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.
These are textbook examples of what not to do, what not to allow, and it’s the rule at ASUPD, not the exception. This is why you need capable managers for the ASU Police Department who didn’t “grow up” together at ASUPD, but came from police departments that “worked the street”. Friendships can cloud judgment, especially for people who were never required by the stresses of their job to exercise much judgment, not “working the street”.
Example: A city agency with real crime VS ASUPD security problems and occasional PD issues. This is where leadership can be found. Without leadership you won’t have integrity in management, without integrity in management you will never solve the staffing problem at ASUPD.
Does ASU management want to continue the trend of wasting millions of dollars training cops for all the other valley agencies and suffering a continual brain drain of their own PD? That’s the loser approach.
You know, I’m really doubtful ASU management above our chief cares about crime on campus. If they did our chief wouldn’t have a job. Keeping him in place, spending all our funding on people who don’t patrol, keeps crime reporting stats low. We don’t have the people to safely be proactive cops, it’s a joke.
It’s sad so many people are left in unnecessary jeopardy so a university can claim it has a low crime rate. Someone needs to get the FEDs in here to check accuracy in reporting.
People either benefit from the nepotism and support, encourage it, or like most people they try to stay clear of it, not be a victim of it. The “special friends network” is bigger than and incorporates the husband, wife network making the whole workplace a minefield.
That was mighty big of Olsen to say he doesn’t have respect for people that make complaints anonymously, and doesn’t taken anonymous complaints seriously. For the man in charge of, ASU’s Hotline for Ethics and Compliance, this says volumes about how seriously you will be taken, how seriously they take these issues, and most of all about their morality and character.
Hopefully he can prove me wrong, hopefully he answers to a higher power and has the foresight to realize this isn’t a selfish endeavor but something much more significant. The safety of 76,000 and growing students being undermined by a failed police command who have ruined the Arizona State University Police Department.
They are looking for a short term win to placate you Mr. Olsen, Mr. Crow, we suggest you check the facts yourself instead of listening to what you’re told.
If we had a chief that was worth a shit none of this would be happening, we wouldn’t have anything to talk about online because the years of problems wouldn’t have festered, guess what, too late for that.
Pamster and the asshat special friends group she is a part of only know how to play petty games with people and kill the team spirit that should be the core of this organization, instead it’s everyone for themselves.
LF has his head up his ass, can’t see problems with the program he runs until someone points it out in black and white. He’s more concerned with being able to take his Papago refresher training for bikes nobody can ride on duty because we are far from getting the staffing for it.
Don’t get me started on KF, she’s another one that has no understanding of civil rights, search and seizure, and safe protocols. Furthermore she was buying what a reasonable person, let alone an officer, would know to be stolen property on campus. Why the hell is she training people and her husband is the direct supervisor of training?!? When I saw she was the mouthpiece for the holiday party and announcing the chief bringing his ham I laughed my ass off from the irony.
Alan and Dena are another dynamic duo with direct conflicts of interest when they worked here. Alan has magically dodged so many formal sexual harassment complaints it’s amazing. How many complaints weren’t made for fear of reprisal because everyone knows how this place runs? Did anyone ever wonder why this one male seems to be getting so many complaints about the same fucking issue? Did anyone bother to wonder why more complaints weren’t happening to others, maybe there’s some validity to the claims since all department personnel passed extensive background checks? Now this clown is making sexual comments to new employees of the department he has access to but no longer works for?!? More shameful bullshit tolerated, encouraged under Pickens.
Let’s not forget D. Zimpher and his wife. She had a Sgt she reported to who reported to her husband. Furthermore let’s not forget Goikavich and her life partner Nancy, which she protected for years, and you can see her intervening on her behalf during one of the all important accreditation meetings, putting considerable influence on how to positively notice her partner who had evidence in a disaster, but who again received high praise.
Human resources here was always a forgotten duty here. What a great way to say thank you to the people sworn to protect you and everyone else with their lives when the real bad day comes. Do you want us to give you the same level of care when you really need us? It’s only fair right? We are all watching, all aware of what you do or don’t do for us, and we’re hoping you do right by us.
