Monthly Archives: February 2014

Instead of dealing with crimes on campus, ASU officers are dispatched to handle “policy violations”.

As of August 1, 2013, ASU has gone tobacco free, creating a policy which has completely banned the use of tobacco on all its campuses by. The university has also rolled out a cheesy video instructing students on what to do when they encounter someone who is smoking on campus.

Interesting to note that in its “Tobacco Free FAQ”, the Office of Educational Outreach and Student Services states:

how will the policy be enforced and by whom?

ASU community members are asked to help create a tobacco-free environment using community enforcement. Community enforcement relies on individuals to educate one another about the tobacco-free policy at ASU and ask that individuals extinguish tobacco material.  If a community member is not comfortable doing so, or if an individual repeatedly violates the policy the following actions may be taken.   If a student violates the tobacco-free policy, the location and time of the violation can be reported to the  Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. If a staff member violates the policy, contact their department supervisor.  Campus police will not be responsible for citing individuals for violating this policy.

Why are ASUPD’s officers continuously dispatched to handle ASU policy violations!!? ASUPD’s administration wants to act supportive of this policy–and also the decisions of the university administration–so ASUPD’s officers are required to deal with these “policy violations”. ASUPD administration has placed its officers in a very precocious and political situation; they have absolutely no ability to enforce the policy, but are stuck having to respond to these policy-based issues. (We are not pointing the blame at ANY dispatcher for this situation, by the way!).

The message this type of behavior is sending to the university community is clear: ASUPD’s administration has put more emphasis in handling violations of ASU policy than it has actual crime. This only serves to undermine the departments’ credibility in being able to handle actual CRIME situations.


Tempe Chief Ryff is the face of ASU’s “Taskforce for Student Safety”.

Recently, a “taskforce” aimed to increase safety for students on ASU’s Tempe Campus met for the first time.

The group was originally formed in the fall of 2013, in response to an increase in the number of violent/alcohol related crimes in and around ASU’s main campus. It is comprised of the presidents of all three state universities (ASU, NAU, U of A), representatives from nearby apartment complexes, as well as Tempe Police Chief Ryff, and ASU Police Chief Pickens.

CBS 5 did a short story about the “taskforce”‘s initial meeting, complete with video footage/interviews shot on campus. Who was selected to represent ASU’s “taskforce for student safety” on ASU’s own turf? Ideally, it would have been someone from ASUPD, since their student populous is the primary focus of the meeting; however, it was Tempe PD’s Chief that spoke to the media about the dire crime situation the student population is facing (notice in one part of the video clip, Chief Ryff is holding a binder emblazoned with ASU’s logo).

According to Ryff, things like changing demographics of the student body and huge growth at ASU are factors that need to be looked at. “We have some serious issues with some catastrophic outcomes and our goal is to try to prevent that from happening again,” Ryff said.

Once again, ASUPD relies on Tempe PD to solve its crime problem, mainly because ASUPD is unable to do so as a result of inadequate staffing and training. It is embarrassing to watch this clip and see how Chief Ryff cares more about ASU’s crime problems than ASU’s own Chief does.  Chief Ryff is also intelligent enough to realize the student population of ASU is growing so fast that even if ASUPD was fully-staffed, the department would still struggle to remain on top of the situation.

This is yet another reminder of the shortcomings on behalf of Chief Pickens and his command staff. They are unable to provide any viable discussion or suggestion on the topic of student safety; they are unable to recruit and retain a viable amount of officers (thus, not solving the staffing issue); they are unable to increase the morale of the current employees; they are unable to adequately supervise/train/discipline subordinates that routinely engage in inappropriate behavior; they are unable to effectively run a police department in any capacity.

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

A note from Kevin Salcido regarding The Integrity Report

From: Kevin Salcido
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 9:53 AM
Cc: Morgan Olsen; John Pickens (Chief of Police)
Subject: Protecting Safety Sensitive Information

As a university, ASU supports freedom of expression.


As an employer, ASU respects all laws pertaining to protected employee activity.


As we are all aware, the Integrity report blog has existed for some time now as a forum for some employees to express their opinions about ASU PD operations.


Recently, a staffing schedule was posted to the blog that described manpower levels at our campuses.  This posting exceeds the bounds of free expression and protected activity because it has safety and security implications for the ASU community. 


While ASU has remained neutral in matters pertaining to the blog,  it should be understood that anyone who publicly shares or takes and posts sensitive operational information, obtained through any means , which could potentially compromise the security and safety of the ASU community can and will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. 


We have launched several programs in the ASU PD in the past few months aimed at improving officer recruitment,  morale and  retention. These programs are already showing positive results.  As always, those wishing to report legitimate concerns can do so through their chain of command, the Office of Human Resources, the Office of Equity and Inclusion or through our Hotline program.  


