How many people are reading The Integrity Report?

??????????????????????????????????

While we are busy writing and researching behind the scenes, we’d like to answer one of the MOST frequently asked questions on the blog: how many people are reading The Integrity Report everyday?

A lot.

The site averages about 150 hits per day! 70 of these hits are “unique vistors” or distinct individuals visiting the page during a given period (regardless of how many times these individuals visit a page).

The bounce count for the page (ie, people who visit the page and immediately close the window or go to another page) is pretty low–around 20%. This means the majority of people who head over to The Integrity Report‘s site are staying and reading the posts. The average time a person spends reading posts on the blog is fairly high also, around 6 minutes.

Which pages are the most popular? Our home page is the most popular (with an average of 80 visits a day), followed by our post about ASU General Council botching a FOIA request (average of 60 visits a day), and then our post about Kevin Salcido sending unprofessional emails to ASUPD employees (average of 35 visits a day). The most popular keyword search is “ASU Police Chief Pickens resigns”; on our internal search tool its “firearms”.

How high The Integrity Report is listed on major search engines (such as google) is also a major indicator of site traffic. Sites that have lots of user traffic and are linked by other sites are ranked higher in search results than sites that have little to no traffic. Using the google search engine and searching for “ASUPD”, we are SECOND only to the official ASU website. The pictures from our post about unprofessional behavior amongst firearms staff is number ONE in google image search.

For a blog that was labeled as the work of “a few disgruntled employees”, this is very significant. Employees (both inside and outside the PD), Command Staff, students, and staff are reading The Integrity Report. People outside of Arizona State University are reading the information we post, the comments that others post, and are beginning to ask questions about the situation at ASUPD.

This is one baby step forward toward our goal of shining the light of integrity into ASUPD and holding those that dishonor their oath accountable.

ASU’s General Council botches FOIA request, releases social security numbers of several officers!

Earlier this year, we submitted a MASSIVE FOIA request to the Office of General Council for the FY13 budget documents, as well as departmental requisitions for training and equipment. We are acutely familiar with the way the State of Arizona’s FOIA laws work; under Arizona’s Public Records exemption, information which would be considered an invasion of personal privacy and would outweigh the public’s right to know and can be redacted. This can include addresses, phone numbers, date of birth, and social security numbers.

Therefore, after we received and preliminarily reviewed our FOIA request, we were acting upon the good faith that ASU’s General Council did their jobs and redacted the personal information contained in the files we requested (we looked at all 300+ pages of the file to the best of our ability). However, this morning we received several emails from concerned readers of The Integrity Report who let us know that several of the requisitions submitted for training between 2012-2013 contained FULL social security numbers that were NOT redacted! We have subsequently removed the entire FY 13 budget until we can redact the personal information of officers/police employees.

Coming from a university that claimed showing a picture of an officer’s vehicle was a security threat…releasing the social security numbers of police employees on public documents is a MUCH larger security threat!! With a SSN number, an officer’s identity, credit, and bank account could be completely compromised! This situation also begs the question: what other personal information has ASU released to the public via a FOIA request? The possibilities are endless.

We will be contacting all the officers personally whose information was released by ASU via a public records request, so they are aware of the situation.

Clearly, the safety and security of ASUPD’s employees isn’t too concerning to university administration. It’s not enough to allow staffing to reach alarming levels which can compromise the lives of sworn and civilian employees alike; ASU must ALSO compromise their employees financial livelihoods as well!

We’re expecting some sort of “damage control” email on behalf of ASU’s General Council shortly.

 

 

Kevin Salcido addresses The Integrity Report once again

Earlier today, the head of ASU’s Human Resources department (Mr. Kevin Salcido) sent this email to all of ASUPD’s employees in regard to a recent photograph posted on The Integrity Report:

To: All Members of the ASU Police Department

Recently , a law enforcement photograph of an ASU police officer, her name, her rank and a picture of her automobile (including her license plate number) was posted to the “Integrity Blog”. This action violates the expectation that was communicated on February 19, 2014 (see below).

