Earlier today, the head of ASU’s Human Resources department (Mr. Kevin Salcido) sent this email to all of ASUPD’s employees in regard to a recent photograph posted on The Integrity Report:
To: All Members of the ASU Police Department
Recently , a law enforcement photograph of an ASU police officer, her name, her rank and a picture of her automobile (including her license plate number) was posted to the “Integrity Blog”. This action violates the expectation that was communicated on February 19, 2014 (see below).
A.R.S. §§ 39-123, 39-124, and 39-128 prohibit the release of peace officer photos in all but a limited number of circumstances. The law was passed by the Legislature to help protect and safeguard our peace officers and their families. The recent unauthorized posting of our ASU PD officer’s law enforcement photo on the blog is contrary to law and will not go unaddressed. Again, as noted below, anyone we identify who publicly shares or takes and posts sensitive operational information, obtained through any means , which could potentially compromise the security and safety of the ASU community can and will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
The large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community and their work is appreciated on a daily basis. There are multiple avenues available for raising concerns including the PD chain of command, the Office of Human Resources and the Office of Equity and Inclusion. This is a university after all and we should be able to have an open exchange of ideas. As the Chief Human Resources Officer, I am disappointed that a very small minority of employees continue to avoid these channels and have become disruptive to our mission of serving and protecting students. Those who are so unhappy here are invited to take their careers elsewhere. They will most assuredly be happier and we will not feel their loss.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation. As always, you can reach me at 5-6608 with questions or comments.
Kevin Salcido
Associate Vice President/Chief Human Resource Officer
Arizona State University
We would like to take a moment to address some of these “expectations” we failed to adhere to, as well as some points brought up in the body of this email.
The “expectations” Salcido mentions refers to an email he sent to all PD employees on February, 2014. In his email, Salcido stated that posting an old schedule to illustrate how low officer staffing levels were “exceeds the bounds of free expression and protected activity because it has safety and security implications for the ASU community”. The “safety and security implications” are only the ones the university itself created by failing to properly staff and manage a police department, period. Beyond that, old schedules are NOT listed as an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so any member of the public could request the same information we posted.
The assertion that we broke the law by posting a professionally taken photograph of an officer is ludicrous, and the sections of the Arizona Revised Statutes you cite we violated do not appear to be applicable to this situation.
ARS 39-123:
A. Nothing in this chapter requires disclosure from a personnel file by a law enforcement agency or employing state or local governmental entity of the home address or home telephone number of eligible persons.
B. The agency or governmental entity may release the information in subsection A of this section only if either:
1. The person consents in writing to the release.
2. The custodian of records of the agency or governmental entity determines that release of the information does not create a reasonable risk of physical injury to the person or the person’s immediate family or damage to the property of the person or the person’s immediate family.
C. A law enforcement agency may release a photograph of a peace officer if either:
1. The peace officer has been arrested or has been formally charged by complaint, information or indictment for a misdemeanor or a felony offense.
2. The photograph is requested by a representative of a newspaper for a specific newsworthy event unless:
(a) The peace officer is serving in an undercover capacity or is scheduled to be serving in an undercover capacity within sixty days.
(b) The release of the photograph is not in the best interest of this state after taking into consideration the privacy, confidentiality and safety of the peace officer.
(c) An order pursuant to section 28-454 is in effect.
D. This section does not prohibit the use of a peace officer’s photograph that is either:
1. Used by a law enforcement agency to assist a person who has a complaint against an officer to identify the officer.
2. Obtained from a source other than the law enforcement agency.
E. This section does not apply to a certified peace officer or code enforcement officer who is no longer employed as a peace officer or code enforcement officer by a state or local government entity.
This entire statute refers to the actions of an AGENCY, or LOCAL/STATE municipality, NOT the actions of an individual. Furthermore, the picture we published WAS NOT and WILL NOT be serving in the capacity of an undercover officer, nor was her privacy, confidentiality, or safety compromised. Sgt. Pam Osborne has several social media sites accessible to the public in which contain pictures of herself and her family (the pictures were already removed from one site after we published the initial picture), and her picture is available using the “Google” search engine, so her privacy, confidentiality, and safety were apparently not compromised by those arguably more personal pictures. The picture we released was a department sanctioned photograph which was available on the W drive to all PD employees.
Photographs of this nature are regularly used on the ASU website, which is accessible by the public.
The burden of proof is on the State to prove the release of the photograph is a privacy, confidentiality, or safety concern.
The picture of the motor vehicle we also released was taken on a public street in a public place, so we are also legally allowed to publish it. Out of professional courtesy, we did redact the license plate number.
