-
Job Description
Marketing Statement
Ride BART to a satisfying career that lets you both: 1) make a difference to Bay Area residents, and 2) enjoy excellent pay, benefits, and employment stability. BART is looking for people who like to be challenged, work in a fast-paced environment, and have a passion for connecting riders to work, school and other places they need to go. BART offers a competitive salary, comprehensive health benefits, paid time off, and the CalPERS retirement program.
Job Summary
Salary Information
This is a BART Police Management Association (BPMA) position.
(Step 1) $80.30/Hour to (Step 5) $95.26/Hour
Note: External candidates will be offered Step 1.
Who May Apply
All current BART employees and qualified individuals who are not yet BART employees.
Reports To
Police Lieutenant or other Chief of Police designee.
Days Off
As assigned. Must be willing to work various shifts, weekends, holidays, and overtime.
Department
BART Police Department is a progressive agency and has been at the forefront - and in some cases the model approach to training in the areas of fair and impartial policing, bias-based policing, crisis intervention, cultural competence training, and de-escalation training. The mission of the BART Police Department is to ensure a safe environment within our transit system, reduce crime through a highly visible police presence and proactive enforcement of the law, and to promote public confidence by working in partnership with our stakeholders and the communities we serve.
Current Assignment
This announcement will be used to establish a pool of eligible candidates for vacancies that may occur within the next twelve (12) months.
The BART Police Department is seeking a highly skilled and motivated Police Sergeant to lead and supervise a dynamic team of sworn officers and technical support personnel. Under the direction of command-level officers, the Police Sergeant plays a pivotal role in ensuring the safety and security of BART patrons, employees, and infrastructure throughout the BART District. This first-line supervisory role combines operational leadership with hands-on policing, offering a unique opportunity to influence the department’s mission and service delivery.
The most qualified candidates for this position will have highly developed competencies in the following areas, which will be reinforced with related work experience and will be clearly articulated during the selection process:- Operational Leadership: Plan, organize, assign, and direct the daily activities of assigned personnel. Monitor staff performance, provide coaching and technical guidance, and maintain morale and productivity.
- Supervision and Development: Review and evaluate the work of assigned staff, provide constructive feedback, and oversee professional development and training initiatives.
- Law Enforcement Duties: Participate in patrol, traffic enforcement, investigations, and crime prevention activities as needed.
- Community Engagement: Serve as a liaison between the department, District staff, and the public. Represent BART Police at meetings with other law enforcement agencies, professional organizations, and community groups.
- Policy and Procedure Implementation: Assist in the development and implementation of departmental goals, objectives, policies, and procedures.
- Reporting and Documentation: Prepare, review, and ensure the accuracy of reports, records, and correspondence.
This position is ideal for a proactive, strategic-minded law enforcement professional who thrives in a fast-paced, multifaceted environment and is committed to the principles of community-oriented policing and public safety excellence.
Selection Process
This position is represented by the BART Police Management Association. The selection process for this position will be in accordance with the applicable collective bargaining agreement. Applications will be screened to ensure that minimum qualifications are met. Those applicants who meet the minimum qualifications will be invited to proceed in the selection process. The selection process for this position may include a skills/performance demonstration, a written examination, and/or an individual or panel interview. Note that District employees will be given priority of positions over external candidates in accordance with the governing MOU.
The selection process will consist of the following steps:
1. Law Enforcement Sergeant Written Exam - Tentatively scheduled on 1/22/26
Exam Focus Areas:- Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Planning
- Supervision
- Field Operations
- Legal Principles
- Written Communication
- General Law Enforcement Principles - CA
References for this examination include:- Hess, K. and Wrobleski H. (2008). For the Record: Report Writing in Law Enforcement, 6 th Edition. Innovative Systems.
- Adams, T (2014). Police Field Operations , 8 th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall.
- Whisenand, P. and McCain, E (2015). Supervising Police Personnel: Strengths-Based Leadership , 8 th Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall.