A.R.S. §§ 39-123, 39-124, and 39-128 prohibit the release of peace officer photos in all but a limited number of circumstances. The law was passed by the Legislature to help protect and safeguard our peace officers and their families. The recent unauthorized posting of our ASU PD officer’s law enforcement photo on the blog is contrary to law and will not go unaddressed. Again, as noted below, anyone we identify who publicly shares or takes and posts sensitive operational information, obtained through any means , which could potentially compromise the security and safety of the ASU community can and will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

The large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community and their work is appreciated on a daily basis. There are multiple avenues available for raising concerns including the PD chain of command, the Office of Human Resources and the Office of Equity and Inclusion. This is a university after all and we should be able to have an open exchange of ideas. As the Chief Human Resources Officer, I am disappointed that a very small minority of employees continue to avoid these channels and have become disruptive to our mission of serving and protecting students. Those who are so unhappy here are invited to take their careers elsewhere. They will most assuredly be happier and we will not feel their loss.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation. As always, you can reach me at 5-6608 with questions or comments.

Kevin Salcido
Associate Vice President/Chief Human Resource Officer
Arizona State University

We would like to take a moment to address some of these “expectations” we failed to adhere to, as well as some points brought up in the body of this email.
The “expectations” Salcido mentions refers to an email he sent to all PD employees on February, 2014. In his email, Salcido stated that posting an old schedule to illustrate how low officer staffing levels were “exceeds the bounds of free expression and protected activity because it has safety and security implications for the ASU community”. The “safety and security implications” are only the ones the university itself created by failing to properly staff and manage a police department, period. Beyond that, old schedules are NOT listed as an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so any member of the public could request the same information we posted.
The assertion that we broke the law by posting a professionally taken photograph of an officer is ludicrous, and the sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes you cite we violated do not appear to be applicable to this situation.

ARS 39-123:

A. Nothing in this chapter requires disclosure from a personnel file by a law enforcement agency or employing state or local governmental entity of the home address or home telephone number of eligible persons.
B. The agency or governmental entity may release the information in subsection A of this section only if either:
1. The person consents in writing to the release.
2. The custodian of records of the agency or governmental entity determines that release of the information does not create a reasonable risk of physical injury to the person or the person’s immediate family or damage to the property of the person or the person’s immediate family.
C. A law enforcement agency may release a photograph of a peace officer if either:
1. The peace officer has been arrested or has been formally charged by complaint, information or indictment for a misdemeanor or a felony offense.
2. The photograph is requested by a representative of a newspaper for a specific newsworthy event unless:
(a) The peace officer is serving in an undercover capacity or is scheduled to be serving in an undercover capacity within sixty days.
(b) The release of the photograph is not in the best interest of this state after taking into consideration the privacy, confidentiality and safety of the peace officer.
(c) An order pursuant to section 28-454 is in effect.
D. This section does not prohibit the use of a peace officer’s photograph that is either:

1. Used by a law enforcement agency to assist a person who has a complaint against an officer to identify the officer.
2. Obtained from a source other than the law enforcement agency.
E. This section does not apply to a certified peace officer or code enforcement officer who is no longer employed as a peace officer or code enforcement officer by a state or local government entity.

This entire statute refers to the actions of an AGENCY, or LOCAL/STATE municipality, NOT the actions of an individual. Furthermore, the picture we published WAS NOT and WILL NOT be serving in the capacity of an undercover officer, nor was her privacy, confidentiality, or safety compromised. Sgt. Pam Osborne has several social media sites accessible to the public in which contain pictures of herself and her family (the pictures were already removed from one site after we published the initial picture), and her picture is available using the “Google” search engine, so her privacy, confidentiality, and safety were apparently not compromised by those arguably more personal pictures. The picture we released was a department sanctioned photograph which was available on the W drive to all PD employees.

Photographs of this nature are regularly used on the ASU website, which is accessible by the public.

The burden of proof is on the State to prove the release of the photograph is a privacy, confidentiality, or safety concern.

The picture of the motor vehicle we also released was taken on a public street in a public place, so we are also legally allowed to publish it. Out of professional courtesy, we did redact the license plate number.

It is ironic how Salcido addresses the issue with this photograph immediately, yet other photographs we have released which show members of the department, dressed in uniform and acting inappropriately goes on unmentioned.

ARS 39-124:

Releasing information identifying an eligible person; violations; classification; definitions
A. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases the home address or home telephone number of an eligible person with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.
B. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases a photograph of a peace officer with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.

This is pretty simple: we did not release the photograph to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to the officer/her family, or cause damage to the property of the officer/her family. First, there is no investigation to hinder in regard to Sgt. Osborne. Second, we would never want another officer—regardless of how deplorable of a person they are—to be injured or their property damaged. There is no text accompanying the photograph that would incite a reasonable person to commit physical injury or property damage to the officer or her family. Finally, there is no personal identifying information (address, phone number) in the photograph that would compromise the officer’s safety, period.