While you did a least quote a policy, you failed to demonstrate how the policy was violated. Everyone knows that the assignment decisions you refer to are not made at the sergeant level. As another poster previously indicated, when you post inaccurate information it impacts the credibility of everything that is posted. If this is truly about “integrity” and based on information from trained investigators, spending a little bit of time verifying the accuracy of what you post could do wonders for your integrity/credibility and may actually make someone sit up and take notice rather than disregarding this blog as irrelevant. Obtain copies of the letters associated with the assignments you discuss. Were the assignments actually made by spouses? If individuals were denied assignments based upon who they are married to, the University would have a much bigger issue to deal with than this blog. What part of the nepotism policy are you alleging has been violated? While reviewing policies take a look at ACD 401 regarding anti-harassment. Note, “Anyone who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of this policy, or who believes that this policy has been violated, should report the matter immediately to the Office of Equity and Inclusion”, not a department HR person. If it is truly more than rumors, obtain copies of any sexual harassment violations and post them here.
Do you wonder why this blog has not resulted in any concern from administration? Could it be that they know the facts and are comfortable that the facts speak for themselves? The frequent misinformation actually helps their case because they can easily discount the blog and everything in it as rumors, misinformation, and inaccuracies. Unless you want to help them, do your homework before presenting something as factual.
There may be some issues that are both current and legitimate, but burying them among twisted half-truths or misinformation that is years old is not helping them to be addressed. I dare say you are losing focus and playing right into what some would hope this blog would be.
92LR…if you can’t see how policy has been willfully violated for years at the Arizona State University Police Department you are a complete idiot/admin stooge trying to cover your cheeks because the pressure is on and you don’t like the looks you’re getting.
You can’t answer a single issue or question on here and fall back on the same old “…it’s not true if I say it isn’t so.” garbage. You sound like some punk 42 in the denial stage before they realize they really are going to jail and no amount of lies will change that. Stop denying, stop lying, stop being a self-serving scum bag politician.
Seriously 92LR, you want to deny what was said here, seriously?!? This blog and all the posts are your reality check and you’re failing it. Come on here with facts, answer the loads of questions, contribute more than bratty kid denial. Nice spin control for an amateur, you haven’t convinced me yet, work on it.
Here’s a response down to your level. Beat it krazy koolaide kid,grow up and face the facts. You made mistakes, did wrong, so I’m taking the X box. Stop staying up late, stop smoking weed, go get god damn haircut, look for job, look for a new place to stay, your mom is sick of this.
I don’t claim to be qualified to answer the questions that were asked, but since I was challenged to do so I will give it a shot.
1. How is that not a conflict of interest?
The poster quoted the nepotism policy as “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”. The poster does not explain how he went from conflict of interest to nepotism so it appears he is using the terms interchangeably. In the example given, the employee is not reporting to her spouse nor did the spouse have authority to appoint her to the FTO assignment as any sergeant can confirm. He did not hire her and a different person had the responsibility to review, supervise, direct, discipline, promote, and influence, or participate in decisions involving hire, retention, supervision, promotion, evaluation, or compensation. While it may not feel right, there is no violation of the nepotism policy in this example.
2. How many employees would be dissuaded from lodging a complaint against “HR’s husband”?
If they are intelligent enough to read the anti-harassment policy, none. The policy is clear that such complaints are to be made outside of the PD and remain confidential.
3. Also, what motivation would Dena Clark have to properly initiate HR precessings against her husband?
I’m not sure what precessings are, but if a complainant followed policy it is irrelevant because nothing is reported or initiated at the department level. Therefore the spouse has no involvement in the “precessings”.
4. 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.
Again if we are using nepotism and conflict of interest interchangeably, the several year old example did not include an employee with responsibility to hire, review, supervise, direct, discipline, promote, influence, or participate in decisions involving hire, retention, supervision, promotion, evaluation, or compensation of a relative.
Lastly, Kevin Salcido did not hire or supervise any of these people so negligence on his part is a stretch and assumes he is responsible for hiring and supervising thousands of people.
Call me an idiot all you like but I can read the policy and stepped up to the challenge to answer every single question that was posted here. Are you able to rise to the challenge to produce an ounce of hard evidence at all besides gossip and word of mouth to establish these allegations of nepotism, harassment, negligence and “time theft”? If it happened there will be records to prove it. Then you will have your smoking gun and a reason for someone to be fired. Otherwise, insult me if you wish but it doesn’t make everything you say true and it doesn’t make anything you say credible which was the original point. Good luck trying to get anyone to take you seriously, especially if you can’t handle a little constructive criticism without vulgarity and insults, and you want to blindly believe without questioning that every negative thing posted is gospel.
Having spouses and relatives supervise each other is just bad business practice, period. Regardless of whether you believe it fits the definition of nepotism, it should not happen; there is an outward appearance of a conflict of interest, regardless of whether or not that conflict exists (I believe it does).
