Four employees at the San Francisco Department of Police Accountability have sent letters to the Police Commission, police chief, and the city’s assistant chief of public safety to declare a lack of confidence in director Paul Henderson’s leadership.
The letters question Henderson’s handling of budget cuts and internal allegations of harassment and retaliation.
On Tuesday, former policy director Janelle Caywood, author of one of the letters, threatened to file suit after her abrupt firing.
The Department of Police Accountability investigates citizen complaints of police misconduct, audits the police department and makes recommendations on police policies.
It’s not unfamiliar with mismanagement claims. Henderson took over the department after its longtime former director, Joyce Hicks, was pushed out following a union survey that revealed dissatisfaction among employees.
In the four letters, Caywood and her colleagues say that Henderson mishandled citywide budget cuts by targeting an experienced investigator and attorney for layoffs, while keeping staffers in better-paid, less-critical managerial roles.
They also describe a hostile work environment of retaliation and mistreatment of staff by middle management, an environment left to fester by Henderson’s inaction.
Six employees also made public complaints at Police Commission meetings in June and July, insisting they are overworked and asking for support to fight layoffs. None mentioned Henderson by name.
C. Don Clay, president of the Police Commission, to whom some of the letters were addressed, said he had concerns about the growing number of employees coming forward, and planned to investigate. He was very surprised by Caywood’s dismissal, he added.
“Clearly, there are issues of interest that we must address,” Clay said, noting that employees appearing in a public forum to voice concerns is a serious matter. “You can see that there’s a lot of discontent.”
Henderson said Tuesday that he was disappointed to learn about the letters criticizing his leadership. “These are hard jobs, and we go through many difficult things here in the office. And I try to do as good a job as I can to represent the city and represent our mission.”
Henderson does have his supporters, some of whom say layoffs were out of Henderson’s hands.
Tinnetta Thompson, another attorney at the Department of Police Accountability, said the accusations against Henderson, which she called “unfair” and “disingenuous,” come from a minority of employees. The department has about 40 employees.
“I think it’s a personal issue and an attempt to discredit what he has done, not only for this agency but for the city and county of San Francisco,” Thompson said. “That’s a bullying tactic, and that’s not fair when he’s created such a very great working environment for us. One of the rare ones in the city.”
The public complaints to the Police Commission described overworked employees racing to finish work. Such an environment, they argued, increases the risk of mistakes.
The Department of Police Accountability is mandated to employ one investigator for every 150 police officers, and with its current 11 investigators, plus one working on sheriff’s cases, it is in compliance in covering SFPD’s 1,500 officers. In addition, six senior investigators and a director oversee the work of the 12 investigators.
However, Department of Police Accountability workers say the SFPD’s reliance on overtime to address a staffing shortage disguises a need for more investigators.
On July 9, investigator Vince Vela spoke before the Police Commission with a cadre of his colleagues, the second time in a month that Department of Police Accountability employees publicly pleaded to the commission for help.
“Further cuts will jeopardize our ability to meet legally mandated timelines,” Vela said, noting that he is the lone investigator handling complaints against the Sheriff’s Department. Civilian oversight cannot function without investigators. Cutting our unit undermines public trust and transparency.”
Inside the department, three of the employees Mission Local spoke with said that Henderson has failed to remedy what they see as a toxic work environment and has favored the hiring and promotion of managers over investigators.
On Tuesday, Henderson fired one of those employees — former policy director Caywood, who has pushed for reform within the department.
“I’ve been trying for the better part of the year to address the hostile working environment through all the appropriate city channels, to no avail,” said Caywood.
Her firing came the day after she announced that she would file a complaint about the agency with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Now, Caywood says, she is consulting a lawyer and considering a lawsuit.
A toxic work environment
Henderson, a former prosecutor, was appointed interim head of DPA in 2017. Prior to that, he was chief of staff for then-District Attorney Kamala Harris and chief of administration for public safety for Mayor Ed Lee.
