Correctional officers tell Lake County Council jail understaffing, overcrowding threaten safety

Naomi Fr., an attorney representing the Lake County Correctional Officers Union (AUPA Local 11), told the Lake County Council on May 12 that the county’s representatives at the bargaining table have “caused delay and frustration” and violated the county’s collective-bargaining ordinance by failing to negotiate in good faith.

“Right now, the relationship between the Lake County Sheriff’s Department and its correctional employees is far from harmonious,” Naomi Fr. said, citing Lake County Code sections 32.025–32.038 and the preamble to ordinance 1199B. She told the council the union demanded bargaining in February 2025 and that confusion over who represents the county has stalled talks since the warden’s resignation.

The union’s comments included detailed operational concerns. “The jail is currently understaffed by approximately 70 officers,” Naom i Fr. said, and she described staff routinely working long overtime: officers scheduled for 12-hour shifts are often held over ‘‘an extra four hours,’’ and many log an additional roughly 40 hours of overtime per 28-day cycle. She said assaults on staff — including stabbings — have occurred and that the jail has been forced into lockdowns.

Correctional officer and union vice president Christopher Rock told the council that minimum staffing for a full shift should be about 25 officers but that actual shifts recently have had as few as 17 and at most about 21. He described sections built for 32 beds housing 42 inmates and said overcrowding has left some areas effectively unsearchable for contraband. “This is essentially a powder keg just waiting to blow,” Rock said.

Officer Brooks of the jail’s classification department said the facility “regularly operates well over 1,000 inmates” at times, and described degraded physical conditions and staffing practices that, he said, increase the risk of escapes or coordinated disruption.

Council members repeatedly clarified that formal collective-bargaining authority lies with the county commissioners, not the council, and several members urged the commissioners to resume negotiations with appropriately empowered representatives. Council members said they have influence as the county’s fiscal body and can use oversight levers, but they noted separation-of-powers and contracting limits given past litigation involving the sheriff’s contracting authority.

Union and law-enforcement representatives asked the council to: (1) press for county negotiators with authority to bind the county, (2) investigate enforcement options for county ordinances the union alleges are being ignored, and (3) support measures to reduce overcrowding and improve staffing and safety. The union’s attorney said the county ordinance does not include an enforcement mechanism and urged the council to act.

The council did not take a formal vote on bargaining authority at the meeting. Several members said they would confer with attorneys and the county commissioners and explore options to address public-safety risks and contractual stalemates.

Next steps: council members invited union representatives to meet with individual councilors and said they would look into legal and legislative options for increasing oversight and restoring bargaining efficiency.