It’s funny how all these negative commentors are latching onto this specific post, when many of the previous posts that contain the “hard evidence” which you seek were largely ignored (see the FTO budget, some of the things Pickens’ has been accused of at his previous departments, and ASU’s rising crime stats, for starters).
As for the blog not resulting in concern from admin…that is very much untrue. Crow coincidentally sent out an email to the entire university staff about reporting incidents to the ASU Compliance Hotline around the time of the indeed.com posts, Command staff fishing for information from employees, Chief stating he feels personally attacked from the blog (thats in the October meeting minutes)…that tells me they feel threatened by this blog (and employees speaking their minds) and consequently, are worried they can’t control the negative PR leak.
Thanks for at least attempting an intelligent discussion. Coincidentally, ASU also has a conflict of interest policy, ACD 204-08. While you “believe” a conflict of interest exists, you are overlooking the facts and missing the point. If and when administration happened to look at this blog (I’m using just this page as the example), they would see accusations of nepotism, conflict of interest, harassment, time theft, and negligence. If they did want to investigate, ASU policy would be the guide. One would quickly learn that in none of the examples provided were any employees directly reporting to a spouse or otherwise in violation of the nepotism policy (maybe a bad idea in your opinion, but not a policy violation and you would find similar examples all over campus). The nepotism claim could relatively easily be determined to be false. If you take a moment to read the conflict of interest policy prior to using those terms, you would find that it is has nothing at all to do with what is discussed here, so again that claim has no credibility. A quick call to the Office of Equity and Inclusion would find no PD employee guilty of harassment so there again, no credibility. Negligence by Kevin Salcido would be tough to substantiate with the alleged policy violations out the window, and holding him responsible for supervising every employee on campus is a weak assumption. The time theft claim may take the most time to investigate, but I’m guessing there are records showing who is approving timesheets. Again, the point is IF there is ANY credibility associated with this blog and IF you want admin to pay attention (by the way the hotline email goes our every year so indeed.com can’t exactly take credit for it), it could be much more effective to focus on factual information related to the here and now. It makes it much easier to discount the whole blog if in a matter of minutes one can identify so many misstatements in a single post. If you want administrators to pay serious attention rather than chalk this blog up as a bunch of misinformed whiners, give them facts not gossip and misinformation they can easily disprove. You may believe you have their attention but what has changed after all these months?
92LR, it looks like you are mildly sympathetic to the mission of the blog. If you have good information that can be revealed, helping make the department a better place, then contribute to the discussion, send an email to the person(s) running the blog.
Anyone can make jabs at what people are saying on here, just as they are making jabs at the protected bad boys, girls, of the department who ruin the workplace. If you have your eye on the prize, a much improved and effective ASUPD then contribute information, topics of concern or discussion because they are welcome.
I suspect you will contribute nothing because you cannot acknowledge the immorality, issues of integrity, concerning this issue and choose to focus on justifying it. Perhaps your positive contributions could steer this very public conversation away from the specific topics, of all the ones presented, that get your ire. We are waiting.
The poster, 92LR mentioned not going to ASUPD Human resources, department puppets, but going to the Office of Equity and Inclusion.
Ok great, let’s tell everyone what they do, “If the grievance claims unlawful discrimination, in employment, program, or activity based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, or Vietnam-era or other protected veteran status, the Grievance Clearinghouse Committee ombudsperson shall direct the grievant to the Office of Equity and Inclusion.”
How does the problems mentioned in the blog relate to these issues? They don’t. You quoted part of their mission and left out the rest. Why? Those are very narrow guidelines that allow for much more common realistic every day issues of abuse to occur. How does is it ok for wives to work under husbands if that arrangement is made a rank above them? It isn’t.
You accuse people to check their facts and provide documentation, but you seem to have some misinformation and fact checking issues in your defense of the department. You also willfully omit information when it doesn’t prove your case, which kind of makes you dishonest.
I love how an occasional clown comes out of the closet to deny, deny, deny, and when that doesn’t work diversion, excuse, diversion just like a common criminal they are no different from. Answer some of the questions on here, stop lying to me suspect 92LR. You won’t answer or disprove anything simply because you can’t. You have no foundation to speak from.
Clowns…they think they’re entertaining while they scare the hell out of kids and creep people out. When you see the corruption, double standard, enforced in our department any decent person feels the same way.
Clowns are a perfect reference because they are useless for law enforcement and everyone is laughing at their fumbling, bumbling, incompetence, cowardice, pettiness, and hypocrisy.