It is ironic how Salcido addresses the issue with this photograph immediately, yet other photographs we have released which show members of the department, dressed in uniform and acting inappropriately goes on unmentioned.
ARS 39-124:
Releasing information identifying an eligible person; violations; classification; definitions
A. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases the home address or home telephone number of an eligible person with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of an eligible person or the eligible person’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.
B. Any person who is employed by a state or local government entity and who, in violation of section 39-123, knowingly releases a photograph of a peace officer with the intent to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family or cause damage to the property of a peace officer or the peace officer’s immediate family is guilty of a class 6 felony.
This is pretty simple: we did not release the photograph to hinder an investigation, cause physical injury to the officer/her family, or cause damage to the property of the officer/her family. First, there is no investigation to hinder in regard to Sgt. Osborne. Second, we would never want another officer—regardless of how deplorable of a person they are—to be injured or their property damaged. There is no text accompanying the photograph that would incite a reasonable person to commit physical injury or property damage to the officer or her family. Finally, there is no personal identifying information (address, phone number) in the photograph that would compromise the officer’s safety, period.
ARS 39-128:
Disciplinary records of public officers and employees; disclosure; exceptions
A. A public body shall maintain all records that are reasonably necessary or appropriate to maintain an accurate knowledge of disciplinary actions, including the employee responses to all disciplinary actions, involving public officers or employees of the public body. The records shall be open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article, unless inspection or disclosure of the records or information in the records is contrary to law.
B. This section does not:
1. Require disclosure of the home address, home telephone number or photograph of any person who is protected pursuant to sections 39-123 and 39-124.
2. Limit the duty of a public body or officer to make public records open to inspection and copying pursuant to this article.
What is the point of including this statute? This just says the state isn’t require to disclose a photograph if requested through a public records request.
Salcido is correct in stating that “the large majority of Police Department professionals are devoted to the safety and security of the ASU community”, however the qualifying statement of “…and their work is appreciated on a daily basis” is untrue. Who appreciates employees below the Sergeant level? Certainly not the university, who has elected to give all its officers less than a 10 cent pay raise and no cost of living increase (and also giving no pay increase to any civilian employee).
Line-level employees are also not appreciated by the members of their Command staff, who refer to them as “bees”, unleash frivolous IAs if they try to leave ASU, or are told they should work at McDonalds if they don’t like the hostile work environment.
Mr. Salcido himself has shown that he does not appreciate the work of employees at ASUPD nor care about their well-being because he has routinely failed to act upon the concerns of the 10-12+ employees who have brought serious issues to him. Salcido has flatly refused to investigate any of the alleged misconduct reported to him, instead delegating it to the very department that mishandled the issues in the first place.
It is insulting that Salcido suggest we use the PD or HR Chain of Command to address any concerns or problems, because several of us have tried to resolve issues this way with no success. There are several paper trails and digital voice recordings to back up these assertions. There is absolutely no ability to deal with these issues within any Chain of Command at ASU, because the university’s prurient interest in controlling negative press about itself ultimately prevails.
If there is such a small minority of employees causing issues, and—according to you, Mr. Salcido, these issues have no merit—then why has ASU repeatedly addressed The Integrity Report in meetings and memos? If what is being said here is limited to only a handful of employees, why acknowledge the blog and give it life?
The truth is that ASU’s dirty laundry is being aired for the world to see, and for the first time ever, ASU cannot control the negative publicity. We know ASU was accused of stifling the 1st Amendment Rights of a student who spoke against the rising cost of tuition, and we also know that ASU contacted indeed.com and had the site administrators stop people from posting negative comments about ASUPD. It is not a far stretch to assume that ASU would also want to stifle what is being said about its police department online.
However, the primary difference in the case of The Integrity Report (and what makes it such a sensitive issue among Command staff) is that it has the potential to cause many people to lose their jobs, from officers all the way up to President Michael Crow. Everyone who knew some of the issues detailed on this site yet refused to intervene is at risk of being implicated. All these issues coupled with the fact that the public and media are starting to circle like buzzards on a rotting carcass, and you have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to stifle The Integrity Report.
When that day comes where people are finally removed from their positions, in Salcido’s own words, “we will not feel their loss”.
Hahahaha, Salcido impersonating a police officer is a crime. He’s impersonating a human resources manager too poorly, trying to change clothes, and got caught with his pants down again.
This guy is the head of HR!? He sounds extremely unprofessional. No wonder there are so many issues in the university HR can’t handle.
Now let’s be clear how absurd this is. The supposed independent arbitrator of human resources for ASU is telling ASUPD employees, who explained attempts to go through the chain of command have always ended in retaliation, to go back to the people they are complaining about to get redress. His email was clumsy, unprofessional, heavily biased, and incriminating.
