what is -- >> let's be honest and transparent. pass a law with the board of supervisors with the mayor that says that's the practice we want.

but what i call attention to is that when you have a maryor projecting similar to donald trump, this is where i -- to profess to be a sang ai sanctua and this capriciousness belies -- >> i don't think it's capriciousness. i think weren't you the person that helped write the due process for all policy? didn't you testify in favor of it when it was before the board of supervisors for passage? >> yeah, with george and the mayor essentially. everybody did. but i'm the sheriff. i'm not a member -- >> would you support the changes that you described? >> weren't you the person that had -- >> did >> i did support it. >> didn't you realize there was schizophrenia? wasn't that the time to decide, this doesn't match that well and maybe work to -- >> i can actually -- the press conference i had in light of all

this was the letter to the mayor and to the city attorney and to the supervisors that detailed all the conflicts in the law to begin with. that's been now made declared record. earlier i was talking about how the chronicle and what was characterized here, we didn't seek mr. lopez sanchez. where the press gets is wrong is there are two different warrants. a bench warrant in my letter to the mayor it said, if you really want to get ahead of this, when this doesn't happen again, at least install an administrative law judge. >> would you support the kind of changes that los angeles has enacted completely. i think it goes too far. if i remember correctly -- i read it once -- they are supporting pep. i don't necessarily support pep. that's the priority enforcement program. i think it goes too far in the area of misdemeanors. i would like to see it kept to

serious fell aonies and violent felonies. >> the translation means you would not call or notify on lopez sanchez. there's no splitting hairs on this. it is a fact. >> no. >> you just heard you are not supporting pep. you would call not on notification lopez sanchez and it's a contradiction. >> that's not what i said. >> we're going to have to move on. we spent quite a bit of time on that issue. >> an important issue. >> there's so many other issues that i want to make sure we cover. let's talk about the fbi investigation. the fbi is investigating allegations that four sheriffs deputies forced inmates to fight and gambled on the results. i want to hear from you as what would you do to make sure that this does not happen again. let's begin with you. >> well, i worked in the jails for 30 years, i worked in the sheriff's department, much of the time in the jail. i worked in the jail this occurred in. you have a picture on the scene

of the hall of justice, the seventh floor. it's an old style jail in a building that is by the way seismically unsafe. let's start there. it's also a jail that's pretty barbaric and out of fashion. really does not provide the programming space, the medical space, the visiting space that we need to have. in that particular jail, i think that frankly when i managed the jail, i did manage it by walking around. i walked around constantly. think it's important to have supervisors understand what their expectations are. i think it's very important to set the expectations, communicate the expectations, work on them, train to them and make sure they are followed. i think that's through supervision. that's the people who have the boots on the ground as the supervisors and managers that have to be held responsible. >> other than supervision and walking around, what else should happen to prevent that sort of thing from happening? >> clearly identifying the officers you put in each category. when i worked as the high

security unit manager, one of the things you did was you picked your officers based off of their skills and ability and training. you don't put an individual in charge of prisoners who had had a claim paid out on him of over $900,000. this issue inviting a fight in the back of the jail is a clear example of how they don't respect their leadership. for a deputy -- four deputies to take a prisoner to the back of the jail and do this when you have this administration where you have sheriffs, under sher f sheriffs, chief deputies, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, how do -- they are able do that and not -- >> please answer that question. this happened under your watch. >> and i was the one who called in the fbi, which is the first time in modern history that a sheriff has requested the fbi to come in. typically they don't unless it's court ordered or u.s. district attorney requires that.

>> does it show a lack -- if he talked about leadership -- >> i don't think he is very clear on the facts. police bill of rights, any deputy implicates in anything prior than that, i would haven't been able to reassign them. nothing occurred where they have been before me to begin with. >> is there a problem with the culture of sheriffs deputies? >> it could be a problem with culture inside prisons and jails throughout the united states. that's why i'm the first sheriff in california, to answer your question, to ask for body cameras to come in the jail system. i find it incomplete that president obama and everybody else wants body cameras on law enforcement in the streets. i can make ten time the reasons as to why body cameras should be in every prison in this country. >> do you agree? >> i don't quite agree. there are cameras in many of the new jails. they are in most places where there's access -- prisoner access. i think body cameras in this case would actually help. i do think that that's something particularly in this linear,

this one style of jail that we have left in our resources. i think it's important to take a look at that. i think body cameras are a tool. they're not the answer. i think accountability, expectations, working day to day. and not -- no complacency. >> you have been endorsed by the union. the union is very supportive of you. there's a question of whether you might be too close to the union. is it hard to really go after problematic deputies if you are that close to the leadership? >> not at all. because here is the bottom line. the bottom line is i was in the department for a number of years. 25 years i was an executive in management positions. i argued with the union. i set people up for disciplinary measures. i made sure that complacency did not happen in my watch. i worked very hard to make sure that happened as a captain in the jail. then i tried to mentor people to make sure that they would continue that. i was out the department for the last four years.

i do see need for training of the managers and the supervisors in this area and making sure expectations, accountability and any tools we can use such as body cameras to get to the transparency and to help that happen, i don't have a problem with. >> one of the things that richard did when i -- i worked for the administrative assistant for two sheriffs. one of the things he brought in a person, dr. kim. his job was to evaluate personnel to determine what their qualifications were and their mental stability. we only give psychological tests to officers when they enter. richard sent us to classes periodically through our employment to consistently evaluate us to see if we were not put in positions that were challenging for us or may bring harm to another individual. when the sheriff says that the police built of rights doesn't allow him to -- >> we're short on him.

