Monthly Archives: December 2013

Conflicts of interest in the university, and how they are impeding ASUPD’s ability to function!

Conflicts of interest within ASUPD (and also ASU) have been briefly mentioned in previous posts, usually how these conflicts of interest impact the integrity of the FTO program. We wanted to expand upon this idea, and illustrate how these conflicts of interest have violated ASU policy, and have subsequently lead to more problems for ASUPD in the long run.

First, when we discuss conflicts of interest in terms of this post, what are we referring to? Usually, its nepotism, which is the unfair practice of giving jobs and other favors to relatives. According to ASU SPP 205, ASU’s policy in regards to nepotism states:


However, no employee of the university may hire, review, supervise, direct, discipline, promote, influence, or participate in decisions involving hire, retention, supervision, promotion, evaluation, or compensation of a relative or member of the employee’s established household (also referred to as “relative” in this policy).

Let’s now address some real-life ASUPD examples of nepotism, and how ASUPD has failed its employees.

Several years ago, Sergeant Phil Osborne appointed his then-Corporal wife Pam Osborne to be an FTO coordinator. Needless to say, if you are working as a rookie officer and you have complaints about how Pam Osborne treats you, your next move is to report it to her husband, Phil. How is that not a conflict of interest?

This same issue has also arisen in the current FTO program, with Sergeant Larry Fuchtman supervising his FTO wife Katie Fuchtman. Larry, also filling the role of bicycle Sgt, recently handpicked his wife to be a bicycle instructor.

Similarly, then-Assistant Chief Allen Clark had his wife Dena Clark working as the PD’s HR person. If anyone had complaints about how her husband treated his employees (this is the same man with several sexual harassment complaints against him), how many employees would be dissuaded from lodging a complaint against HR’s husband? Also, what motivation would Dena Clark have to properly initiate HR precessings against her husband? Most importantly, WHY did ASU’s HR allow such a gross conflict of interest (such as Alan/Dena Clark) to exist for several years unchecked?! This implicates negligent hiring and supervision practices on behalf of head of ASU’s HR,  Kevin Salcido.

Even worse yet…if you have a problem with any of these husband and wife teams, the chain of command would dictate that one should attempt to address their issues with the next highest level supervisor. At ASU, chances are the next highest level supervisor will be personal friends with the person you have a grievance with, so any legitimate complaint one may have gets thrown out the window (as a side note, all these “friends” approve each others’ time sheets, which would explain why nearly all of them are able to get away with “time theft”).

The icing on the cake has to be if an employee, fearing retaliation from his/her supervisor, decides to call ASU’s Hotline for Ethics and Compliance  (which allows an employee to file an anonymous complaint against the university). Mr. Morgan Olsen, also known as Chief Pickens’ boss, ultimately oversees this Ethics Hotline. Olsen, however, recently told an ASUPD employee who came to him with legtimate concerns that he doesn’t have respect for people that make complaints anonymously, and doesn’t taken anonymous complaints seriously. Wow.

ASU’s systems for checks and balances against nepotism–and subsequently the ability of an employee to voice concerns about the department free from retaliation–are nonexistent, and have allowed ASUPD’s problems to fester. In turn, this has created a negative work environment (because employees feel there is no appropriate avenue to have their concerns addressed) and ultimately a mass exodus from ASUPD.

Chief’s Advisory Board Meeting Minutes from 2009 shows the PD dealing with the same problems as it currently is!


Check out these meeting minutes from the Chief’s Advisory Board from 2009; notice how several issues the department is currently struggling with–officer pay, not having proper equipment,  training, IAs–are being discussed. Chief Pickens also gave nearly the same exact spiel about wanting to discuss the frequency of meetings, talking about how IAs are essential for people to learn from their mistakes, and urging anyone with issues to address him specifically.

Mtg Notes 3-11-09 bulleted

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ASUPD acquires new scheduling software to fix staffing problems; meanwhile, the PD continues to fall apart!