Employees and outside observers say Henderson has done some good at the department: His audit team has received multiple awards, and he has been credited with resolving longstanding issues, like difficulty meeting police misconduct investigation deadlines.
And publicly, Henderson has pushed for more funding for DPA. At a Board of Supervisors budget committee meeting on June 13, he emphasized that “every eliminated position here indicates direct impacts to our ability to provide comprehensive oversight.”
He said that the department has lost about 40 percent of its authorized positions since 2021.
Stephanie Wargo, a Department of Police Accountability attorney whose senior investigator was slated for a layoff, said she understood the recent budget cycle had caused “a ton of anxiety” in the department, and was supportive of her colleagues who spoke out against layoffs.
While she said she was aware of “bad morale” and “toxicity” among some at the Department of Police Accountability, she didn’t believe Henderson was to blame.
“I believe that management wants DPA to be a happy place to work,” Wargo said. “I believe that we need to come together more and discuss out in the open … I think the personal attacks are unnecessary.”
But in the letters sent to police commissioners and in interviews with Mission Local, others maintained that such issues are Henderson’s responsibility to confront and resolve.
“I have multiple concerns,” wrote an employee who sent a letter to the Police Commission. The letters were obtained as part of a public records request and the names were redacted.
“First, the Director’s repeated failure to effectively address and remedy a deeply toxic work environment; and second, the troubling decision to target investigator positions for elimination and layoffs.”
Three of the department employees interviewed questioned Henderson’s management of layoffs, an outcome that he failed to foresee in promising no layoffs earlier this year. On May 30, a clerk, a staff attorney, and a senior investigator received layoff notices.
That weekend, Henderson posted a selfie on Instagram wearing a white tuxedo, attending a “private tour of beautiful art.” A large “VIP” sticker was placed over his head.
Caywood called it “incredibly insensitive,” and said the photo had “‘let them eat cake’ vibes.”
“It has become abundantly clear that Director Henderson’s priorities do not align with the core mission and function of the DPA,” one employee wrote in a letter to Police Commission leaders on July 3.
“While the number of investigators has steadily decreased by 25% … the number of executive-level positions has significantly increased.”
Henderson declined to comment on personnel issues. And it is unclear how many executive-level positions have been added, but a current organizational chart shows chief attorney, chief of staff, deputy director and operations director positions.
Managers went unmanaged
Employees have been sounding the alarm about working conditions at the Department of Police Accountability for some time.
In union surveys submitted by investigators in June 2024 and reviewed by Mission Local, nine of the department’s then-13 investigators said DPA had a hostile work environment.
Several criticized Diana Rosenstein, a managing attorney who left the department in December after Caywood reported her for sending text messages calling the president of the Police Commission, Clay, an “Uncle Tom,” and suggesting “he and Clarence Thomas can go to hell.”
Several employees told Mission Local they hold Henderson responsible for failing to respond to the complaints in the union survey.
“He’s not a leader,” one said, referring to Henderson. “He really needs to take control.”
After the results of the survey were publicized, the investigator said Henderson lashed out and accused staffers of not coming to him first.
“He just kind of blew up at all of us,” they said in a recent interview. “He was wanting to blame us.”
Another investigator told Mission Local that they faced a “barrage of attacks” from Rosenstein at an all-hands meeting after filing a report about racism and harassment within the department. Rosenstein accused them of missing deadlines that, they say, were never missed.
The investigator felt personally targeted and threatened, they said, and was concerned that Henderson did not step in while Rosenstein publicly attacked them during the meeting.
“The tone of the meeting was from the director, too. He was on board with this,” the investigator said.
Soon after, the investigator — who had been working at the agency for more than a decade and had been supportive of Henderson when he joined the agency — was informed that they were being demoted to work under a less senior investigator.
“It just kept escalating. They just kept harassing me,” the investigator said. “I had my performance evaluations. I always met the standard or exceeded the expectation.”
Some employees at the department say Henderson is still, as one letter put it, “failing to manage poor managers who have harassed, bullied and retaliated against the staff, particularly the investigators, for several years.”