They were promoted far beyond their abilities simply because they were here and allowed to test. They were “tested” which is synonymous with appointed at the Arizona State University Police Department.
When asked to back up your facts, two vulgar and rude comments imply that the burden is to prove statements made here are untrue. The law enforcement community must be so proud of this mentality and lack of logic. Your blogger master says it is so, therefore it must be so. Who exactly is doing the diversion here geniuses? Thanks for proving the point about how irrelevant and unimportant your little blog is with your intelligent and thought proving responses. Next time just try na na na na na. Good luck boys, it appears you are doing a great job of convincing yourselves.
Obviously this “irrelevant and unimportant” blog has compelled you to read the article and take the time to respond…so clearly its not irrelevant. Awesome use of logic there.
Clearly you were one of the people mentioned by the article. Keep your head firmly entrenched in your ass. These issues are real, only the beneficiaries deny it. You pick one article to come out against and yet you offer no credibility, no facts, no thought, just croning on like a nag with na na na.
Your response offers no facts, nothing thought provoking, and this, “irrelevant and unimportant little blog” sure got your attention, so which one of the subjects of this feature are you?
You people believe your own mythology and just can’t see hypocrisy. Spouses shouldn’t be supervising spouses in any capacity, it doesn’t matter that someone else above them made the arrangement, it’s just plain wrong.
It’s not about what you feel, what you want, this lack of moral compass made our workplace what it is today. Wondering why nobody is there to cover shifts? Take a good look in the mirror.
Wtf K, do you have to cry on here too, channel 1 wasn’t enough? I heard the new radios have amazing clarity, will pick up every sob. Hold your head under water until you are able to contribute an intelligent opposition thought other than, “boo boo”. 92LR at least tried until intelligently punked by yurhuckleberry.
Is that really the best you can do? Like you said, “The law enforcement community must be so proud of this mentality and lack of logic.”
You had a chance to use as you said, “facts”, “logic”, “mentality, “to say something relevant”, “thought proving”, “intelligent”, but all you said was “na na na na na.” It looks like you convinced yourself.
You made a name for yourself and it isn’t a good one. You need to reinvent yourself and earn a reputation off your knees.
Being a self-serving _____ and taking advantage of inequities in the workplace, who your partners were or are, favortism, buying stolen I pads on duty, crying on the radio, heading up bogus IA’s, and contributing to ASU PD being a lousy workplace is no way do business.
Why is it so hard for you to live with standards of morality? Are you incapable of doing the right thing even though you don’t have a way from benefiting from it?
If so, what does that say about you as a person. This department could be an ideal workplace, but people like you and your husband are only looking out for yourselves, by doing so you hurt people, the organization, and ultimately yourselves.
Treat other people the way you want to be treated and you will be a much happier person, people are watching, judging, and they would respect you if you made yourself respectable.
Here we go another admin crybaby, keep screaming no it’s not true…when everyone there knows it is. Do you deny these people supervised their spouses, Yes or No? How about denying something specificly if you can’t disprove anything? How is something simply untru because you don’t have documents on a website to prove it? “Gocats”, you are the genius unable to debate, answer simple questions, address these issues.
The poster, 92LR mentioned not going to ASUPD Human resources, department puppets, but going to the Office of Equity and Inclusion.
Ok great, let’s tell everyone what they do, “If the grievance claims unlawful discrimination, in employment, program, or activity based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, or Vietnam-era or other protected veteran status, the Grievance Clearinghouse Committee ombudsperson shall direct the grievant to the Office of Equity and Inclusion.”
How does this problem relate to these issues? It doesn’t. Those are very narrow guidelines that allow for much more common realistic every day issues of abuse to occur. How does it make it ok for wives to work under husbands if that arrangement is made a rank above them? It doesn’t.
You accuse people to check their facts and provide documentation, but you seem to have some misinformation and fact checking issues in your defense of the department.
52LR, You quoted part of the mission of the Office of Equity and Inclusion and left out the rest. Why? You willfully omit information when it doesn’t prove your case, which kind of makes you dishonest and proves the point of the Integrity Report on the ASU Police Department…Thank you.
Wonderful, 92LF gets on here talking about integrity, higher standards, accuracy, and violated every principal. Oh wait you also missed the point, nice!
As a frequent reader of the blog I noticed some challenges presented in the comments section by poster 92LR. Claiming well-defined words are vague or ill-defined is a favorite tactic of those who do wrong but seek to avoid the consequences or responsibility by asserting that what is right or wrong is merely a matter of each individual’s opinion or in this case specific incidents were not referenced, therefore the blog article and everything on the blog is irrelevant, or not true. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth, and these detractors, showing up late in the game, are clearly the subjects within the article, beneficiaries of corruption.