In light of all the negative issues that have been brought to Chief Pickens’ attention–poor morale, mismanagement–he has decided to ignore the input in order to focus his efforts on implementing a new staff software!!


ASU Police Department chooses ScheduleAnywhere employee scheduling software to improve scheduling efficiency.

Atlas Business Solutions, Inc. announced today that Arizona State University (ASU) is now using ScheduleAnywhere to improve and streamline its staff scheduling process. The campus police department chose ScheduleAnywhere as its officer scheduling software solution to improve the coordination and communication of shift schedules and improve operations. ScheduleAnywhere allows the ASU Police Department to continue its commitment to maintaining a safe and secure environment to live, work, study, and conduct research.

“We’re pleased to have the ASU Police Department join the growing number of law enforcement departments using ScheduleAnywhere,” said Jon Forknell, Vice President and General Manager of Atlas Business Solutions. “ASU is a flagship department that’s accredited by the Commission of Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and we couldn’t be prouder of our selection.”

The ASU Police Department completed the transition from Microsoft Excel to ScheduleAnywhere about a month ago. With a staff of over 100 officers, the police department had a difficult time managing staff schedules and keeping track of availability. With ScheduleAnywhere staff scheduling software:

  • Updates to schedules are real-time and shared across the department.
  • Reporting and tracking vacations, time-off requests and availability is simple.
  • Existing staff can be better utilized.
  • Officers can access schedules online anywhere, anytime.

Another reason ASU chose to implement ScheduleAnywhere is because of its enterprise-wide visibility. Enterprise-wide visibility plays a vital role in larger organizations, where multiple people need real-time access to schedule information. In addition to regular staffing, ScheduleAnywhere is used to schedule security for all campus events, such as football games, parades, or ceremonies.

So apparently the department has had a difficult time managing schedule because they have SO many officers. REALLY!? I doubt there are even 100 sworn left in the department; when command staff is excluded, the number of people actually working the street is frighteningly low. How in the HELL will this “improve operations”? Chief, you don’t need a computer program to tell you what you already know…that the department is ridiculously understaffed, and no amount of computer wizardry will change that. Here’s a hint: START LISTENING TO WHAT YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE SAYING, INSTEAD OF SINKING MORE $$ INTO A COMPUTER PROGRAM YOU BELIEVE WILL SAVE YOUR DEPARTMENT!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The legal liabilities of ASUPD’s FTO program

Many comments have been made regarding the status of ASUPD’s FTO program–how it has been used as a tool to weed people out of the department, how different FTOs have different standards for each respective trainee–but none have discussed how poorly running an FTO program can have significant legal ramifications for ASUPD, as well as ASU.

The following excerpts were cited from J. Parkinson’s “The Cost of Inadequate Training“:

Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 1983 Claims states that all allegations of civil rights violations against the police are brought in Federal Court (Daane, D.M. and J.E. Hendricks, 1991).Section 1983 provides a remedy for the violation of an individual’s federally protected rights.

In order to file a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under the color of state law, their conduct deprived the plaintiff of their rights secured by the Constitution, the training the officer received (regarding the injury suffered by the plaintiff) was inadequate, the inadequate training led to the injury, and there was deliberate indifference on the part of the municipality.  The Court ruled in Monell (1978) that a municipality could be sued if the plaintiff could prove the defendant violated their rights because the municipality failed to adequately train the defendant.  The Court ruled that liability for failure to train has to follow the strict standard of deliberate indifference.  The requirements to prove deliberate indifference include:  plaintiff must prove the municipality knew the officer would have to deal with the situation, there was training available that would have made the outcome of the situation different, and the municipality chose to not provide the officer with such training (McNamara, 2006).

Supervisors are also able to be held liable for an officer’s actions under Section 1983.  There are three elements, the court identified in Shaw v. Stroud (4th Cir. 1994), that must be present.  They are:

(1) that a supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed ‘a pervasive and unreasonable risk’ of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor’s response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show ‘deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices,’ and (3) that there was an ‘affirmative causal link’ between the supervisor’s inaction and the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.”