It appears that Rosenstein’s departure did not resolve the issues.
Former policy director Caywood’s complaints were around Rosenstein and Henderson’s inaction in dealing with her.
She approached Henderson last year with concerns that Rosenstein was maliciously targeting her investigative team and other employees of color, by creating a “false narrative that my team had performance issues when they were doing a good job.”
Instead of addressing the concern, Caywood said, Henderson shared the complaints with Rosenstein. Rosenstein, in turn, allegedly warned Caywood: “Don’t bother going to Paul about me. He doesn’t care. I’m not going anywhere.”
Rosenstein, however, left the department in December. She declined to comment about the allegations or her departure from the Department of Police Accountability.
The incidents drove Caywood to take medical leave for stress. While she was away, her investigative team was suddenly disbanded. “Other attorneys have gone on vacation for longer than I was on leave, without their team being dissolved,” she said.
Over the last year, Caywood has raised concerns about how the department is being managed:
- She filed a whistleblower complaint in February after learning that the DPA acquired funding in the last budget cycle to hire more staff for Vicious and Dangerous Dogs hearings, but saw no changes.
- She contacted the City Attorney’s Office in July about First Amendment concerns when she learned that management had attempted to prevent staff from giving public comment at Police Commission meetings.
- And at 4 p.m. on Monday, “unhappy with the city’s response,” she told Human Resources and its Equal Employment Opportunity division that she was seeking an outside federal investigation into the department.
By midday on Tuesday, Caywood was fired.
Mike Nevin, the former head of the police department’s Field Tactics and Force Options unit, said he worked with Caywood for years, and was shocked to learn of her firing.
“I got nothing but high praise for her and her efforts when she worked on policy,” Nevin said, who noted there weren’t always such open communications between the police and the oversight agency. “It was a very good working relationship. We didn’t necessarily always have to agree, but the point is we listened to each other.”
A member of the police union spoke out against the changes at DPA. Kevin Martin, the union’s assistant legal administrator and former vice president, sent a letter to the Police Commission to say he was “troubled” by the prospect of losing the senior investigator awaiting his layoff.
“The prospect of losing his position at the DPA would be devastating and would result in long-term adverse effects on the professionalism and necessary credibility of the Department of Police Accountability,” Martin wrote, acknowledging that it might be “somewhat odd” for him to speak in support of an investigator who is at times an adversary of the police department and union.
His conscience, however, “would not allow me NOT to do so.”
If Paul is this indifferent to the abuse towards his own team, it raises questions of how committed he’ll be to his fundamental charter of holding SFPD accountable.
SF deserves better.
The Department of Lack of Accountability needs new leadership. It’s time for the mayor to call for Paul Henderson’s resignation!!!
I’ve watched all seasons of the DPA show and I’m waiting for the season finale when the judges get some gumption and vote Paul Henderson off.
The DPA is a vital agency which the public entrusts its employees to conduct fair, impartial, and unbiased investigations. SFPD is held to a high standard for which DPA scrutinizes based on community complaints. Line staff, for several years, have upheld this trust and conducted investigations fairly and impartially despite the ever changing work environment.
Unfortunately, the Department, led by its current and some former administration have lost sight of the goal. They’ve focused too heavily on political agendas, increasing budget for miscellaneous and unnecessary activities, made questionable hiring and firing decisions (some may argue they were erroneously pushed out), changed working conditions without proper discussions, or had staffers work out of class. Opportunities for advancement are rare and rarely follow the DHR standard of posting announcements for external/internal applicants etc. Yet, promotions occur. Yes, these are internal issues, but they have also existed long before any articles were published. Additionally, some internal issues have also been escalated through proper channels to be addressed despite the fear of retaliation.
To the “anons” simply dismissing the complaints as personal vendettas is the entire problem with DPA. The ask is simple: Accountability and Transparency. Leadership has held several meetings touting those very things, but when questioned by line staff for clarification blame is placed elsewhere; Mayor, Commission, other staff no longer employed by DPA.