- California Department of Justice. California Peace Officers Legal Sourcebook . CopWare.
- NOTE: For the Record: Report Writing in Law Enforcement, 5 th Edition, and Police Field Operations, 7 th Edition can also be used as sources for this test.
3. Oral Board Interview - Tentatively scheduled week of 2/16/26
4. Chief’s Interview
Successful candidates will be ranked and placed on the eligibility list. Final selection will follow the ‘Rule of Five (5)’ process in accordance with BART Human Resources Policy and Procedure-Police Department Promotions.
Note: For external candidates, the entire selection process may take 3-4 months from the date that the eligibility list is established.
Vacancies are filled based on the needs of the Police Department and in accordance with the established collective bargaining agreement. Accordingly, the Police Department and Human Resources can cancel a hiring pool or extend the hiring pool at their discretion. The Police Chief will administer the “Rule of 5” process when selecting applicants for vacancies as they occur. As such order of placement in the eligibility pool does not establish the order of final selection.
The successful candidate must have an employment history demonstrating reliability and dependability; provide copies of certificates, diplomas, or other documents as required by law, including those establishing his/her right to work in the U. S.; pass a pre-employment medical examination, which includes a drug and alcohol screen, and which is specific to the essential job functions and requirements. Pre-employment processing will also include an extensive background check. (Does not apply to current BART Police employees unless a specific job requires additional evaluations).
Internal candidates who are unsuccessful in the selection process will have the right to a debriefing of their final interview assessment with Human Resources, and if applicable, a right to a formal grievance process.
Examples of Duties
Plans, organizes, assigns, directs, reviews and evaluates staff and activities during an assigned shift or in an assigned function.
Assists in developing goals, objectives, policies, procedures and work standards.
Assists in implementation of ordinances, rules and regulations to further departmental goals.
Performs duties and responsibilities consistent with the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.
Maintains discipline and communicates and interprets policies and procedures to subordinates.
Is responsible for morale and productivity of assigned staff and monitors their training and professional development.
Ensures that subordinates respond to calls for service.
Performs varied police duties relating to the enforcement of law, investigation and prevention of crime, patrol, traffic control and community information.
Presents evidence in court.
Confers with and provides assistance to District staff and Police command staff.
Prepares and reviews a variety of reports, records, correspondence and other written materials.
Represents the District in meetings with other law enforcement agencies, professional, business and community organizations and the public.
Handles patron inquiries and community complaints.
Monitors developments related to police service procedures, techniques and equipment; recommends policy, procedural and equipment improvements.
Minimum Qualifications
Education :
Sixty (60) semester or ninety (90) quarter units with major coursework in administration of justice, business or public administration, or a closely related field from an accredited college.
Experience :
The equivalent of four (4) years of (full-time equivalent) verifiable non-probationary sworn Police Officer experience by the filing deadline.
License or Certificate :
Must possess a valid Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Intermediate Certificate and remain firearm qualified.
Substitution :
A valid POST Advanced certificate and twelve years of experience may be substituted for the education. A college degree is preferred.
Other Requirements :- Must possess a valid California driver's license and have a satisfactory driving record
- Must be able to work various shifts, weekends, holidays, and overtime
- Must be able to meet physical, psychological, and background standards
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge of :- Principles, practices, techniques, and equipment for law enforcement services and activities
- Supervisory principles and practices, including work assignment, review, training, and motivation
- Applicable local, state, and federal laws, codes, ordinances, regulations, and case law
Skill/Ability in :- Planning, organizing, assigning, directing, reviewing, and evaluating the work of assigned staff
- Training and motivating personnel - Implementing and interpreting policies, procedures, goals, objectives, and work standards
- Analyzing problems, evaluating alternatives, and recommending solutions
- Directing emergency operations efficiently and effectively
- Exercising initiative and independent judgment within established guidelines
- Preparing clear, concise, and competent reports, correspondence, and other written materials
- Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of the work
Equal Employment Opportunity GroupBox1
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District is an equal opportunity employer. Applicants shall not be discriminated against because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and above), religion, national origin (including language use restrictions), disability (mental and physical, including HIV and AIDS), ancestry, marital status, military status, veteran status, medical condition (cancer/genetic characteristics and information), or any protected category prohibited by local, state or federal laws.