Furthermore he’s ignoring the litany of crimes committed by ASUPD management and threatening the blog with ARS statutes that do not apply to the blog or the post on Pam. There are many examples of ASU police officers in uniform being named all over ASU’s own public website. Additionally all ASU police employees, with the exception of Chief Pickens, are required to park in public unsecured parking with everyone else. Everyone knows where we park.
Officers here come and go in uniform, the police department, university, and school newspaper published plenty of photos of officers, so clearly a double standard exists here with this bogus safety claim. The same double standard that allows people like Pam, ASUPD command to do whatever they want without fear of discipline including crimes.
Once again Kevin Salcido ignores all the issues, violations of law brought to him and bobbleheads about a topic he knows nothing about. Salcido arbitrary decides what to enforce, to ignore, and shreds any credibility in the process. A resource, referee for employees no, a tool yes.
Who are we to expect reason from this man employed as head of human resources at ASU? When young women are being sexually assaulted or abused, targeted by predators he turned his back on their complaints, so who are we to expect him to make sound ethical decisions?
Nobody is holding their breath and nobody is intimated by your barking mouse immitation you sad little man. Squeek, squeek, squeek. It looks like the little hamster fell asleep on the wheel again, weak.
You claim three laws apply that don’t and by making the claim illegal activity occured you ignore the 100+ photos of ASUPD officers online in official university sanctioned photos. What’s it going to be?!?
What about looking into all the potential illegal activity mentioned in a previous post. Here allow me to copy paste remind you:
https://network23.org/theintegrityreport/2014/05/26/breaking-down-asupds-morale-problem-piece-by-piece/#comments
“Contrast this with issues including CRIMES of ASUPD supervisors that don’t get investigated:
A supervisor who has been investigated several times for using racial slurs (including to a black officer in training) and has received no punishment, his friends cover for him every time.
A supervisoe tases a handcuffed prisoner in custody four times with another officer present. No internal affair is done, instead a informal inquiry is done months later with no time off, administrative leave, for the employee. The “investigator” didn’t even bother to interview the officer who was there because he was told what conclusion he needed to have by the chief. (Sounds like aggravated assault, four counts.)
A supervisor who has allegedly falsified documents with no investigation or punishment into the situation despite this being common department knowledge.
A supervisor has allegedly falsified time sheets with no known investigation.
A supervisor who has taken home public documents and files (a recent Tempe PD employee was fired for this same situation).
A supervisor who has taken department-issued equipment home for personal use for months.
A former Assistant Chief who received no punishment and was allowed to retire from his position, despite the fact that the Chief had knowledge the employee had sexually harassed female employees and was being investigated by DPS. This investigation was delivered to the chief and sat on his desk for over a year allowing this employee to be eligible for rehiring by the university. When this employee “left” Chief Pickens was free to make the investigation disappear.
Another friend of the chief, a civilian employee entrusted with money, decides to give herself a pay raise. ASU human resources catches the crime, notifies Chief Pickens and the employee was allowed to retire once the money was paid back.
See a discrepancy here? We do!”
How about investigating all this shit you horse’s ass?
This is so absurd. There is no danger posed that we don’t already risk coming and going to our cars at every campus. The law stresses intent. Clearly the intent was to modify the behavior of a ASU police employee who was willfully violating Tempe city parking regulations. A sergeant should know better.
This is the head clown in charge of HR? Does he not have an admin
assistant who reads his emails before sending them out??? He sounds like an asshole unleashing his personal opinion about the situation instead of reacting to it like a person in HUMAN RESOURCES should.
“I am disappointed that a very small minority of employees continue to avoid these channels and have become disruptive to our mission of serving and protecting students. Those who are so unhappy here are invited to take their careers elsewhere. They will most assuredly be happier and we will not feel their loss.” Kevin Salcido (HR).
In light of the high-profile media attention and the official and unofficial complaints university-wide regarding the Office of Human Resources (OHR), Dr. Crow should carefully consider removing his top HR person, Kevin Salcido, so that OHR can move forward in a positive direction and start serving the ASU community.
Mr. Salcido’s alleged incompetence and personal attacks on university employees who have followed standard protocol in reporting alleged misconduct, etc., through their chain of command and/or through the university, is disconcerting and potentially a huge liability cost for the university for not “serving and protecting students” and its employees.
Mr. Salcido, “the very small minority of employees” as you state, believe if you take your career elsewhere you will most assuredly be happier and we, the majority of the ASU community, will not feel the loss.
Mr. Salcido, this post is not meant to be a personal attack on you. It is meant to convey that many in the ASU community feel that you are not fulfilling your obligatory duties as the university’s top HR person.