ARS 39-128:

Disciplinary records of public officers and employees; disclosure; exceptions
A. A public body shall maintain all records that are reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of disciplinary actions, including the employee responses to all disciplinary actions, involving public officers or employees of the public body. The records shall be open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article, unless inspection or disclosure of the records or information in the records is contrary to law.
B. This section does not:
1. Require disclosure of the home address, home telephone number or photograph of any person who is protected pursuant to sections 39-123 and 39-124.
2. Limit the duty of a public body or officer to make public records open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article.

What is the point of including this statute? This just says the state isn’t require to disclose a photograph if requested through a public records request.

Salcido is correct in stating that “the large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community”, however the qualifying statement of “…and their work is appreciated on a daily basis” is untrue. Who appreciates employees below the Sergeant level? Certainly not the university, who has elected to give all its officers less than a 10 cent pay raise and no cost of living increase (and also giving no pay increase to any civilian employee).

Line-level employees are also not appreciated by the members of their Command staff, who refer to them as “bees”, unleash frivolous IAs if they try to leave ASU, or are told they should work at McDonalds if they don’t like the hostile work environment.

Mr. Salcido himself has shown that he does not appreciate the work of employees at ASUPD nor care about their well-being because he has routinely failed to act upon the concerns of the 10-12+ employees who have brought serious issues to him. Salcido has flatly refused to investigate any of the alleged misconduct reported to him, instead delegating it to the very department that mishandled the issues in the first place.

It is insulting that Salcido suggest we use the PD or HR Chain of Command to address any concerns or problems, because several of us have tried to resolve issues this way with no success. There are several paper trails and digital voice recordings to back up these assertions. There is absolutely no ability to deal with these issues within any Chain of Command at ASU, because the university’s prurient interest in controlling negative press about itself ultimately prevails.

If there is such a small minority of employees causing issues, and—according to you, Mr. Salcido, these issues have no merit—then why has ASU repeatedly addressed The Integrity Report in meetings and memos? If what is being said here is limited to only a handful of employees, why acknowledge the blog and give it life?
The truth is that ASU’s dirty laundry is being aired for the world to see, and for the first time ever, ASU cannot control the negative publicity. We know ASU was accused of stifling the 1st Amendment Rights of a student who spoke against the rising cost of tuition, and we also know that ASU contacted indeed.com and had the site administrators stop people from posting negative comments about ASUPD. It is not a far stretch to assume that ASU would also want to stifle what is being said about its police department online.
However, the primary difference in the case of The Integrity Report (and what makes it such a sensitive issue among Command staff) is that it has the potential to cause many people to lose their jobs, from officers all the way up to President Michael Crow. Everyone who knew some of the issues detailed on this site yet refused to intervene is at risk of being implicated. All these issues coupled with the fact that the public and media are starting to circle like buzzards on a rotting carcass, and you have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to stifle The Integrity Report.

When that day comes where people are finally removed from their positions, in Salcido’s own words, “we will not feel their loss”.

 

Updated: ASUPD’s staffing…by the numbers!

We wanted to provide an update to several posts where we discussed ASUPD’s alarming staffing numbers (check out a few here and here). The current staffing numbers were provided courtesy of ASUPD’s roster following shift bid. It’s important to note that these numbers are only for sworn employees and do NOT include investigations nor Sergeant rank and above.

To patrol ALL of ASU’s four campuses (Tempe, Downtown, West, and Polytechnic), for a total of over 76,000 students, ASUPD has a grand total of 45 bodies assigned to patrol. Of those 45, 12 are Sergeants (supervisors who may not be patrolling the campus), and 5 Corporals. When those “supervisory” positions are factored out of the equation, that leaves 28 officers to patrol 76,000 students. The current staffing setup relies on the fact that none of these people assigned to patrol will get sick, injured, take FMLA leave, take military leave, and be forced to go on leave for purposes of IA.

28 officers is INSANE! According to the DoJ, ASU should have 2.1 sworn officers for every 1,000 students. ASUPD isn’t even REMOTELY close to that officer/student ratio.

For any students, parents, or members of the media reading…you should be extremely disturbed by these numbers. These numbers, unfortunately, keep getting lower due to recruits “failing” out of FTO, or laterals quitting as soon as they step in the door.

Head of ASU’s HR, Kevin Salcido, failed to properly handle a complaint regarding inappropriate behavior by a faculty member…sound familiar?

This is a long article but definitely worth the read. It illustrates how the head of ASU’s HR, Kevin Salcido, has repeatedly been informed of issues among his faculty members (whether they are professors accused of sexual harassment, or a Police Chief accused of incompetence), and has repeatedly failed to take appropriate and timely action against university employees.