Discussing the policies of an organization should be fairly straight forward black and white, but this is not the case at the Arizona State University Police Department. Debating ASUPD Policy is like debating the chess game you lost before you played because your opponent took half your pieces before the game started, ignored movement rules during play, and changed the rules at will to suit their playing style before the game was over. If our command operated with integrity none of this would be necessary. The leader of an organization sets the bar and Pickens has set the integrity bar low enough that anything goes above it as long as you’re the “right person”.
New employees come here expecting a professional law and order police department brotherhood. Soon after arrival disappointment sets in as they find out this is a house rules good old boy organization where *asterisks should be place next to every statement, every policy, because they are subject to change without notice or recompense. Some policy will be enforced, some not at all, depending on who you are in the organization and the whims of the supervisory chain. The detractors of the blog, while citing nothing, backing up nothing, will get on here and cry foul demanding an example, so I picked two for a comparison.
Here is a comparison of events within a relatively short time span of one another, occurring under the same command staff currently at ASUPD. One is a serious infraction because it is a violation of state criminal law, the threat of lethal force without justification against another employee, (Threatening or intimidating; classification) 13-1202A1, a class one misdemeanor. This officer is lucky the complaint wasn’t followed up with a victim in a police report, but the victim didn’t want to commit career suicide, so this whole thing quietly went away. It went away just like the embezzling of state money through an unauthorized pay increase done by a former ASUPD HR lady. Felony yes…but the punishment was retirement with no going away party. Add this one to the growing malfeasance list for the chief and the hall of shame for the department.
I’m sure these incidents were concealed from the chief’s bosses and that ASU policy, separate from ASUPD policy doesn’t look lightly on these activities, little things like death threats with a firearm in the workplace. That stuff never happens. Anywhere else this would lead to employee termination with an ASUPD officer sitting in on the proceedings in case the suspect decided to make good on the threat. In comparison the other officer’s “offense” was not an offense at all, but a training issue. One officer gets fired for a training mistake and another officer gets retained for a crime. There are many more examples, but this is the most obvious, occurring within the same time period, under the same command. Now for the details.
EXAMPLE 1: One officer (Sergeant) gets in an argument with another officer, gets upset, and threatens to shoot him in the head. This officer complains about the threat (internally) and the officer making the threat gets some time off, no fit for duty evaluation, and put back into service retaining rank. Numerous threats have been made by this officer over the years and everyone is aware of his temper, but when you have the protection of our command staff you actually have to shoot, pull the trigger, before accountability kicks in. Again workplace violence is a myth, just ignore the news.
EXAMPLE 2: Another officer “who didn’t fit in” with his squad, goes to the firearms range for officers, nothing more than a patch of desert 50 -100 miles away for most employees, no amenities for an all day/night shoot in 110 degrees. At night with no lighting a firearms range master determines this officer had his finger in the trigger guard are during firearm training drills. He’s placed on admin leave and immediately the firearms club, gang, Orr, Aston… start scratching out paper to fire this officer, asks the officer to come in from admin leave, and then Orr “range master” takes his personal firearm from him before firing him. Soon after this officer, with two children, tries to get employment at another agency and a member of the ASUPD command staff made phone calls bad mouthing this officer to the prospective agency. Previous attempts by the “firearms clique” to unhorse this officer were unsuccessful until a commander stepped in to fabricate a firing.
While this is an extreme comparison of how ASUPD command carries out selective ,discriminative enforcement on discipline, policy, and willful malfeasance there are numerous others that have compromised the integrity of the department. In particular this blog article concerns the husband and wife teams that have greatly contributed to the destruction of the Arizona State University Police Department. If you have a problem with one, you’ll have a problem with all of them, just like hicks in a small town. If you hear, “We don’t like your kind around here…” you are either at ASUPD or in the deep south.
As a police department we are trusted by the public to handle issues impartially, fairly, and without malice, but our supervisory chain can’t even do that with their own people?!? Absurd. Some people in this organization don’t have the ethics to work in this business and that’s the biggest problem facing ASUPD. We need a leader with higher standards.
The department is attempting to recover from the concealed staffing crisis, it is in offering department overtime for regular shift coverage on 11 day slots and 5 mid slots most recently, next it will fill the department with bodies, officers, aides, in an attempt to ignore all the organizational diseases by treating the symptoms. No amount of bodies coming slowly and going frequently will fix the leadership deficit, ethical quagmire, and continue making ASU an unsafe school to attend compared to other universities that value their police departments.