We should not lose sight of the fact that, personal opinions aside,  we are here to create a safe environment for our students.  Let’s work together in a professional and transparent manner to make the ASU PD a high performing law enforcement  organization.

Sent on behalf of:


Kevin Salcido

Associate Vice President/Chief Human Resource Officer

Arizona State University


There are several inaccurate statements that are presented in this email from Mr. Salcido.

  • First, ASU does not respect all laws pertaining to protected employee activity. In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), held that an employee’s interest as a citizen in making public comment needs to be balanced against the employer’s competing interest “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” This “balancing test” will weigh in favor of the employee when the speech is made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. In 2006 the Federal Circuit court ruled in Garcetti that an employee is protected only if the speech is unconnected to employment (ie, they are not speaking from their position as an officer or a teacher).
  • In October 2012, U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell ruled in Beyer v. Duncannon Borough that a former police officer’s anonymous online speech was a form of protected citizen speech because he was speaking matters of formal concern.
  • Secondly, ASUPD has policies which are overly broad and seek to curtail ANY negative comments an employee has against the department.  An example:
    • Employees of the Department shall not criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other officers or employees by speech, writing, or other expression, when such speech, writing, or other expression:

      1. is defamatory, obscene, or unlawful;

      2. tends to interfere with or to undermine the effectiveness of the Department to

      provide public services;

      3. tends to interfere with the maintenance of proper discipline;

      4. tends to adversely affect the confidence of the public in the integrity of the

      Department and/or its officers and employees;

      5. Improperly damages or impairs the reputation and efficiency of the

      Department; or

      6. is made with reckless disregard for truth.

    • (The areas highlighted in bold are considered protected speech under the aforementioned court cases)
  • Third, the security issue you claim The Integrity Report has created by posting a portion of the schedule is nonsense. We posted a schedule that had already happened and was old (save for one day). We redacted names of the employees listed out of respect for their privacy. The security issues illustrated are the ones that the department created by having an inadequate number of officers to effectively police all of ASUPD’s campuses, hands down. The only safety and security implications this has for the ASU community is showing them how understaffed and overworked ASUPD’s officers are, and how ill-equipped the department is to handle a major incident on campus. The number of officers working at ASUPD are  far BELOW the national averages for number of officers per 1,000 students on public universities/colleges, according to the Department of Justice.
  • Fourth, name the programs you created (other than the officer recruitment program) that have been improving staffing and employee morale. Giving your employees a slight pay increase (which is maybe less compared to the loss of wages from no cost of living incentives or uniform allowance) hasn’t solved the morale or retention issues; morale continues to be non-existent at ASUPD, because the officers there are STILL overworked, and underpaid. Furthermore, hiring more people does NOT equal having more staff. These people still need to complete academies, pass through ASUPD’s stellar FTO program, and actually remain in the department for a significant amount of time.
  • Fifth, no action has been taken in regard to the number of people that have come to your office, Kevin, to discuss their horrible experiences from ASUPD.  Nothing.
  • Finally, all of the PD’s employees are pretty transparent with their feelings and opinions on how they have seen ASUPD slowly fall apart since Chief Pickens has been at the helm. Why not extend your employees the same courtesy and have the same transparency yourself?

Thank you for your readership, Mr. Salcido; for a blog full of “disgruntled employees” (by your own admission), you sure appear to be giving it a significant amount of attention.

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

ASUPD’s current staffing…by the numbers!

Just how bad is ASUPD’s current staffing situation? Pretty bad.

Out of the 14 days of the schedule we posted, 7 of those days were below minimum staffing (with Saturday, 02/15/14 having only FOUR officers working. That’s only one officer PER campus!)

The green outlined boxes illustrate either days when officers are moved from their primary campus to cover another campus, or a shift filled by an overtime position.

The yellow outlined boxes illustrate days where staffing is below the minimum requirements.

It is also worth pointing out there are a significant amount of officers taking sick/comp/vacation time…perhaps due to burnout? How much longer will the Chief attempt to “fix” the staffing problem at the expensive of his employees?

All the meetings that have been transpiring on the third floor have yet to bring about any actual change to the current staffing problems. ASUPD is currently operating on a “best case scenario”; if something very serious were to happen, ASUPD wouldn’t be able to function.

Chief Pickens, you owe it to your officers and the community you “serve” to fix this problem; running your employees into the ground will only cause MORE of a staffing crisis as more people seek to leave ASUPD.


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

ASUPD continues to piggyback off Tempe PD’s hardwork!


Tempe police are targeting bicycle thieves who have been stealing bikes, mostly from students, and selling them on Craigslist or eBay to support their drug habit, according to investigators.