            It is not good enough to say a police department is properly trained, there has to be clear documentation that includes when the training was held, which officers attended, who was the instructor, and what material was covered (Dahlinger, 2001).  Documentation must be organized in a clear, concise manner so if an officer becomes a defendant in a failure to train lawsuit, or any other type, the training records can be submitted as evidence of training. Basically, if it is not documented, then it didn’t happen.   McNamara (2006, p.3) stated:  “Taking this proactive step will help reduce department liability by showing an ongoing commitment to proper training.”

  • Therefore, ASU’s piecemeal FTO program could cause the department to be held legally liable under U.S.C 1983 if they can articulate the officer was NOT adequately trained. Considering the fact that the FTO program has previously allowed FTOs and an FTO Supervisor to train rookie officers when they THEMSELVES were not certified to be field training officers, we believe this to be grounds for a pretty significant civil lawsuit against the department.
  • Additionally, an FTO Sergeant (ie, the “Supervisor” of the FTO program) could also be held legally liable by allowing non-certified FTOs to train rookies, and failing to intervene when there were allegations of wrongdoings by an FTO (ie, “tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices”), Therefore, a certain FTO Sergeant who allowed several of her FTOs to terrorize a slew of rookies could be held legally liable in civil court.
  • Finally, as stated in this article, training records can be submitted as evidence of training…so what happens when those training records are altered from their original state to “prove” that a rookier officer isn’t qualified to pass field training? Beyond the possibility of a civil suit on behalf of a potential victim and the rookie themselves, this is a blatantly criminal act which has occurred several times at ASUPD.

The most disturbing part about the legal liability incurred as a result of ASUPD’s FTO program? Several members of Command staff, including the Chief have known about the situation at hand. Granted, these people have been removed from the FTO program, but they have all received NO punishment, and their actions have created a legal liability for the department that may linger for a long time.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Our response to the Chief’s Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

We broke down the meeting minutes piece by piece to share our thoughts on the topic. We could have discussed this document in even greater depth, but we decided to make it (somewhat) concise.

1.       The Chief instructed his advisory board he wanted to keep the discussion “positive”.  How do you have a constructive discussion about the departments’ problems in a “positive” way? Where do you go if the information isn’t positive? The Integrity Report on the ASU Police Department blog? The advisory board was assembled to fix the negativity Chief’s inactions and inattention have fostered, so the underlying purpose of the board will inherently be negative, even if the discussion itself is “positive”.

2.       Make new employees feel welcome? Absolutely, always do. The people discussed in the blog, (the people Chief has protected for years), those are the people making new and old employees feel unwelcome and alienated. They have brought this organization to crisis mode, and that will continue to happen despite the number of fresh bodies you bring through the door for them to devour.

 3.       The community gives positive feedback on what we do here…that’s great. There is no correlation between a positive rating by the community and how happy/ appreciated your employees are.  It simply means we won’t compromise what we do for others, compromise our ethics and integrity simply because we get treated like garbage from our department.

 4.       In regards to your community feedback: we love our community, but they don’t know squat about policing and quite frankly, they would be appalled if they knew how ASUPD treated its employees. Of course any feedback the community would give wouldn’t address major issues like staffing and retention, namely because the public has no idea this is transpiring! If the community could see Chief’s track records from his former agencies, they wouldn’t view the department in the same positive light.

 5.       Chief has placed a lot of urgency in this meeting on greeting new employees, making the testing process more expedient, referrals, posting vacancies… everything but addressing the people who put him in the current staffing situation. Your commanders and some of your sergeants created this exodus of new employees’ year after year right under your indifferent, inattentive nose.  The only reason why Chief is “concerned” now is because it has become so obvious he can’t hide it from his superiors any longer.