The poster 92LR is most likely a beneficiary of the husband and wife team nepotism. 92LR seems to be hung up on a pseudo-intellectual definition debate looking for the fine line separator that will make his cause just. Merriam-Webster defines nepotism as the unfair practice by a powerful person giving jobs and other favors to relatives, also favoritism based on kinship. In particular the poster 92LR said that every Sergeant knows that sergeants don’t pick who the FTO’s are. Somehow that makes it ok and every non Sgt. should be aware of this? Wrong.
92LR alleges Sergeants had no part in the decision making process of whether or not their wives were picked as FTO’s of new officers, this decision was made above them. So the decision making takes place in a total vacuum without their consultation? This falls under the “if you can’t prove it with documents then it didn’t happen” line of thinking. If this is the case why was the FTO Sergeant soliciting officers to be FTO’s? After all he has no say in the matter right?
Does 92LR believe this technicality to be acceptable when a higher ranked employee makes the selection for a spouse to supervise their spouse? It’s time for an ethics check here. 92LR or the witless wonder poster Gocats, probably his wife, has yet to answer these or any of the 100 plus questions on the blog. 92LR also alleges that if assignments were denied based on who people were married to the department, “would have a much bigger issue to deal with than this blog.” Really?!? Assuming the decision makers would be ignorant enough to spell it out in writing, would they really…no they wouldn’t, they would conceal the truth because it could hurt them. Even if they did spell it out who is going to hold them accountable? Other than Loftus suing them who have they ever held them accountable for anything? Can you provide any examples? No of course not.
Even though a prior poster already beat me to the punch and unmasked his deceit. 92LR mentioned not going to ASUPD Human resources and taking your grievances to the Office of Equity and Inclusion. 92LR attempted deception with lying by omission and leaving out what specific discrimination this office concerns itself with. Here is the full story, “If the grievance claims unlawful discrimination, in employment, program, or activity based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, or Vietnam-era or other protected veteran status, the Grievance Clearinghouse Committee ombudsperson shall direct the grievant to the Office of Equity and Inclusion.” These very specific issues do not relate to the problems addressed by the blog and ignored by ASUPD command to the detriment of the agency as a whole creating a black pit where morale used to be.
You assert that no violation occurs of the nepotism policy at ASUPD? Really? When a husband chooses his wife to be a bike instructor, closes the training to other employees, how is that not nepotism? Someone above him made the decision? Is that ok? The bike instructor position is a position with financial benefits outside of the university using university time, equipment, and resources. The husband had no decision making power in this appointment? I don’t have the paperwork, so it never happened is that it?
Furthermore when a husband provides his wife with the questions and appropriate answers for a promotion process oral board and she comes out on top of half a dozen more qualified, experienced candidates how is that not nepotism? What do you think about that “Gocats”? When you attempted to test for Sergeant he probably gave you all the questions for that as well. Of course there’s no written documentation for this, to “back up the facts”.
Even if there was nobody in this organization has the integrity to act on such a report, if they did the chief would put a stop to it. Posters like 92LR attempt to minimize past abuses by saying they took place years ago, but again he doesn’t get the point, which is to prove a pattern of unethical decision making by command fostering a corrupt workplace environment unfriendly to “outsiders” or people who just don’t “fit in”. EXAMPLE: How many veteran cops came here over the last five years, looked around, received the “outsider” treatment, and abruptly left taking their years of experience with them?
The ASU Police Department history of husband and wife teams:
1. D. Zimpher and K. Zimpher (Supervised his wife’s boss for years)
2. K. Goikavich and N. Techau (Supervised her partner’s bosses for years)
3. P. Osborne and P. Osborne (Supervised his wife as a FTO trainer of new officers)
4. A. Clark and D. Clark (Routinely intervened on his wife’s behalf at work)
5. L. Fuchtman and K. Fuchtman (Supervises his wife as a FTO trainer of new officers)
All of the following polices govern employees of the university, policies conveniently overlooked at ASUPD in these situations.
According to the Staff Personnel Manual (SPP) SPP 205: Nepotism, ”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).”
OR
Academic Affairs Manual ACD 515: Nepotism, “No employee of the university may hire, appoint, review, supervise, direct, promote, or participate in decisions involving hire, renewal, retention, supervision, promotion, evaluation, instruction, or compensation of a relative, or a member of the employee’s established household (referred to collectively as “relative”).”