The issues raised in the article are valid and concerning. The overwhelming feeling of distrust within the DPA is very real- you can see it playing out in this very comment section. It has not always been that way, but has been left to fester over time as a result of questionable priorities, a lack of transparency, retaliatory behaviors, and unfair practices. Line staff just want to get back to business, but can’t given the current environment.
No matter how it happened, running to the newspapers to air your grievances is wrong, and it’s the only reason the department is the way it is. Your actions started it. You are affecting people’s lives without regard. This is their job on the line, and you can care less as long as you get what you want.
Hi there —
You seem to be neglecting the part about the letters sent to various public agencies, the public testimony and Commissioner Clay’s statement that he wishes to investigate. This is a thing we’re reporting on, not a letter to the editor.
Best,
JE
It’s clear there are severe issues in the Department when employees have to air their grievances in a public forum. Henderson’s lack of leadership is clear.
Great article. New leadership at DPA is much-needed, and long overdue. The public, DPA employees, and SFPD officers deserve better. Kudos to the line staff for thriving and surviving. Hoping there are better days ahead for a great department being tarnished by a few bad apples.
I really appreciate how in San Francisco racism is only an interpersonal matter and that structural racism is generally accepted as the cost of doing business.
Meanwhile, if anyone thinks that DPA is overseeing SFPD in any meaningful way and that failure does not fall the hardest on people of color who are not in the poltical class, they’re smoking better weed than I am.
Personally, I do not find the DPA to be a toxic workplace. In fact, the environment only became strained after the publication of such articles. The sentiment expressed in the article does not reflect the views of everyone in the department. It is misleading to imply that there is a unanimous sense of dissatisfaction.
The source of the information in your article appears to be someone with a personal vendetta. Her behavior at a meeting was erratic, and it is concerning that the article relies heavily on her perspective.
If every department in the city is disgruntled, should I let them know that you will create an article for them so they can get what they want or avoid being punished? I have many friends in other departments who do not want to work and complain about their managers. Should I send them to you?
I urge you to consider the broader context and seek input from a more representative sample of DPA employees before drawing conclusions about our work environment. It is important for the community to have an accurate understanding of our department.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Hi Paul/Tinnetta,
DPA has 40 employees and 10 are for you, half of whom are your personal friends, and the other 30 are not. Due to your vindictiveness, they are scared to speak out. And I will always speak truth to power, even if you don’t like hearing it.
I think you’re proving the personal vendetta point here…
This is not true. If anything, we were scared of you. We have seen how you like to twist things and run to the paper to destroy people. Now I feel pity for you; it takes someone hateful to do this to people with no regard. You were disrespectful and rude at our meeting. It made everyone uncomfortable. That is the only reason you were let go.
I find the level of divisiveness within this agency deeply concerning. It appears that some individuals have publicly criticized the leadership, filed whistleblower complaints, and submitted grievances to Human Resources, while others have sought to maintain the status quo by minimizing the concerns raised by their colleagues. These dynamics suggest the potential for a highly hostile work environment.
I am compelled to question how many employees may feel apprehensive about openly supporting Ms. Caywood, particularly given your acknowledgment that she was terminated shortly after voicing her views during that meeting.
Eleni knocked it out of the park again with her excellent reporting. New leadership at DPA is long overdue.
A “misconduct” commission is run by misconduct – is that what this article is about?
And someone is going to sue to get a bunch of tax payer dollars from the City – what a surprise.
Dump all the “feel good” commissions and departments. Find a new way to resolve misdeeds rather than taking tax payer money.