 6.       For the Police Officer Recruiter position, it has yet to be filled. You are asking for higher criteria in this position than most of the ones at the police department, but with a fraction of the pay.  Nobody wants to be honest with the Chief unless it’s anonymous. Even still, Chief denies these issues exist because acknowledging them requires a measure of accountability

 7.       How is ASUPD in the 90% salary range of surrounding agencies in the East Valley?  Did you add over inflated command staff salaries to the average? The $160,000 the Chief makes, and the $70k the Sergeants make would skew the averages of salaries assessed for this statement. Let’s see the math on this.

 8.       Incentives are for FTO are good, but this isn’t the real reason you don’t have trainers. The past FTOs have seen what the predatory supervisors have done with the people they were training, and have refused to participate in the destruction of another rookie’s career.  Until you can get a solid FTO program established, and an FTO Supervisor that won’t take their own interpretation on it, the FTO program cannot function.

 9.       A security fee to supplement our budget?  Given the current ASU enrollment of approximately 76,000 students, that would total approximately 3.8 million dollars!! This is insane! The department’s total expenditures and his budget is information limited to the Chief and a few members of command staff. Does anyone but the chief know what’s in the budget or where the money is going? Does anyone know how much money is in the ASUPD budget so we can compare it to other university departments who publish what their budget is? Why the secrecy? This is a public university funded with public tax dollars!

 10.   The suggestion made by Cpl. Khalid on doing ride-alongs with an FTO is ridiculous. Focus your attention and efforts on retaining your CURRENT employees. Besides, having a prospective employee witness first-hand how ASUPD treats its employees will drive them away.  However, the suggestion to look at how other departments are doing things is a good valid suggestion that will be ignored like the rest of the good ideas suggested by the advisory board.

 11.   On the “gossiping” issue: people talk in private because they see what happens to people when they talk openly about issues. If things are jacked up and employee complaints have been continually ignored then people are going to talk about it. If you are not happy with people talking about it then do something to fix the problem they are talking about!  Unfortunately, a clique does run the department in the form of most of the commanders and a number of senior sergeants.

 12.   On the “Internal Affair Investigation Retention Program”:  Your one and a half year of data leaves out the years of pattern IA’s that prove the point everyone already knows. How about an audit from the time the chief started until now? Look at the IA post cited here on the blog. Quite a different picture than the one being painted at the advisory board.

 13.    If a person was subject to so many IA’s why would the chief want to keep them in the PD? Because the chief has always needed people on the ground to continue doing the job making him look good . If you put enough internal generated IA’s in officer’s files you can keep good people from leaving.  Other agencies hear the word “IA” and think about serious allegations of wrong doing; ASUPD’s “IAs” amount to silly nonsense that almost every other PD wouldn’t have the time or energy to investigate.

 14.    If the chief is complaining about not hearing about what’s going on, about the communication lines not reaching him, about people not speaking,  up he only has to look here on the blog and read. It won’t get any more open and honest than here. Sure there are some snarky comments on occasion, but the everything asserted here is valid information this. The next chief can use this information to make this place a real good place to work!

 15.   Since you’ve been made aware of these problems, address them chief! It’s  been two months and counting and the only thing done you’ve accomplished is speeding up requisitions for equipment and attempting to get more bodies in the door? You still haven’t address the REASON why people are leaving!

 16.    You have plenty of employees making six figures who should be offering you suggestions to fix the department, but instead you only get one with a plan: a civilian police aide making  $30,000 a year. He has taken the time, done the research, planning, and implementing solutions the rest of your overpaid command staff can’t be bothered to do, or doesn’t have the mental capacity to do.

 17.   Party Patrol and Tempe Bike positions are highly political, and ASUPD’s solution is to loan them a few officers while secretly relying on Tempe PD’s officers to solve ASUPD’s staffing shortage. Tempe PD should NOT be a crutch to solve ASUPD’s problems!! When shit hits the fan, we all know Tempe PD, Phoenix PD (Downtown), and Mesa/Gilbert PD (Poly) will be the ones saving ASUPD’s ass.

