Ben Mannes: The Philadelphia sheriff’s office needs a state takeover

From John Green’s federal conviction to Jewell Williams’s harassment scandals, straight through to Rochelle Bilal’s ongoing ethical implosions, the Philadelphia sheriff’s office has been a corruption factory for over 40 years. And the corruption is not incidental, it is systemic.

The office’s problems aren’t isolated, they are institutional. Checks and balances? They’ve failed. And federal agencies like the FBI, the U.S. Attorney, and the state Attorney General have shown no urgency to act, even when someone shot up a school using a gun sold by deputies under Bilal’s command. Meanwhile, waste, corruption, and mismanagement continues to go unchecked. 

Now, Philadelphia City Council wants to disband the sheriff’s office altogether. That sounds bold — until you realize they plan to absorb its civil law enforcement duties to completely remove the constitutionally required independence of the office.

What can be done?

The situation at the Philadelphia sheriff’s office today mirrors the conditions that prompted the state to seize control of the Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) in 2001, with a long, entrenched culture of corruption, ineffective oversight, and political interests overriding the public good. If the PPA could not be trusted to manage parking without intervention, the stakes are even higher when it comes to the civil law enforcement, court security, and prisoner transport functions handled by the sheriff’s office.

Normal checks and balances have repeatedly failed despite widespread knowledge of misconduct. Federal authorities — the FBI, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and even the state Attorney General — have so far failed to bring any decisive action against the Sheriff’s Office, despite overwhelming public evidence of corruption and mismanagement. 

In contrast, placing the sheriff’s office under state control would remove direct local political interference from an office that must act impartially in civil law enforcement, create stronger financial oversight, provide a structure for professionalization rather than identity politics, and restore public trust by demonstrating that misconduct will no longer be tolerated or insulated.

If Philadelphia could not be trusted to independently manage its parking meters without decades of corruption, there is far greater cause to believe it cannot be trusted to independently manage civil law enforcement through the Sheriff’s Office; which is why the state must intervene.

It’s happened before

The Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) came under state control in 2001 through a political maneuver involving the Pennsylvania state legislature and then-governor Mark Schweiker (R). Before 2001, the PPA was controlled by the City of Philadelphia and managed by local appointees. However, it was seen as a patronage-heavy agency with inefficiencies and minimal revenue returns to the city. In response, the GOP-controlled Pennsylvania state legislature passed legislation transferring control of the PPA to the state. 

The official justification was to increase efficiency, accountability, and revenue generation, particularly for the ailing School District of Philadelphia. Unfortunately, many observers saw the takeover as a political maneuver to give the state GOP more influence in heavily Democratic Philadelphia, which was not entirely false.

Regardless, the state control mechanism established precedent for a city agency’s control to be handed to the Commonwealth. In the case of the sheriff, this means that the legislature can approve an educated, professional appointee with a management and law enforcement background who — while appointed by the state — can manage the Sheriff’s office as an agency of the City of Philadelphia without being subject to the predations of the Mayor or City Council.

As with the PPA, the governor and state legislature gained the power to appoint a leader and board members, which allows actual bipartisan oversight over an agency embedded in a city government in an 80 percent Democratic Philadelphia.

The difference between the sheriff and the PPA is that the stakes are a lot higher. 

Imagine tax-delinquent or foreclosed properties not rotting on your block for decades?

Imagine a sheriff who actually collects delinquent bail, taxes and fees already owed the city, so the law-abiding taxpayers don’t have to carry one of the highest tax burdens in the country to make up for those who don’t pay what they already owe? 

Imagine having enough deputies on the streets serving warrants, subpoenas, and court orders on the streets to help police make a dent in Philadelphia’s outsized crime rate?

Imagine the sheriff’s office working with courts to implement virtual arraignment technology from the jails and police districts — as states like Florida have done for decades — speeding up decisions on bail pretrial release, resulting in less jail overcrowding and more police on the streets?

Lastly, imagine a scandal-free sheriff’s office that is efficient enough to be revenue neutral. With the PPA, critics argue that promised revenue increases for schools never materialized at expected levels. Various audits and media investigations (especially by the Philadelphia Inquirer) have highlighted persistent governance and performance issues. The truth is, the civil functions of the sheriff results in fees and delinquent funds returned to the city. Thus, the office should be growing and literally pay for itself. 

It isn’t, because Green, Williams, and Bilal seemed content with keeping the bulk of their deputies on courthouse and transport duties, and away from the field activities that go after tax cheats, scofflaws, bail-jumpers, and deadbeats that add to the blight of our city. If neither the voters nor prosecutors will act, our state officials must.

What happens if the state takes no action?

City Council’s move to disband the sheriff’s office entirely feels like long-overdue reform, but deeper analysis shows it would subject essential civil law enforcement functions — such as property foreclosures, tax lien enforcement, and judicial sale processes — to a Council that has proven itself prone to corruption and political interference.

City Council has a long-documented history of abusing “councilmanic privilege” to block developments, hoard city-owned properties, and manipulate zoning rules. Councilmembers have even declared foreclosures and tax enforcement “racist” in broad terms, rather than addressing abuses case-by-case — signaling their willingness to politicize civil enforcement based on electoral priorities rather than the rule of law. If Council assumes control over these functions, it risks worsening neighborhood blight, deepening political patronage, and undermining public trust even further.

If this happens, traditional ethically challenged council members who have abused their privilege for decades will partner with the socialists in the “Working Families Party” to assure that those who don’t pay what they owe will never be held accountable, which isn’t fair to the majority of working Philadelphians who pay their taxes and abide by the law. 

Based in Philadelphia, A. Benjamin Mannes is a consultant and subject matter expert in security and criminal justice reform based on his own experiences on both sides of the criminal justice system. He is a corporate compliance executive who has served as a federal and municipal law enforcement officer, and as the former Director, Office of Investigations with the American Board of Internal Medicine. @PublicSafetySME