The BART Human Resources Department will make reasonable efforts in the examination process to accommodate persons with disabilities or for religious reasons. Please advise the Human Resources Department of any special needs in advance of the examination by emailing at least 5 days before your examination date at employment@bart.gov .
Qualified veterans may be eligible to obtain additional veteran's credit in the selection process for this recruitment (effective Jan. 1, 2013). To obtain the credit, veterans must attach to the application a DD214 discharge document or proof of disability and complete/submit the Veteran's Preference Application no later than the closing date of the posting. For more information about this credit please go to the Veteran's Preference Policy and Application link at www.bart.gov/jobs .
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) prides itself in offering best in class benefits packages to employees of the District. Currently, the following benefits may be available to employees in this job classification.
Highlights- Medical Coverage (or $350/month if opted out)
- Dental Coverage
- Vision Insurance (Basic and Enhanced Plans Available)
- Retirement Plan through the CA Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS)
- 3% @ 50 (Safety Members - Classic)
- 2.7% @ 57 (Safety Members - PEPRA)
- Reciprocity available for existing members of many other public retirement systems (see BART website and/or CalPERS website for details)
- Money Purchase Pension Plan (in-lieu of participating in Social Security tax)
- 6.65% employer contribution up to annual maximum of $1,868.65
- Deferred Compensation & Roth 457
- Sick Leave Accruals (12 days per year)
- Vacation Accruals (3-6 weeks based on time worked w/ the District)
- Holidays: 10 observed holidays and 3 floating holidays
- Life Insurance may be available through employee union
- Survivor Benefits through BART
- Short-Term and Long-Term Disability Insurance may be available through employee union
- Flexible Spending Accounts: Health and Dependent Care
- Commuter Benefits
- Free BART Passes for BART employees and eligible family members.
Closing Date/Time: 1/11/2026 11:59 PM Pacific -
ABOUT THE COMPANY
-
-
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)
Show moreThe BART story began in 1946. It began not by governmental fiat, but as a concept gradually evolving at informal gatherings of business and civic leaders on both sides of the San Francisco Bay. Facing a heavy post-war migration to the area and its consequent automobile boom, these people discussed ways of easing the mounting congestion that was clogging the bridges spanning the Bay. In 1947, a joint Army-Navy review Board concluded that another connecting link between San Francisco and Oakland would be needed in the years ahead to prevent intolerable congestion on the Bay Bridge. The link? An underwater tube devoted exclusively to high-speed electric trains.
Since 1911, visionaries had periodically brought up this Jules Verne concept. But now, pressure for a traffic solution increased with the population. In 1951, the State Legislature created the 26-member San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, comprised of representatives from each of the nine counties which touch the Bay. The Commission's charge was to study the Bay Area's long range transportation needs in the context of environmental problems and then recommend the best solution.
The Commission advised, in its final report in 1957, that any transportation plan must be coordinated with the area's total plan for future development. Since no development plan existed, the Commission prepared one itself. The result of their thoroughness is a master plan which did much to bring about coordinated planning in the Bay Area, and which was adopted a decade later by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The BART Concept is Born
The Commission's least-cost solution to traffic tie-ups was to recommend forming a five-county rapid transit district, whose mandate would be to build and operate a high-speed rapid rail network linking major commercial centers with suburban sub-centers.The Commission stated that, "If the Bay Area is to be preserved as a fine place to live and work, a regional rapid transit system is essential to prevent total dependence on automobiles and freeways."