From abc15.com

The federal government confirmed Thursday that Arizona State University is under investigation for the possible mishandling of a report of sexual assault or harassment.

An ASU alum wants to trigger a second inquiry.

Jasmine Lester said she plans to file a Title IX complaint against the school sometime in the next few weeks.

“Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in all education
programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance,” according to a U.S. Department of Education news release.

ASU is one of dozens of schools nationwide with an active Title IX investigation involving sexual assault or harassment, the Thursday release said.

Lester said she will file her complaint because, among other reasons, a university administrator discouraged her from filing a sexual harassment complaint within the university system.

Lester said a professor flirted with her for more than a year, took her out for drinks, and created “sexual tension.”

“‘We’re talking about sexual harassment as more of a shove you up against the wall kind of thing,'” the school’s Title IX coordinator said, according to Lester.

After Lester persisted and filed a report, the school found no evidence of sexual harassment, Lester said.

She said parties with a stake in the investigation went on a smear campaign against her, another reason for the federal filing.

Multiple calls to ASU for comment were not returned. As such, details of Lester’s complaint with the school could not be confirmed.

 

What is interesting about this article is Jasmine Lester previously met with the head of ASU’s Human Resources department, Kevin Salcido (you can view the transcript of the discussion here). In this discussion, Jasmine and another individual mention to Salcido how some of Jasmine’s concerns regarding inappropriate behavior by a faculty member were brought to the attention of ASU officials, who waited three years to initiate any sort of response (Salcido responded,  “it’s unfortunate that it took a while for that to make it our way”).

Salcido also avoids answering direct questions about why the faculty member was allowed continue to lead  study abroad trips (where Jasmine’s incident occurred), or why it took so long to fire professors engaged in sexual relationships with students.  Salcido states that if he isn’t informed about such incidents, he can’t do anything about them (despite the fact Jasmine reported her incident to both faculty members and ASU administrators).

Salcido goes on to lecture Jasmine about how the rules of evidence [in a university investigation] aren’t the same as in a criminal court, but how she needs witnesses, emails, text messages, etc. Salcido also has the nerve to state that he is speaking both as an HR person and “also as someone who was, in a prior life, a police officer”.

The lack of an appropriate and timely response Jasmine experienced with Salcido is nearly identical to the response Salcido has given to the 10+ ASUPD employees who have spoken with him. Many current and former employees have come forward to speak with Salcido directly in regards to the on-going problems occurring at ASUPD (staffing, the FTO program, supervisors engaging in illegal and unethical behavior). He has stated on several occasions that he “can’t just fire half the police department”, despite being told (again, by multiple employees) many members of the Command and training staff were/are engaged in illegal/unethical behavior. Several employees who spoke to Salcido about this topic also witnessed the negative behavior first hand, or provided Salcido with the names, dates, and documents that would prove the merits of the accusations.

In regard to the slew of former employees ASUPD has left in its wake, Salcido has more or less stated the opinions and experiences of the people who have left the university aren’t relevant to what is currently transpiring within ASU, and speaking to them would be essentially pointless.

Much like his interactions with Jasmine Lester, Salcido’s pledge to “look into” ASUPD’s problems were completely useless. When the head of the Human Resources department at the largest university in the United States is incapable of removing problem employees from the university DESPITE witnesses and evidence…it makes one wonder how many other issues Salcido has failed to act appropriately on.

P.S. Mr. Salcido, you could never be a police officer, even in a prior life. Your deliberate indifference in the face of adversity illustrates your complete lack both compassion for others and a moral compass.

ASU faces a Federal investigation over complaints of mishandling sexual abuse cases

We initially wrote about how easy it was for ASUPD to skew its crime statistics in October 2013, just after ASUPD released its 2012 crime statistics (here and here).

In February 2014, we did a lengthy article explaining what the Clery Act is, the reporting requirements under the law, and how it is applicable to ASUPD. In March 2014, we followed up this article with a second part which analyzed ASUPD’s crime data and illustrated exactly how ASUPD misrepresented its crime statistics and violated the Clery Act. Shortly thereafter, we wrote an article explaining what Title IX is, and how ASU is also violating provisions of it.

After months of reporting about ASU has failed to meet the requirements of the Clery Act, as well as Title IX, a formal complaint has finally been filed against ASU. This complaint has now launched ASU into the national media spotlight (as well as ASUPD, for their role in under reporting/reclassifying of statistics).

