“Six Years of Chaos? The Facts Tell a Different Story in the Sheriff’s Office”
By: Sheriff Rochelle Bilal
August 26th, 2026
The public deserves to know an important piece of context that The Philadelphia Inquirer repeatedly omits from its reporting about my administration: Since the advertising relationship between the Sheriff’s Office and The Inquirer changed, the newspaper has lost more than $5 million annually in advertising revenue previously associated with this office.
Since then, its attacks on the Philadelphia Sheriff’s Office—and on me personally—have been relentless.
Financial context alone does not invalidate legitimate reporting, and no public official should be beyond scrutiny. But readers are entitled to know the full context surrounding a yearslong pattern of coverage that frequently disregards our responses, minimizes documented progress, and omits evidence that does not support the newspaper’s preferred narrative.
The Inquirer’s August 25, 2026, article declared that I brought “six years of chaos” to the Sheriff’s Office. That sweeping characterization is not an objective description of the record. It is a conclusion that the reporters (William Bender and Ryan Briggs) reached before presenting the facts.
Our office has repeatedly provided responses, records, and evidence correcting inaccurate or incomplete claims. Too often, that information has been reduced to a sentence, treated dismissively, or excluded altogether. The latest article follows that same pattern.
Most notably, the story discusses excess proceeds owed to former property owners without mentioning that the Sheriff’s Office, through its Home Asset Recovery Team (H.A.R.T.) initiative, has gone above and beyond to return approximately $8.3 million to individuals and families entitled to those funds, more than any previous Sheriff administration ever has.
That is not an insignificant detail. It represents real money returned to real people—many of whom were experiencing financial hardship and may not have known that funds were available to them. Any fair examination of our handling of excess proceeds should include both the backlog that must be corrected and the millions of dollars successfully returned to Philadelphia families.
We confronted the deed backlogs
There was an unacceptable backlog in processing certain deeds. I have acknowledged that problem, and my administration has taken corrective action.
But the public deserves more context than the suggestion that the office suddenly “snapped into action” only after a court order.
Before the order was issued, the Sheriff’s Office had already begun increasing staffing, onboarding and training additional personnel, preparing deeds, reviewing outstanding files, and addressing technology and workflow challenges. The large number of deeds recorded immediately after the order did not materialize in 48 hours. Much of that work had already been completed and was awaiting the final stages of verification, approval, execution, or recording.
The timing of those recordings reflected the culmination of work already underway—not the beginning of our response.
The office has since reorganized its Real Estate Division, expanded personnel, strengthened management oversight, and integrated additional functions into its technology system. Those are practical, measurable reforms. They deserve to be reported with the same prominence as the problems they were designed to correct.
We must also distinguish between backlog caused by the office and files that cannot advance because of unpaid purchaser balances, incomplete deeding instructions, title defects, bankruptcy proceedings, court orders, litigation, or other legal impediments. Every unresolved deed should be examined, but not every unresolved transaction represents administrative neglect.
Safeguards were in place to protect the public
The Inquirer’s narrative also leaves readers with the impression that the Sheriff’s Office operated without systems protecting public funds or the integrity of sheriff sales. That is false.
Technology and internal controls were in place to restrict access, document transactions, reconcile payments, establish audit trails, and deter and detect fraudulent conduct. These safeguards included controlled user access, transaction histories, verification requirements, financial reconciliation, and multiple levels of review.
No technology can guarantee that misconduct will never be attempted. Technology can, however, make transactions traceable, expose irregularities, limit unauthorized activity, and ensure that employees are accountable for their actions. That infrastructure existed, and we have continued strengthening it.
Our transition between technology systems created operational challenges, including functions that temporarily required manual processing. Those challenges contributed to backlogs and should not be minimized. But a technology transition is not proof of fraud, and an administrative backlog should not be casually transformed into an allegation of corruption.
Our expanded use of Tyler Technologies strengthened internal oversight, and forthcoming deed-tracking tools are designed to provide even greater transparency and accountability.
Public funds require accurate explanations
The article also raises questions about auction proceeds, interest income, and payments to an outside company for deed-related services. That company, CSC, is the conduit through which funds (a mix of the deed recording fees and state and local transfer tax) are paid; any real investigative journalist or right-to-know request would clearly identify the action.
Likewise, any payments described broadly as “deed processing fees” must be examined according to what those payments covered. If a total includes statutory charges, recording expenses, transfer taxes, lien payments, or other pass-through costs, it is misleading to present the entire amount as compensation paid to a contractor.
These matters deserve an explanation—not inflammatory labels or incomplete descriptions.
Funds generated through sheriff sales are not my personal funds, nor are they available for arbitrary use. Sale proceeds must move through a legally prescribed process that may include paying taxes, municipal claims, utility liens, mortgages, recording costs, transfer taxes, and other obligations before remaining proceeds can be distributed.
Our office generates NO INTEREST because the funds provided must be escheated to the state pursuant to the Disposition of Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Act (DAUPA). In addition, we don’t charge a cent to help people claim their excess proceeds from their property (unlike third-party vendors).
I reject the use of legitimate operational questions to support a predetermined narrative that every problem is evidence of scandal, and every improvement is either ignored or attributed to outside pressure.
Progress should not be erased
When I entered office in 2020, I inherited an institution with generations of structural problems. Almost immediately, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted court operations, public auctions, hiring, training, and nearly every government function. At the same time, the responsibilities placed on this office continued to grow without the staffing and resources necessary to meet them.
Despite those realities, we modernized operations, expanded technology, increased accountability, and returned $8.3 million to people entitled to excess proceeds, breaking the tradition of previous administrations, who practically sat on the funds, by actively seeking out those owed funds through H.A.R.T. We strengthened public-safety operations, removed firearms from our streets, apprehended fugitives, expanded community engagement, and began rebuilding a workforce that had been stretched dangerously thin.
That does not mean every problem has been solved. It means this administration has confronted problems that existed for decades and has made progress under extraordinarily difficult conditions.
Accountability journalism serves the public best when it distinguishes fact from fiction, delay from fraud, and inherited dysfunction from documented reform. It should report shortcomings, but it should also report corrective action and measurable results.
The ink used to repeat an old narrative is fading because Philadelphians can see the progress for themselves. Headlines cannot erase deeds being processed, technology strengthening accountability, operations being reorganized, and millions of dollars being returned to Philadelphia families.
The Sheriff’s Office under my leadership will continue to answer questions, correct deficiencies, and improve public service. We ask only that our work be judged by the complete record—not by a narrative that excludes every fact that does not fit neatly within it.
Philadelphia deserves the truth, the evidence, and the complete story.