Police launched the operation in downtown Tempe in mid-January and it has so far resulted in the recovery of more than 30 bicycles, bike parts valued at nearly $25,000 and three arrests, said Sgt. Mike Pooley, a Tempe police spokesman.

The Tempe police operation recognizes the importance of bicycles in a college town.

Authorities say that, rather than considering bicycle theft to be a typical misdemeanor crime, officers from Tempe and Arizona State University police are investigating theft rings, serving search warrants to recover stolen bikes and seeking felony trafficking in stolen property charges against suspects.

The Tempe crackdown comes as ASU police continue to target the chronic bike-theft problem with a combination of education, enforcement and providing safer places for owners to secure their bikes, Assistant Chief Jim Hardina said.

ASU features a “bike valet” near the student union where bicycles are watched for their owners. ASU also has been encouraging bicycle registration and is adding bicycle cages, where owners can store their bicycles safely.

Bicycle theft is a classic crime of opportunity, Hardina said.

“Less than two percent of the bikes stolen are locked properly,” he said. “We tell people, park your car, ride your bike, but that doesn’t work if your bike is stolen.”

Tempe police identified the three people arrested during “Operation Bike Peddler” as Loren Henderson, 46, Jeffrey Barthold, 51 and Brian Meier, 50.

“They are stealing $1,000 bikes and selling them for $150-$200,” Pooley said. “They are using the money to buy drugs and feed their addiction.”

In addition to finding bicycles and bicycle parts, police found electronics, drug paraphernalia, prescription drugs, heroin and methamphetamine when they served search warrants, he said.

Pooley urged bicycle owners, many of whom depend upon their bicycles as their primary means of transportation, to register them on the city’s website so that it would be easier for police to match stolen bicycles with their owners.

Pooley said police realize some of the bikes that investigators have recovered are stolen, but police have not been able to return them to their rightful owners because the serial numbers are not registered.

The most expensive bicycle stolen was valued at $11,000, Pooley said. He said many of the victims have been Arizona State University students who need their bicycles to get to class or to off-campus jobs.

“It creates a hardship for them” when bicycles are stolen, Pooley said.

Firstly,  TEMPE PD was the one who cracked this bike theft ring; why is ASUPD even mentioned (other than to tout their “bike valet program”)?

Secondly, ASUPD is NOT “investigating theft rings, serving search warrants to recover stolen bikes and seeking felony trafficking in stolen property charges against suspects”. There is ONE competent Detective left in Investigations (since the only other competent Detective left for another agency) who doesn’t have the resources to do all these things himself. The other “Detective”, Jennifer Bryner spends her workday day taking long lunches/BSing with other employees, not actually doing any sort of investigative work.

This entire article is a prime example of how ASUPD attempts to piggyback off the legitimate police work done by Tempe PD.

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

ASUPD misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part One)

We have very briefly scratched the surface of issues (in previous posts here and here) regarding ASU’s compliance with the Clery Act. We’ve looked at specific cases where ASUPD allegedly violated the Clery Act, and now we’re shifting our focus from the micro to the macro level. Instead of looking on a case by case level, we are going to illustrate how ASUPD’s crime data collection/analysis are systemically flawed, which leads to a misrepresentation of its crime statistics (and also a misrepresentation of the safety of ASU’s campus).

Before we jump into the meat and potatoes of the discussion, it is important to know WHAT the Clery Act is and WHY it is so important for college/universities to follow.

We will break down this post into several sections: one, discussing Clery’s requirements; and two, how ASUPD isn’t following Clery’s requirements.

What is the Clery Act?

The Clery Act is a federal statute requiring colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to maintain and disclose campus crime statistics and security information[1].

The law is named for Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman who was raped and murdered in her campus residence hall in 1986. The backlash against unreported crimes on numerous campuses across the country led to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act.[2][3]

Why is the Clery Act so important?

Colleges and universities who receive federal financial aid programs must comply with the Clery Act. Failure to do so may result in a civil penalty from the United States Department of Education of up to $27,500 per violation, or may suspend them from participating in federal student financial aid programs.[4]

What are the requirements for colleges and universities under the Clery Act[5]?