Since we, as taxpayers, pay your salary, and I am sure a good one at that, the return on our investment is not acceptable.
This is business, Mr. Salcido, so please do not take what is posted here as slander on your character. I am sure you are an okay person, just maybe not the best fit for a position with immense responsibilities to protect and safeguard university employees.
These egomaniacs can handle that your blog has uncovered so many skeletons in the closet of ASU PD that they are feeling the heat and worried about what’s coming next. I looked at the ARS he conveniently sites and it doesn’t remotely apply. The closet thing Sgt Osborn is endangered by is a bagel she chokes down from the public humiliation of being called out for violating law in the city of Tempe. She is clearly in violation of parking ordinance.
Kevin Salcido claims to care about the public and the ASU community (more public) but he turns his back on everyone who brings alarming issues to him whether these are students who are the victims of sexual predation or ASU employees. He’s the biggest threat to the ASU community in any official capacity.
Oh my god are you serious Salcido? You think the public doesn’t know where we are forced to park in Tempe or any other campus? None of our areas are secure and plenty of our foolish people come and go in uniform. You think they can’t see Sgt. Pam Osborne getting in and out of her illegally parked vehicle right in front of the station wearing her uniform from and to her car? Come on man.
The fact of the matter is you, the Chief, and his band of misfit administrators are collectively looking for an excuse to suppress THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION in order to continue business as usual corruption at Arizona State University. Some of us are police officers, YOU SIR ARE NOT, and some of us have the honor and integrity to call you out no matter what intimidation games you guys are playing at lately.
It upsets us greatly when those wearing the uniform do not honor the same oath we took. They took a different path contrary to the values of this profession and the ASU community you cite so regularly and turn your back on frequently. Therefore you have more in common with someone that would be in the back of our patrol cars than anyone wearing a badge. Do your damn job and stop shirking from it by being a puppet of the JP house of ill repute.
Kevin and Chief JP, we know you guys know nothing about the first amendment, this is evidence of how you are looking for that specific reach around to claim “In in the name of National Security!, the name of Safety!…in the name of the ASU Community!” Sound familiar? In the name of ________strip people of their civil liberties because we don’t like what they’re saying. Maybe you need a cease and desist letter from the ACLU and the media attention that will garner?
You don’t want the truth getting out about how the Arizona State University Police department is leaderless, unstaffed, corrupt, and broken as a result. You don’t want people to know how the university was aware of serious issues and nobody there did a single thing about them. Nobody on here is intimidated by your claims any more than they were intimidated before because your claims are full of assumptions and carry no weight. Does legal look over your emails or are you a lawyer now as well?
The county attorney’s office spends too much time face palming about the nonsense ASUPD forwards them and dismissing charges. Anything you people trump up and send them is going to get laughed out of court. Did you bother to read those statutes you are claiming apply? Those came about from the New Times posting Sheriff A’s home address you clown, not what’s on what you called, “the Integrity Blog”.
It’s called “the Integrity Report on the ASU Police Department”. If your reading comprehension skills are that poor stay out of the ARS book and leave that to professionals, adults, people who do the job.
Speaking of jobs, do you even know what your job is? As the head of human resources for the Arizona State University you send out a lot of emails that sound like you’re in charge of the ASU Police Department. Your tone, the language, what you say in your email show you have absolutely no referee type impartial character that most people would reasonably expect from someone holding your job title.
You mock the employees of the ASU Police Department, you make a mockery of your title and the university community you claim to represent. I enjoyed reading the well written and substantially deserved reply letter from a US Marine Vietnam combat vet who professionally told you what he thought of your childish disrespectful chain letter. The troops agree with him, but nobody wants to endanger their career and speak up, we have all seen the retaliation mechanism at ASUPD.
The man who dodged bullets in a combat zone has nothing to fear there, he fought for the first amendment you and the chief are looking to subvert and oppress at the “New” American University. Get your head out of the communist People’s Republic of Whatever pamphlet and read more about our national treasure, freedom. God bless America.
It’s not illegal to post a picture of a police officer, people take our photos all the time and post them online. The AZ valley news organizations publish our photos and names all the time. The Arizona State University does as well as the State Press student newspaper.
It’s not illegal to take photos of our cars parked in public. Clearly this car (SUV) was parked illegally on a public access street next to the sidewalk so the expectation of privacy is gone. The plate information is public, and the list goes on and on.