OR
ASU Police Department Policy on Nepotism…wait, there is none, only a section that references Staff Personnel Manual (SPP) SPP 205: Nepotism
Tell me it has helped the ASUPD by having the above spouse teams, partners work under each other, in some cases supervising the boss of their spouse, defending the actions or inaction of their partners in the workplace, and turning fairness, ethics, on it’s head. Look at how Goikavich verbally prompted the Accreditation people to pay special attention to how great a job Nancy was doing in evidence. How long did Nancy last in that workplace without the protection of her partner? 5 minutes? Find me one officer who was there at the time that wouldn’t agree with this statement, “ASUPD evidence handling was a disaster for years before Tom took it over.” How many cases could have been thrown out of court over this?!?
Look at the husband and wife teams above. Tell us no conflict of interest existed. Tell us nepotism by policy and by practice subverting policy hasn’t occurred. If you want to get specific and clear up the issue I refer you to the Academic Affairs Manual (ACD), specifically ACD# 402 Amorous Relationships, applicable to all ASU employees and even more inclusive than the nepotism policy, probably created because unethical shit birds perceived a loophole in the nepotism policy and exploited it.
Tell us more misinformation or half-truths that can be easily disproved, we’re used to deception, it’s really old hat.
Do you wonder why the blog has so much department employee support, why employee after employee reads it and says, “Yeah that’s true.” Do you wonder why city officers from around the valley are asking our employees about the blog? The world is a small place, especially when it comes to law enforcement in Arizona.
The ASUPD has an infestation of unchecked immorality that has existed for years, it’s not a secret to employees. The blog represents the bug man coming for the roaches. If roaches could talk they wouldn’t like it, they would voice their objections the same way you have, looking to scurry around through cracks in a wall, technicalities in the structure, to escape and survive. We understand you.
Just because you lowered your standards of morality based on the circumstances of promotion and our department management, don’t expect other people to lower theirs. ASUPD command shouldn’t be wondering why there is a blog titled “The Integrity Report on the ASU Police Department”, they should be wondering what took so long for employees to make one. More importantly they should be looking at their decision making skills, their management techniques, and figure out a way to fix the integrity deficit there because that’s what is important. You can’t have an effective police department at ASU unless you fix the problems outlined in the blog, outlined in the not so super-secret Chief’s Advisory board, and obvious to everyone that’s on the first floor.
Nothing will change until that happens, our department will keep struggling with misdemeanor property crimes, fumbling with staffing issues, and repeating the same mistakes while organized crime sets up dangerous drug manufacturing factories right under our noses. We will lie to the press, lie to the city of Tempe, lie to the bosses at the University about our readiness, or lie to the public about our staffing, and lie about ASU dorms patrolled by us being off campus, or whatever lie fits the crisis we weren’t ready for.
In response to the issues poster 92LR took exception with from this article, keep in mind I’m no expert on policy, but here goes.
1. Correct Nepotism and the term, “conflict of interest” are two separate things! They relate to one another the way a “Peanut” relates to “Peanut butter”. A peanut isn’t a nut at all, but a legume, a bean! Furthermore there is no “butter” in the so-called “peanut butter”! So how can you use the term “nut” and “butter” when you have neither! Therefore everything in the blog is subject to doubt. You missed the point and are looking for a technical “get out of jail free card” here. Denied.
2. Your “If you are intelligent enough…” statement, weak. Intellectuals don’t talk like that, pseudo-intellectuals who puppet what they read do. You missed the point again, human resources at ASUPD, at ASU, are supposed to be there for ALL employees. ASUPD Human resources answers to the chief and consequently the wife of an assistant chief is going to protect her boyfriend/husband the same way the chief protected him by not acting on the sexual harassment investigation done by DPS against him. He didn’t act on the pile of former complaints of the same nature, for the same employee, must be nothing to them right?
3. You snidely pointed out the person writing the article wrote, “processings” instead of “proceedings” or stating “starting an investigation” OK more pseudo-intellectualism, and…you stated, “nothing is reported or initiated at the department level.” So if some guy makes unwelcome advances to a female within the department she shouldn’t report that to her sergeant or direct supervisor, just go straight to an outside source? (You’re probably right on this given past precedence at our department, filing a complaint within the department will probably end up counting against the complainant in some informal off the books way, a sudden increased scrutiny over their work performance, etc. You know the game.