>> i want to answer this question. because i think it doesn't get to the core of why there's differences between us. >> quickly. >> the fact is you should ask the same question of my predecessor. he rarely -- twice out of the eight times he was elected, the union supported him. they opposed him. he hired them all because he believes as i do the bright light of not being beholden to the deputy unions. this is why the kind of response -- it's about response. yes, we want to prevent things from happening. but you better have a strong and firm response that also captures the ability to prevent it again, pre-emptive strike. >> you have been in office almost four years now. how many one on one meetings with mayor lee have you had. >> zero. i have written him a number of letters. maybe one was perfumed. i don't remember. i tried to -- i have asked him to meet with me a number of type

types times. >> isn't that a problem that the mayor -- for whatever reason, you can blame the mayor, perhaps that's legitimate. wouldn't the city be better off if the mayor and sheriff were talking to each other? >> i think we should be careful about what's forming in city hall and a manipulative mayor who decides who he wants to meet with. we're elected to serve all the people. you get the business of the people done. i have to tell you, the net affect of what's happened is that i have been extremely resourceful and effective in making this department, we together, a national leader in criminal justice reform without the mayor. >> you have said that ross is not an effective communicator. how would you be more effective? would you have hey better relationship with the may sner. >> i think what i said is that he's not -- he's not effective communicator with his staff. i think that's part of the problem. staff doesn't have confidence. i believe that in order to create new initiatives, you have to work with your staff and people on the ground that are

going to be responsible for putting the initiatives into force. i think that's something that has been missing. i think what we have had is leadership by headlines, particularly in the examiner. it's interesting to see that happen. i think that leadership requires effective communication. communication is sometimes listen. it's assessing. it's working with people and it's got to be two-way communication up and down. >> i would like to answer this question. >> quickly. >> okay. certainly we need to create new initiative because what's being brought out in the new policy in america that's being put together with people like grover, the koch brothers, obama, are looking at ways to de-incarcerate jails. we need to -- have resources allocated. it's essential for the sheriff to communicate with the most powerful political person in this city in order to get the

funds necessary to impact the system of re-entry. to place san francisco in that progressive package that is would demonstrate to the nation it can take the lead. how can you not work with the mayor when we're asking for our system to be changed? >> is the mayor making a mistake not meeting with the sheriff? >> i would like to see the mayor meet with anybody he needs to work with. >> is he making a mistake? >> i can't say that. that's not my call. i would say that if i'm elected and he doesn't meet with me, that would be a mistake. >> that's a snapshot as to why -- i think he is going to take criminal justice backwards. this rational that i need to be on bended knee, that's the wrong direction -- where the great san francisco is going. i knew dick. i got to tell you. he is the first progressive sheriff and told mike who told me, you keep that bright linesh

department away from the police and others. >> are you a proxy for the mayor? >> i'm absolutely not. i have more experience than either of these two people. >> where do you disagree with the may sner. >> i don't know. the mayor hasn't talked about them very much. i would like to speak with him about them. i think there will be times i will disagree with the mayor. that's the other thing about communication. it's a two-way street. you talk to people. you don't necessarily agree to agree all the time. but i do think it's important for effective communication to take place in government. and to talk with the district attorney, the adult probation, everybody as well as community stakeholders. there will be times you don't agree. >> i can tell you where the mayor is wrong on public safety. >> i'm going to have to leave it there. we want to give you ample time to give your closing statements. >> are we there already? >> quickly. to wrap up, please tell us in 30 seconds or less why people should choose you for mayor and we will do it in this order.

>> you mean for sheriff? >> for sheriff. i promoted all of you. >> we will go in this order, john, ross and vicki. >> i should be sheriff because unlike what vicki said, i have the most experience. i'm an operational commander, certificate of honor winner. i also am the one that is intending to identify and promulgate a new path for san francisco. with a we need to do is to figure out how to de-inkars rate our jails. >> thank you. ross. >> i think one of the gold standards in this particular race for sheriff is the sheriff who made san francisco famous. elected eight consecutive times who supported me in 2011 and in the re-elections. we're outsiders. he and i believe that you continue to advance the criminal justice reforms like we have in reforming transgender

incarceration, having the first high school in a jail in the united states and now city college. >> i have to stop you there. >> i think that i should be sheriff because i worked for 30 years in the department, management and executive positions. i want to return to proactive leadership to the sheriff's department. i want to return the balance of public safety and social justice. and i'm there to return effective communication between our elected officials and all aspects of society. thank you so much. >> thank you. thank you all. >> it's been a pleasure to have all of you. thank you all for watching. for all of kqed's news coverage go to kqednews.org. good night.

captioning sponsored by wnet >> sreenivasan: on this edition for sunday, october 18th. israel imposes new security measures following a series of knife attacks. in our signature segment, american ports in a costly race to modernize and stay competitive. >> if we do not deepen this port, i would expect to see the business gradually move north of here. and all those jobs will move there as well. and, disarming iran: today the complicated task of dismantling its nuclear program begins. next on pbs newshour weekend. >> pbs newshour weekend is made possible by: lewis b. and louise hirschfeld cullman. bernard and irene schwartz. judy and josh weston. the cheryl and philip milstein m