  • Publish an annual security report by October 1st.
  • Have a public crime log accessible to the public.
  • Disclose crime statistics for incidents that occur on campus, in unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to or running through the campus and at certain non-campus facilities (remote classrooms) in seven major areas, including:
    • Criminal homicide
      • Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter
      • Negligent manslaughter
  • Sex offenses
    • Forcible
    • Non-forcible
  • Robbery
  • Aggravated assault
  • Burglary, where:
    • There is evidence of unlawful entry (trespass), which may be either forcible or not involve force.
    • Unlawful entry must be of a structure – having four walls, a roof, and a door.
    • There is evidence that the entry was made in order to commit a felony or theft.
  • Motor vehicle theft
  • Arson
  •  Schools are also required to report statistics for the following categories of arrests or referrals for campus disciplinary action (if an arrest was not made):
    • Liquor Law Violations
    • Drug Law Violations
    • Illegal Weapons Possession
  • Hate crimes must be reported by category of prejudice, including race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability. Stats are required for four additional crime categories (theft, assault, intimidation, destruction of property.
  •  Issue timely warnings about Clery Act crimes which pose a serious or ongoing threat to students and employees
  •  Devise an emergency response, notification and testing policy.
  •  Compile and report fire data to the federal government and publish an annual fire safety report
  •  Enact policies and procedures to handle reports of missing students.

*The “On-campus” requirement would include ASU’s Tempe, West, Poly, Downtown, AND Lake Havasu City campuses!*

 So the Clery Act also requires colleges/universities to disclose crimes that may not have occurred directly on campus?

Yes; the Clery Act requires colleges/universities to include crimes in their statistics that have occurred on non-campus property, and public property.

 Stay tuned for Part Two of this post, where we will dissect the parts of the Clery Act requirements that ASU is failing to do, and thus misrepresenting its crime statistics.

Thanks to our friends at Sun Devils Against Sexual Assault who are taking the initiative to file a complaint with the Department of Education against Arizona State University for their failure to comply with the Clery Act and also Title IX. Check out their site here.






Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

MCSO conducts THIRD active shooter training this year!

Interesting (albeit short) article from abc15 regarding MCSO’s officers training for school shootings; this is the THIRD active-shooter type of training MCSO has done this year!! Compare this to nonexistent active shooter training that ASUPD gives its officers!!

GLENDALE, AZ – A lot of deputies were out with their guns drawn and firing today, but fortunately it was only a training exercise designed to keep school children safe.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he wants to make sure his deputies are ready in case a school shooting were to happen here in the Valley.

Saturday’s exercise was the third this year for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

They can be scary to watch because they look and feel so real.

Deputies had their guns drawn and “victims” were lying on the ground with simulated bullet wounds as other children ran from the scene.

Today’s exercise took place at Heritage Elementary School in Glendale.

Students watching the simulation said it was a reality check.

“To think that this actually happens in schools, just think of the amount of people running for their lives,” said student Jack Acritelli.

Arpaio said that in recent years more resources have been placed into combatting school shootings.

Just last month there were 11 shootings on school campuses around the U.S.

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

Big things are on the horizon!

We’re working on a few massive projects at the moment, so pardon the slow down in posts. We’re working on a piece about the Clery Act (and how ASUPD fails to meet the minimum standards prescribed under aforementioned act) in tandem with a student organization.

We’re also in the process of inundating the PD with several requests for information.

In other words, hang on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen… it should be an interesting ride!



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

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, ASU!

When major events involving ASU affiliated students/faculty/staff happen off-campus (especially in the City of Tempe), the media frequently inquires about the university affiliation of individuals involved. When affiliation information of a victim or suspect is known, Tempe PD will release it to the media. This is a relatively common practice which is merely intended to share information, not purposefully cast ASU in a poor light.

Since this past fall, ASU has seen an increase in negative publicity tied to the off-campus actions of its students (with one media outlet dubbing ASU “a hangover school”). In an effort to curtail negative publicity, sources from Tempe PD tell us that ASU has been requesting TPD not release the university affiliation of suspects/victims. TPD already patrols ASU’s campus due to staffing shortages, wrangles its drunk students, and works its special events, but it is not enough! TPD must also bend to the whims of ASU in an attempt to boost the university’s image.

TPD continued to release the affiliation information of its suspects/victims, and showed it has enough common sense to realize the university affiliation of an individual is easy to find out via This obviously made ASU very upset, as they were furiously attempting to salvage their reputation and credibility as an academic institution; every negative mention of ASU in the media translated into a tangible amount of revenue loss to the university.

How did ASU react? According to sources from TPD, ASU is so upset that TPD continues to release information to the media that makes the university look bad, that it is considering legal action against the City of Tempe. We are not too sure what legal leg ASU has to stand on, but this is a horrible move; without TPD’s assistance, ASU and ASUPD will look like the understaffed, mismanaged, and poorly run place we all see on a daily basis.

A word of advice to Michael Crow and company: don’t bite the hand that feeds you!

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

Technical difficulties!

Sorry for the recent outages of The Integrity Report. Our hosting site, network23, has had some recent server difficulties. The problem has been fixed, and we are hitting the ground running!