 18.   The only additional training ASUPD’s officers is by MS Powerpoint and Blackboard. We need the outside police training because we can’t do it ourselves, it obviously isn’t working. We need active shooter training too! WE GET NONE!!

 19.    There is no uniformity in employee evaluations. Sergeants send up evaluations and frequently get them marked down to lower numbers by people who have never worked with the employee. The criteria for higher ratings changes from one supervisor to the next.  How about having employees do evaluations of their supervisors to stay ahead of issues before they get out of control and affect more employees?

 20.   Promotions are not taken seriously when everyone at the department sees you pass over more qualified candidates’ process after process. The notes from the advisory board clearly state this problem:  “a six year ASU officer will be promoted over a 30 year officer from another agency”. There is no incentive to stay.

 21.   Morale doesn’t exist. The ASUPD reviews, this blog, the chief’s advisory board all make this alarmingly clear, but ASUPD command ignores it all calling it, “…a few disgruntled people.”

 22.   You want honest assessments? Ask past employees,  pay them to do an assessment so you can see the shocking reality of how awful ASUPD treats their employees. Otherwise, stand at attention and wait for the blog to report.

 23.   The report has just too few pages to get the ball moving down field. The thing is, it doesn’t matter how many pages are filled with solid answers to problems when the chief hears them and STILL does nothing.  If the chief and his command are unable to put things in motion while the department falls apart it is time to find fresh new employees that can. The troops will be sure to give them warm welcomes and make them feel at home because they would provide hope that ASUPD could be a better place to work at.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Call to Arms

We’ve had a lot of folks contact us privately in regards to speaking out against ASUPD, even in an anonymous setting. We understand the apprehension in putting yourselves out there, even if it IS anonymously…but here is some food for thought:

Are you wondering if you should speak out, complain, or have you decided not to? As an officer you swore an oath before God to serve and protect the citizens of the State of Arizona, be them students, faculty, staff, the public, or your brothers/sisters in blue. How are you serving them by allowing the people responsible for their lack of safety a free pass by continuing in your silence despite what you know (what we ALL collectively discuss with our friends/coworkers)…namely things the public could never know about how dysfunctional the ASU Police department is?

If you are silent then you are part of the problem. You share the negligence, and you share in the responsibility if something bad happens through your inaction. You stood by, passing the buck, knowing of wrongs that led to a tragedy and did nothing. Do you want that on your conscience? By talking about these issues we are trying to change the department so that it can finally start fulfilling its mission instead of cutting all corners. You fight for truth and resolution or you quit and turn the cheek joining company with self-promoting deceivers; there’s no fence, none at all.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chief’s Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the Chief’s Advisory board; what issues are being addressed with the Chief, and what steps command staff has taken to pull back its department from the brink of disaster.

Attached are the Chief’s Advisory Board meeting minutes from 10/17/13. We’re posting this primarily so the public can see that ASUPD’s employees have made EVERY effort to address the department’s problems with the Chief directly, and even posed possible solutions to each problem individually. Pickens STILL has yet to take ANY action to wrangle the department’s problems (despite the fact this meeting was TWO MONTHS AGO), and he has now actually removed himself from his own advisory board!!

Nearly everything stated on the Chief’s behalf is a half-truth: the clicks DO run the department; you’re NOT being personally attacked by the blog, Chief (you are professionally though!); you have NOT fixed the requisition process; you do NOT have magical ideas that will benefit the department that are so secret none of us can know; and the idea that you’re unaware of the problem, Chief, and thus you can’t address the issues at hand.

EVERY issue discussed in the advisory board meeting has been also mentioned on The Integrity Report in one form or another, (with the primary difference being the person discussing the problems/solutions in the advisory board is much more articulate and concise than we are). We count ourselves among the masses of people that have attempted to make you aware of the problems in YOUR department, Chief, but you still deny there are massive problems in the PD.

Chief, in your own words: “the communication lines are open”…you actually have to pick up the phone, though.