After reading the statutes it clearly targets intent. Was it the poster’s intent to cause physical harm to Pam Osborne or her property? Obviously not. Read the article. It clearly states how repeated attempts to solve the issue in house were met with failure, how this issue festered amongst staff, and then it ended up online. Sgt Osborne disobeyed direct orders because she knew she would get away with it by winking at the chief. The aim of posting her illegal parking looks like it was was to show her standard of ethics, not to cause physical harm.
The one thing that’s peculiar is how Kevin Salcido clearly reads “the blog”, has seen all the alleged crimes committed by the same people he champions, but has not done and refuses to have an outside agency investigate anything.
To add insult to injury he sends out what amounts to a teenage rant against anyone that has issues with how command is running ASUPD. They are running the department into the dirt and driving off employees as fast as we get them! What about our safety, what about having no backup on calls because they got fed up and left? Hello, Salcido, are you there?!?
More important than your heavily biased and out of line email was the real marine reply to it. I was reading through the statutes you cited. Did you actually read these or did some ASU commander who hasn’t opened a ARS book longer than two years your credible source for this pressing information?
What danger is Pam in by missing more work than she attends or doing the working from home thingy that nobody else does? She must have some serious dirt on you guys.
FYI K. Salcido, Impersonating a police officer for years does not mean you are undercover and in danger, but thank you for your written concerns for the community, can we see some of those concerns put into practice?
Your attempt to restrict people exercising their rights has the potential of bringing a media whirlwind to Arizona State University, so great, do it. The ACLU loves taking on government entities who use official channels and word smith excuses to suppress individual Americans.
The original subject of this post (Sgt Pam Osborne’s image and title being online)interested me, so I took a look at a few things. Pam’s personal vehicle was parked in public off of Apache with a ASU Police department paper mock pass stating it was OK to park there.
How this mock pass subverts Tempe city parking ordinances I don’t understand, but it clearly shows that whoever is parking there is a employee or agent of the police. In Salcido’s mind (placing them and the “ASU community in danger.)
The point has been made that no ASU Police employee has secure parking but Chief Pickens. The rest of us must park and public parking every day/night you have employees coming and going from their personal cars in uniform. Again (placing them and the “ASU community in danger)?
To make matters worse and cloud the issue more our employee Arizona State University takes our photos and posts them and our names online frequently. Again (placing them and the “ASU community in danger)?
It’s quite a hard sell there Kevin. It looks more like an attempt to scare posters into not posting, which obviously isn’t happening. The fact is everyone thinks it’s funny how the chief is furious over criticism and is trying every way to silence the dissent on the Integrity Report… He went to IT to try to find IP addresses and names, he was told what he wanted was illegal even if they had the means to provide it. He keeps looking for ways to not deal with the problem, only perpetuate it.
The chief won’t change our broken department because he’s incapable of listening to solutions to problems he still can admit this agency has. People must be leaving the agency, their comfort zone and friends ASAP simply because of a slight bump in pay? I don’t think so.
It was quite interesting to read Mr. Kevin Salcido’s email that was sent out department-wide last week. Many found Mr. Salcido’s email extremely offensive.
More interesting was the response to Mr. Salcido’s email by a member of the ASUPD.
That said, we hope that no retaliatory action will befall the member and former Marine.
Veterans’ groups have already been alerted to some of the less than acceptable interactions with former veterans at the ASUPD.
Marine, you did the right thing. On behalf of many in the ASUPD, thank you very much for your very professional and candid response to Mr. Salcido’s email. We got your six.
[…] the head of ASU’s HR (Kevin Salcido) sent a very strongly worded email to all ASUPD employees in an attempt to dissuade people from posting on The Integrity Report. We […]
Mr. Salcido, I’m afraid you know as much about the Arizona Revised Statutes as you do human resources, jack. Stick to what you do best and alienate people.
Nobody gives a shit what Kevin Salcido says or thinks, his opinion has no standing on Arizona Revised Statutes, his opinion has no standing with the police officers who enforce it. When you publicly defend someone violating a law and desire to punish the people drawing attention to a law breaker you by definition become a criminal.
I find his emails equal parts amusing and annoying. Kevin has much to learn about being a head of human resources. The word resources implies value and he doesn’t get it. If you can’t value the people who put their lives on the line for you who can you value?
In any legal issues with asu involving human resources the impartiality of Kevin Salcido is no longer in question. The university should cut their losses with him, it’s time to move on. If he’s the best they could find for the job they didn’t bother looking.
Maybe they can invent a waterboy job in Pickens’s new made up job, department, whatever it is and stick him there. Title it Supreme Supervisor over hydro science and sustainability management aka waterboy.
[…] the overwhelming amount of negative attention due to Kevin Salcido’s email to all PD employees on 06/05/14, we assumed that someone in the university administration would start to “screen” his […]