Thus was born the environmental concept underlying BART. Acting on the Commission's recommendations, in 1957, the Legislature formed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, comprising the five counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo. At this time, the District was granted a taxing power of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation. It also had authority to levy property taxes to support a general obligation bond issue, if approved by District voters. The State Legislature lowered the requirement for voter approval from 66 percent to 60 percent.
Between 1957 and 1962, engineering plans were developed for a system that would usher in a new era in rapid transit. Electric trains would run on grade-separated right-of-ways, reaching maximum speeds of 75-80 mph, averaging perhaps 45 mph, including station stops. Advanced transit cars, with sophisticated suspensions, braking and propulsion systems, and luxurious interiors, would be strong competition to "King Car " in the Bay Area. Stations would be pleasant, conveniently located, and striking architectural enhancements to their respective on-line communities.
BART employees in the 1970s.
Hundreds of meetings were held in the District communities to encourage local citizen participation in the development of routes and station locations. By midsummer, 1961, the final plan was submitted to the supervisors of the five District counties for approval. San Mateo County Supervisors were cool to the plan. Citing the high costs of a new system-plus adequate existing service from Southern Pacific commuter trains - they voted to withdraw their county from the District in December 1961.
With the District-wide tax base thus weakened by the withdrawal of San Mateo County, Marin County was forced to withdraw in early 1962 because its marginal tax base could not adequately absorb its share of BART's projected cost. Another important factor in Marin's withdrawal was an engineering controversy over the feasibility of carrying trains across the Golden Gate Bridge.
BART had started with a 16-member governing Board of Directors apportioned on county population size: four from Alameda and San Francisco Counties, three from Contra Costa and San Mateo, and two from Marin. When the District was reduced to three counties, the Board was reduced to 11 members: four from San Francisco and Alameda, and three from Contra Costa. Subsequently, in 1965, the District's enabling legislation was changed to apportion the BART Board with four Directors from each county, thus giving Contra Costa its fourth member on a 12-person Board. Two directors from each county, hence forth, were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The other two directors were appointed by committees of mayors of each county (with the exception of the City and County of San Francisco, whose sole mayor made these appointments).
The five-county plan was quickly revised to a three-county plan emphasizing rapid transit between San Francisco and the East Bay cities and suburbs of Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The new plan, elaborately detailed and presented as the "BART Composite Report, " was approved by supervisors of the three counties in July 1962, and placed on the ballot for the following November general election.
The plan required approval of 60 percent of the District's voters. It narrowly passed with a 61.2 percent vote District-wide, much to the surprise of many political experts who were confident it would fail. Indeed, one influential executive was reported to have said: "If I'd known the damn thing would have passed, I'd never have supported it. "
The voters approved a $792 million bond issue to finance a 71.5 mile high-speed transit system, consisting of 33 stations serving 17 communities in the three counties. The proposal also included another needed transit project: rebuilding 3.5 miles of the San Francisco Municipal Railway. The new line would link muni streetcar lines directly with BART and Market Street stations, and four new Muni stations would be built.
The additional cost of the transbay tube -- estimated at $133 million -- was to come from bonds issued by the California Toll Bridge Authority and secured by future Bay Area Bridge revenues. The additional cost of rolling stock, estimated at $71 million, was to be funded primarily from bonds issued against future operating revenues. Thus, the total cost of the system, as of 1962, was projected at $996 million. It would be the largest single public works project ever undertaken in the U.S. by the local citizenry.
After the election, engineers immediately started work on the final system designs, only to be halted by a taxpayer's suit filed against the District a month later. The validity of the bond election, and the legality of the District itself, were challenged. While the court ruled in favor of the District on both counts, six months of litigation cost $12 million in construction delays. This would be the first of many delays from litigation and time-consuming negotiations involving 166 separate agreements reached with on-line cities, counties, and other special districts. The democratic processes of building a new transit system would prove to be major cost factors that, however necessary, were not foreseen.
-