Chief Advisory Board Minutes of Meeting

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Active shooters on the rise; police must change their response strategies

Interesting read from CNN; discusses how active shooter situations are on the rise and police must be prepared to deal with these type of situations.

Philadelphia (CNN) — Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that it has become clear new strategies are needed to deal with how police respond to “active shooter” situations — those in which someone with a gun is still on the scene and firing at victims.

 Shootings like last month’s at the Washington Navy Yard have tripled in recent years, Holder told the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, and there have been 12 already this year. And he said such shootings have become more deadly — a 150% increase in the number of people killed over the past four years.

 “Although research methods and results vary, it’s become clear that new strategies — and aggressive national response protocols — must be employed to stop shooters in their tracks,” Holder told the police chiefs.

 In the Navy Yard shooting, the police response time was considered extremely fast. D.C. Metro Police Chief Kathy Lanier said her officers were on the scene in seven minutes, which is about half the national average response time.

 But still, 12 people were killed.

 Experts say that despite a quick response time, the first officers on the scene often must wait until more highly trained special weapons and tactics teams arrive, and in the interim lives could be lost.

 Holder said that years of analysis reinforces the need for “an immediate, aggressive response to active shooters. In order to prevent additional casualties, it is often patrol officers — not necessarily SWAT teams — who serve as the tip of the spear in responding to these incidents.”

 Security consultant Chris Grollnek describes current tactics as, “Respond once your backup arrives, and use a contact-cover approach so you are not on a suicide mission.”

 Holder said that police don’t always have the luxury to take the time to get their best-trained, best-equipped officers to the scene.

 “To save lives, the first officers to arrive must sometimes be the ones to directly engage an active shooter,” Holder said. “That’s why all law enforcement officers must have the best equipment and most up-to-date training to confront these situations. We owe these officers nothing less.”

Grollnek focuses on training regular people how to protect themselves before police arrive at the scene. He says people who work in places where a shooting could happen could use some training, too.

 “Get up and move — do not become a victim, don’t be a stationary target,” he said. “React by escaping the target.”

 Holder said the Justice Department has partnered with groups like the IACP to train more than 50,000 front-line officers, more than 7,000 on-scene commanders and more than 3,000 local, state and federal agency heads on how to respond to active shooter situations. And it has joined with other federal agencies, local partners and outside experts to develop guidance for schools, churches, colleges, universities and private citizens on how to prepare for such incidents.

 Holder also said that the Justice Department has placed an increased emphasis on evaluating threats with the goal of disrupting potential shootings and other violent attacks. The FBI’s Behavioral Threat Assessment Center has successfully disrupted hundreds of potential shootings –including 150 this year –Holder said.

 While Holder pointed to partnerships with the IACG in active shooter response and prevention, there is disagreement on other issues: IACG President Craig Steckler, retired chief of police in Fremont, California, said in his introduction of Holder that the group’s membership “profoundly disagrees” with the Justice Department’s decision not to challenge laws legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington state and not taking a stand against legalizing marijuana in California, as that state’s Proposition 19 would do.

 “This decision by the U.S. Department of Justice, in our view, will open the floodgates for those who want to legalize marijuana throughout the country, those who have the resources to place initiatives and referendums on state ballots and those who’ve continued to profit from the sale of this unlawful drug,” Steckler said to applause.

Holder said the Department of Justice and law enforcement agencies need “marriage counseling” in dealing with some issues.

According to the Attorney General, line-level officers must have “the best equipment and most up-to-date training” to deal with an active shooter. ASUPD’s officers do NOT have the best equipment (we’re lucky if we have boots or a ballistic vest that isn’t falling apart!!), and the active shooter training received OUTSIDE of the academy is nonexistent. Bearing this in mind, can ASUPD honestly claim their officers and the university are prepared to deal with an active shooter?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Are ASUPD’s problems morphing into a Penn State-sized scandal?