Henderson makes about $325,000 per year. He is not leaving on his own accord. Get back to oversight of SFPD and not oversight of the sheriff or vicious dog hearings, both against the city charter of what the DPA mission is. If people aren’t happy the way their jobs are then change it, or change to a job that fits their, skills, education and experience. How do you have six senior investigators who by CCSF job description manage the 11 investigators, so two investigators per senior. That’s ridiculous. DPA is top heavy in management and apparently has shed a few managers recently. It’s a tough job because you listen to people complain, investigate the complaints and make decisions based on the complaints. But how many police officers have lost their jobs due to a DPA investigation under Henderson’s leadership? Henderson hired these recently terminated or on leave people so he is responsible for putting the wrong people in high paying positions. He has never been known to be a workhorse and he delegates too much instead of leading by example, see his instagram. Same thing happened to Joyce Hicks a decade ago. Ask those who were there at that time, who would they rather work for, Hicks or Henderson? There are disgruntled employees at every job so this is no exception.
Maybe if DPA staff was more focused on public service instead of infighting and creating toxicity by repeatedly utilizing local news outlets for obviously personal jabs, things would be better for all involved. This looks like a high school yearbook and y’all look like children. This stuff undermines the entire purpose of police oversight. Be better.
You describe exactly what we think City workers do. Why should this gang of do nothings be any different?
Everyone on both the police and DPA side knows that Paul Henderson has surrounded himself with allies from previous incarnations who will always back him up. He has also gutted a very successful mediation program by hiring totally incompetent people.
Mike Nevin and Kevin Martin have worked with the DPA for many years and they have seen plenty of people come and go. They know the importance of collaboration and managing conflict between the two agencies. If they are both sounding the alarm along with repeated calls for change by staff, what’s a Commission to do?
Details, details,
When Martin was Gary Delagnes’ second in command at SFPOA he was accused of assaulting a member of the Police Commission who passed details of the attack to the Police Chief at the time who was a Newsom figurehead who rounded out an all Female Public Safety Trifecta.
She did not act.
Later, the head of of ‘Complaints against cops’ (their handle changes and I forgets) complained about Martin harassing and threatening her and when she was called to the office after hours when informed there was a burglary in progress Martin fired up his car and came at her in the rear alley of the place and nearly hit her.
She resigned and sued and got big money.
Details, details.
go Niners !!
h.
The SFPD is a gang of Republican racist and fascist criminals just like every other police department in the country including the ones in liberal cities such as Berkeley, Austin, Ann Arbor and Madison.
San Francisco is riddled with political corruption, yet the people most often singled out are leaders of color. Paul Henderson has spent his entire career serving this city. Watching people weaponize and exploit progressive language to tear down those who have fought to make SF more just is despicable and disheartening. He has done exactly what a leader should, advocating against budget cuts and standing up for the mission of the agency. What we’re seeing feels less like accountability and more like a lack of respect with racist undertones. This reeks of opportunism.
Please clarify your concerns about potential racism in the article. Based on my reading, it appears that Ms. Caywood appropriately reported her grievances; however, if the article is accurate, the proper follow-up actions were not taken.
The article also indicates that she reported racist remarks by a former employee, who allegedly referred to a Black Commissioner as an “Uncle Tom” and said, “he and Clarence Thomas can go to hell.”
Your comment comes across as sycophantic and grasping at straws.
This was a private exchange between two white-passing women a year ago — white-on-white conflict now being escalated as an attempt to take down a Black gay leader. Highlighting that conversation in this way feels less about addressing racism and more about weaponizing racialized language.
So you’re saying the person who called someone a racial slur is the victim, and the Caywood sounding the alarm on it was out of line? Your analogy is just as problematic as the issue.
Racist + homophobic undertones.
Current DPA employee here. Very rich of Janelle Caywood to argue that Paul hires his “friends” when she got hired because she was friends with the then-Chief of Staff. This should really not be news IMHO. This is a misguided attempt to get folx fired at DPA. Janelle verbally attacked both the Director and current chief of staff at a meeting, attended by the entire office, including the HR representative. Every office has disgruntled employees. Note the title is “SOME”
When the word ‘toxic’ is used I stop listening. Toxic work environments, even products that claim to cleanse a body of ‘toxins.’
Just use specific language to describe the behaviors someone wants changed. Or name the toxins, and the chemical reactions that will remove them. Anything else is pointless hand-waving.