Hopefully, the pressure of a looming Federal investigation is what will help ASUPD clean house, and get on track to establishing itself as a legitimate police department.

Stand by.

Here are a few articles on the situation at ASU:

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/asu-among-schools-in-us-federal-sex-assault-investigation

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/colleges-sex-complaint-investigations/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/05/01/arizona-state-universities-sex-assault-inquiry/8565811/

 

Editorial: “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem!

ASUPD has been in the media spotlight a great deal recently, and this time, it’s for a good reason; ASUPD, in partnership with university officials, have kicked off a campaign called “Start by Believing” to show support for victims of sexual violence. According to the campaign website, the theory behind the slogan is:

…to bring attention to victims of sexual assault, and not revictimize them through disbelief when they report the crime. Disbelief may come from friends, family, nurses, law enforcement or others whom the victim normally would expect to support them….There are many instances that aren’t reported because of fear of being told that someone brought it on themselves. This type of thinking needs to change. We need to start by believing victims of sexual assault when they come forward. It’s traumatic enough.

The article also mentions the “proclamation” signed by Chief Pickens and Michael Crow (which all department employees received a copy of) that shows how committed ASUPD is to serving victims of sexual violence.

While we think the attention given to the issue of sexual violence on campus is much deserved, we can’t help but be struck by the irony of the situation. The sudden emphasis on sexual violence victims comes on the heels of an article we posted on the safety of students on campus under Title IX, as well as an article about how ASUPD omitted or incorrectly reported the number of sex offenses reported under the Clery Act. Let’s also not forget the rash of sex offenses that occurred during ASU’s “Safe and Sober Campaign”, or the increase in ASU’s sex offense numbers that were actually reported to Clery.

If ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they could start by appropriately reporting sex offenses in the Clery Report, as they are required to do, by law. Omitting or reclassifying sex crimes into lesser offenses (such as assault) not only revictimizes the victim, it is another way of telling the victim “we don’t really believe you”.

Next, to counter the recent increase in sex offenses, Chief Pickens could actually staff and maintain a fully-functioning police department that has the ability to proactively deter crime, instead of punting ASU’s problems to the City of Tempe. Actively participating in the campaigns you sponsor/are involved in such as “Safe and Sober”, DUI Task Force, or the Student Safety Taskforce would work to both deter crime and show the campus community how committed you are to making ASU a safer place.

Finally, if ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they can give their officers the appropriate training they need to effectively do their jobs. The academy spends very little time on training officers on how to deal with sexual assault reports, and the little bit of training that is retained fades exponentially with time. Allocating resources to the people who will actually be HANDLING sexual violence cases ensure cases are appropriately handled, and is more cost-effective than dealing with civil lawsuits or wasting tax payer dollars by writing a fancy “proclamation”.

No amount of squishy emails or “proclamations” sent to ASU’s students/faculty/staff can make up for the fact that behind the glossy exterior of ASUPD’s new building, new uniforms, new badges is a top-heavy Command staff completely devoid of compassion and integrity. No amount of campaigns that ASUPD “participates” in can cover up the glaring irony that exists within its “proclamation”.

Chief Pickens, you need to “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem before you can commit to supporting victims of sexual violence.

 

ASUPD’s recruiting brochure: trying to “fix” the department by throwing more staffing at the problem

As part of ASUPD’s desperate effort to “fix” the department, ASUPD has focused the majority of its time and energy on bolstering staffing; this has included hiring a recruiter, establishing an employee referral program, and also producing a recruitment video. Additionally, ASUPD also quietly produced and distributed a formal recruitment brochure filled with the same half-truths contained within the training video.

While this is certainly not groundbreaking information, it perfectly illustrates the attitude the university/Command staff has about the current problems in the PD: instead of reprimanding or removing problem employees that hurt morale and cause people to leave, we will throw more staffing at the problem and hope that it goes away.

Clearly the department has put forth more effort producing recruitment materials than it ever has actually managing people and improving the department from within.

Check out the brochure here.

Comment below with your thoughts!

 

ASU is non-compliant with the Clery Act and also Title IX!

Two major state universities in Michigan are currently under investigation by the Department of Education for alleged non-compliance with the Clery Act and also Title IX, according to a recent article from Campus Safety Magazine. The complaint states that both the University of Michigan, and Michigan State University failed to appropriately handle sexual abuse cases.