Before anyone asks, we are NOT asserting that Arizona State University has some sort of child sex abuse scandal in the making–ie, Pennsylvania State. We are just illustrating parallels between Penn State’s administrative nightmare (following the public revelation that the university admin KNEW what was going on, but did nothing), and Arizona State University’s current admin situation. This is an extremely long, but informative read.

In 2011, a HUGE child sex abuse scandal implicating (former) Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky broke, and with it, there were several allegations the university had knowledge of the criminal acts in question and failed to act appropriately. For the purposes of this blog, we will be focusing specifically on the inappropriate or non-action on the part of Penn State University’s administration, and how these common denominators parallel the administrative problems currently transpiring at Arizona State University.

In 1998, an 11 year old victim told his mother he showered with Sandusky. The mother contacted Penn State University Police, and a subsequent investigation begins. Detectives in the case also discovered another victim in the case who has the same story as the initial victim. The case was closed after District Attorney Ray Gricar decided the case warranted no criminal charges. The investigating Detective tells the grand jury in this case that the head of PSUPD, told him to close the inquiry.

Prior to the Grand Jury investigation of the first victims’ allegations, in 2007, the then-vice president for student affairs, Vicky Triponey, resigned. She stated she had “philosophical differences with other leadership in student affairs and at the university in general“. Several weeks later, The Wall Street Journal reported that football coach Joe Paterno wanted to discipline his football players himself, effectively having his players not be subject to the student code of conduct. Paterno also threatened (former) Penn State University president Grahm Spanier that he wanted Triponey gone, and would stop fundraising for the school unless she was fired.

In 1999, Sandusky retires from PSU, but is still allowed access to campus facilities, including the locker room.

In 2002, an assistant coach, Mike McQueary, reported seeing Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy to Paterno; Paterno subsequently reported the information to PSU athletic director, Tim Curley. 10 days later, McQueary, Curley, and Gary Schultz (PSU Vice-President of Finance, which oversees the management of PSUPD) meet to discuss the allegations. No reports are made to law enforcement, and Curley and Schultz instruct Sandusky not to bring any children from his charity to PSU’s football building. This decision was approved by PSU President Spanier.

In 2008, a Grand Jury investigation is initiated. In 2010, McQueary testifies that he reported what he believed to be sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy, and the reactions of the university administration to the situation. Curley and Schutlz denied they were informed of a sexual assault, but stated they understood the situation as “horseplay”.

In 2011, Schutlz and Curley were found to not be credible by the Grand Jury.  Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kelly released a statement, saying, “…Those officials, to whom it was reported, did not report the incident to law enforcement or any child protective agency, and their inaction likely allowed a child predator to  continue to victimize children for many more years….If we are to enforce the law and protect our citizens, and in this case our children, we cannot condone under the law the actions of those who make false statements to a grand jury, regardless of the positions they hold, particularly when they involve serious matters of great importance.”

(In 2011, Spanier resigned as PSU President and later was formally charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and endangering the welfare of children; Both Schultz and Curley were later charged with perjury, child endangerment, obstruction of justice and conspiracy ).

After this scandal broke, in 2011 PSU was investigated by The Department of Education to assess the university’s compliance with crime reported as required by the Clery Act. If federal investigators determine PSU wasn’t following protocols, PSU could face severe financial sanctions. Although the initial results of the investigation were released to PSU, the findings have not yet become available to the public.

A subsequent investigation by former FBI Director Louis Freesh stated there were several points PSU officials could have stopped Sandusky’s abusive actions, and instead, did nothing. Freesh stated, “There were more red flags here than you could count over a long period of time”.

Parallels between PSU’s scandal and ASU’s plight

While not as horrific nor as publicized at the scandals at Penn State University, Arizona State University seems to have engaged in a similiar pattern of behavior that could send it down the same perverted path carved by PSU.

Alan Clark, ASUPD’s former Assistant Chief has had MULTIPLE sexual harassment complaints lodged against him by members of ASUPD, including an investigation conducted by DPS on Clark’s behavior. Instead of taking action to prevent Clark from further engaging in sexually harassing behavior, ASUPD Chief Pickens holds on to the results of the investigation for a year, then allows Clark to retire from his AC position for another position in the university. Clark STILL has access to the police department, much like Sandusky was allowed to have access to the very locker rooms at PSU where he perpetrated his crimes.