4. I don’t think the heads of ASU’s HR, currently Salcido, has ever had any insight into what has been going on within the department. If they did, then shame on them for inaction, but his head is probably spinning right now. If they didn’t before they sure do now, their true intentions will be measured by how they react to what’s been done, by what happens in the future. Up until now the special needs kid, “ASUPD” has been given unsupervised access to dad’s liquor cabinet, guns, and matches. Nothing wrong there.
5. You are correct, time theft is hard to prove, you would have to compare CAD sheets in dispatch with employee time cards to see what was reported and what wasn’t. Only supervisors or an extensive Freedom of Information Act request could get this information. Again any “smoking gun” would most likely do nothing more than add to the John Pickens Malfeasance List because he wouldn’t act on any of the findings if it involved “special friends”.
To be exact in this case Nonfeasance, you can split the hairs in your response, everyone else gets it. (Malfeasance, defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, law : illegal or dishonest activity especially by a public official or a corporation.) One of the three feasances.
Nonfeasance is the failure to act where action is required, willfully or in neglect.
Misfeasance is the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice.
Malfeasance is the willful and intentional action that injures a party.
6. Last but not least it is hardly reasonable to expect even your constructive criticism to be well received when it is laced with adolescent jabs at other posters, the blog, and has a false air of superiority, while attempting to run the gauntlet citing irrelevant facts or logic and vaguely side stepping the issues of concern. Observational selection is an old way to have a discussion without really having one, deceivers do it all the time. It’s really nothing more than dodging the issues. It shows not so much by what you debated, but by what you curtly ignored and didn’t debate.
Nice. They just keep trying to twist things to fit the narrative that’s in their best interests. They are so busy looking out for number one, nothing else matters. They do misinterpret policy, ignore it, and you kicked them in the junk, the head, whichever part they were thinking with lately.
This is a good example of what everyone knows is going on, but few have the years of references, defining examples, to establish a pattern of wrongdoing. I’m glad you came forward to put this out there, nobody should be hiding from the truth, if they are they have no business being in law enforcement.
I’m impressed someone took the time to thoroughly look into the issue. I enjoyed reading the logic debunking and the peanut butter analogy. 52LF, do you have any response? Maybe you’re out of condescending comments. I would like to see it.
I’m glad somebody dug around in policy to shut these a-hats up. They keep trying to justify what is somewhat less than ethical. They are used to getting away with it, so they believe that makes it right?
Is anyone wondering why the word “corruption” comes up? Nobody really supervises our supervisors and this article has become a shining example of it.
As funny as it is that 92LR attempted to defend the department and it’s West Virginia inspired inbred family tree of employee supervision at least he tried.
The rest of the department is either in agreement (most are), doesn’t have the mental applitude for the fight, or disagrees while knowing they have no defensible position.
The nay sayers brush it off, act like the Integrity Report doesn’t bother them, but like everything else they are used to dodging the truth of the matter.
Everyone has read this and knows who 52LR is. Someone showed him how his logic and understanding of policy was in error and that’s refreshing.
This shows you should never “take someone’s word for it” around here. You need to look into things yourself. Also, just because it might be in policy doesn’t mean it’s moral or legal.
Is his mind not working right because he just found out what we all knew for years or because he’s jockeying for a commander spot in the future? Simply looking at things from another’s point of view is a better guideline than wanting to justify what you want by interpreting a law or policy to suit your present needs. The difference between being a good fair guy or a douche.
Larry, 52LR, this is a good example of someone who knows what they’re talking about. You need to pay attention, take notes.
Quite an amazing response to what should be a simple issue. When people are wrong they want to complicate the issue, hide behind a stand of tress. What you wrote is like a chainsaw cutting those trees down.
Larry, when you’re out of the bike closet, when you’re done shaving your legs with the peace sign tattoo, done color coordinating your clothes, please come up with an attempt at wittiness in your reply. Try all caps on to indicate getting T-balled in the nuts on this one.
This is a quality post, illustrating how whack some supervisors can be in determining right from wrong when there’s a potential benefit for them or a spouse. He chose to ignore half the policy he was quoting, hoping nobody would look into it. You backed a wannabee politician in a corner and beat him with a stick.
That’s a hammer that reads like an essay. Somebody did their homework. You wouldn’t think it took a number of obscure policies referring to the same issue to understand this issue, but apparently it does. Is it so hard to understand spouses shouldn’t be supervising spouses in any capacity?
Wow, 35 posts and counting on this…clearly not an issue of concern at the Arizona State University Police Department.
I can’t understand how they live with themselves, how they can’t see the difference between wrong and right. They truly can justify anything.