The complaints lodged against UM/MSU are very similiar to issues we raised in our recent article, ASU misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part two).  Like UM/MSU, ASU failed appropriately handle several forcible sexual offenses.  ASU failed to report a sexual assault statistic in its 2013 Clery report, and in 2011, ASUPD failed to report at least seven sexual forcible sexual offenses.

We have previously discussed the requirements ASU must follow under the Clery Act (due to their status as a university which accepts federal financial aid), but we have yet to mention how ASU may also be in violation of Title IX. Title IX is a law passed in 1972 which requires gender equity for boys and girls in every educational program that receives federal funding. It is most commonly thought of in reference to college athletic programs, but it has a wide range of applicability, including sexual harassment and sexual violence.

According to an article on Title IX from Campus Safety Magazine:

  • Sexual violence is viewed under the law as an extreme form of hostile environment/sexual harassment and must be addressed. When an institution “knows or reasonably should know” about a hostile environment, they are required “to take immediate action to eliminate the harassment, prevent its recurrence and address its effects.” Institutions must adopt and publicize policies as well as designate at least one Title IX coordinator to respond to their obligations under the law.

In 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights began an initiative to require greater compliance for schools to adhere to Title IX, which included sending a letter to applicable institutions outlining the requirements. Under the requirements, ASU’s Title IX coordinator is required to communicate regularly with the school’s law enforcement unit investigating cases (ASUPD) and provide them with information regarding Title IX’s requirements. How can ASUPD refer cases to the Title IX coordinator when the department reclassifies or omits sexual offense cases from its Clery report? In addition to this, ASU’s Title IX coordinator has been accused of failing to investigate claims of sexual harassment, making the purpose of having a Title IX coordinator effectively useless.

By failing to comply with Title IX, ASU is at risk of losing its federal funding, and some cases may also be referred to the Department of Justice for litigation (this is in additional to the financial penalties the university may suffer from failing to comply with the Clery Act requirements). The student group Sun Devils Against Sexual Assault is currently in the process of filing a complaint with the Department of Education over ASU’s non-compliance with Title IX (which will hopefully incorporate ASUPD’s non-compliance with its Clery Act reporting.

 

ASUPD’s firearms training is far from “professional”

In the past, we’ve briefly mentioned some issues surrounding ASUPD’s firearms training unit, and its professional standards (we are discussing the unit as a whole). The problems surrounding firearms training at ASUPD have been already extensively documented within the department, through both formal and informal complaints. Unfortunately, the issues at hand have yet to be even broached within the department, and are still ongoing.

This list is by no means conclusive, but touches on the major issues department personnel have with ASUPD’s firearms training.

  1. ASUPD’s line-level officers must utilize an outdoor range, while ASUPD’s firearms instructors are allowed to utilize Tempe PD’s indoor range.
    • This is self-explanatory. Line-level officers have to suffer through 110+ degree weather and no shade to qualify, while the firearms instructors (and occasionally, an officer tight with the firearms crew) use Tempe PD’s indoor, air conditioned range.
  2. ASUPD’s outdoor range has no restroom facilities, no access to water or shade. 
    • The outdoor range in the summer time is like being in hell. It’s dirty, very hot, and very dry. Have to use the restroom? Hope using the open desert as your toilet is acceptable. One officer previously filed a complaint with OSHA regarding the lack of bathroom facilities. Did we mention the broken glass and garbage scattered around the range as well?desert
  3. The range is a very long commute for nearly all of ASUPD’s officers…and that commute doesn’t come with reimbursement for mileage (most officers use their POV).
  4. ASUPD’s officers aren’t provided ammo for practice before qualification.
    • Officers already don’t make very much, but having them bear the additional burden of paying for their own ammo to practice is ludicrous. Tempe PD’s officers make more than ASUPDs’, AND they still receive a box of ammo for training purposes per month.
  5. Some members of the firearms staff create a hostile training environment on the range.
    • While handling a firearm, the last thing an officer needs to be concerned about is being treated like a scolded child. Even in emails sent out to members of the department, some of the firearms staff come across as condescending and rude. Qualification is already stressful enough–you shouldn’t be assing up your employees BEFORE they even get to the range.
  6. The firearms training unit is similiar to a fraternity!
    • It is essentially a “good ole boy’s club”, and if you are not part of it, you are treated like an outsider. The mission and focus should be on making sure all your officers can successfully qualify, reinforcing good habits, emphasizing marksmanship…ie, TRAINING! The mark of a good instructor is measured by the officers that succeed.hay

ASUPD Firearms Frolic

These pictures are NOT indicative of a “professional” firearms unit, and convey how serious some of the instructors take their jobs.