Multiple allegations of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, records tampering, as well as hostile work environment claims committed by members of ASUPD (among others) were brought to the attention of either ASUPD command staff, and/or Chief Pickens, both in a formal and informal situation. It is so pervasive that these issues were addressed directly to Pickens at his employee Advisory Board. Even directly stating these specific issues to Pickens himself have resulted in NO ACTION; these allegations of wrongdoing have yet to be formally investigated by the department as of this writing.

In the situation at PSU, upper-level administrators were informed of the acts perpetrated by Sandusky, who elected to do nothing about the situation, as not to draw negative attention to the university. Similarly, several ASUPD employees and administrators have informed ASU’s Vice President of Finance, Morgan Olsen of the gravity of the situation that exists at ASUPD. Olsen’s eventual response (months after being informed) we postulate has little to do with caring about the concerns of his employees, and everything to do with the pressure Michael Crow, ASU’s President, has put on him to minimize negative attention to the university.

ASU’s Head of Human Resources Kevin Salcido was dispatched to investigate the merits of claims made against ASUPD by members of the department; however, it appears that Salcido has engaged in an “investigation” primarily to give the impression to those outside of the university that ASU is “taking care of the problem”. In reality, a full blown investigation would entail actually interviewing those who claim to be victims of systemic mistreatment at the hands of ASUPD. What this “investigation” has amounted to at this point is Salcido discussing some “issues” with upper-ranking members of ASUPD who have either no idea of the gravity of the situation, or know only one tiny iota of the problems the department is facing. Therefore, the seriousness with which Salcido’s office is handling this investigation has yet to be seen. Michael Crow has also been kept abreast of the situation at ASUPD by his people, but the degree to which he is informed is unknown.

Just like PSU, ASU’s upper-level administrators have been informed of the situation that is currently transpiring within ASUPD. However, here is where the stories of both Penn State and Arizona State are at a crossroads: will ASU go down the same path as PSU by letting the situation deteriorate further, only to feign ignorance when facing possible criminal charges? Or will ASU learn from the mistakes PSU made and decide to rectify the systemic failures of its police department, while there is still time?

We don’t know the answer to this question. The breadth of these problems go beyond what is happening at the PD level and are manifesting themselves into university wide problems; therefore, a significant and genuine undertaking by ASU’s administration must transpire, or else the issues discussed here will require the intervention of the state and federal government.


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CPS avoided transparency, ignored reform for years

Here’s another article regarding the plight of another grossly mismanaged state agency, CPS. While reading this article, ask yourself…do the problems CPS is experiencing sound familiar?


PHOENIX – Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery says he wants answers and hopes the completion of a Department of Public Safety investigation will lead to permanent reform and change for Child Protective Services.

“I want to go all the way down to the bottom of the cesspool that has been the source of CPS failure and find out what is going on,” said Montgomery.

Montgomery is hoping an administrative investigation will get to the source of what he calls a failing system at CPS.

The focus needs to be what’s going on with CPS from an administrative, personnel, and policy standpoint. The organizational culture and the management structure at CPS needs to be looked at because that may be the source of the true fault of the child welfare system from the beginning,” said Montgomery.

He hopes focusing on a system wide change will make sure CPS is doing what it is intended to do.

“Set up a system were there really is protection of children first and not the protection of status quo, or the protection of failed system,” said Montgomery.

A system Montgomery says has managed to avoid transparency and ignore reform for years.

“How do you have a government agency, that despite legislation telling them how they do their job, continue doing what they’ve been doing all along and are impervious to efforts of reform?” asked Montgomery.

This sounds very similiar to the situation at ASUPD: waste taxpayer money, have droves of employees quit, have a department unable to engage in police work…but ignore any efforts to try and change the situation within the agency.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,