Matches for: “staffing” …

Jul 10 2014
58 Comments
General

In this edition of ASUPD’s Hunger Games: Hardina and Pickens are immediately removed from their positions!

ASU Police chiefs fired

Everyday life at ASUPD has morphed from a job that somewhat resembled a watered-down version of  law enforcement to a real life version of The Hunger Games; if one can survive the work day in the presence of low morale and arbitrary enforcement of policies/law without going insane or killing/harming themselves or another employee, they will be safe until the following days reaping. Those that don’t make it to the end of the workday are thrown to the wolves (metaphorically, of course) and become another HR statistic on a piece of paper in Kevin Salcido’s office.

In today’s edition of ASUPD’s Hunger Games, the two employees that didn’t survive the workday today were Assistant Chief James Hardina, and Chief John Pickens.

This afternoon, ASU CFO Morgan Olsen sent the following email out to all ASUPD employees:

Chief out by Friday and Thompson is in

Hardena dont let the door hit your ass on the way out

The Assistant Chief (Thompson) over admin “ascends” to the position of acting Chief instead of the AC above patrol operations…odd. There is also no mention of Hardina vacating his position AT ALL in the above email; only after Hardina was seen packing up his desk and officially left the building was patrol notified about Hardina’s departure. We speculate that Hardina was forced out of his position by someone in the university, simply because Hardina doesn’t have another job waiting for him, nor is he remotely close to retirement.

The email also mentioned that Pickens will be vacating his position as Chief by this Friday, July 11th. This is a complete 180 from the email sent to all ASUPD employees barely a month ago, which stated that Pickens would remain in his position until his successor was hired. Pickens’ “leave” was probably forced upon him by the university who will most likely allow him to “retire” quietly, instead of rewarding his bad behavior with another cushy ASU job.

Someone at ASU finally wised up to the fact that the entire ASUPD Command staff was allowed to function relatively unchecked for decades. Command staff’s strategy of punishing those who speak out against them while allowing their “battle buddies” to do whatever they please FINALLY backfired; its hard to employ that tactic when your department is beyond critical staffing levels and the FBI/news media are sniffing around your dirty laundry.

Until the department has cleaned out “Chief” Thompson and  all of his Command staff, we expect to see ASUPD’s Hunger Games played out on a daily basis.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 19 2014
26 Comments
General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 16 2014
37 Comments
General

ASU’s HR boss continues to send unprofessional emails to PD employees!

Kevin Salcido ASU head of human resources

After 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 emails. thus preventing further public embarrassment of ASU.

We were very wrong.

In response to “a concerned employee”‘s email, Salcido’s retort was less than professional, at best.Salcido reply to Cornfield

Salcido’s unprofessional (and inflammatory) response is quite evident here; however, this is not the only piece of documentation we used to formulate our opinion of Kevin Salcido’s demeanor. We also received documentation that a secondary “concerned employee” replied to Salcido’s email, and also received an extremely unprofessional response.

This very articulate email was submitted by a police employee to Salcido via email, and was subsequently forwarded to The Integrity Report.

Officer responding to ASU Head Kevin Salcido's absurd blanket email.

This email (very diplomatically) speaks about the “dismissive attitude” ASU has in regards to ASUPD’s staffing and morale problems. The employee states that the loss of ASUPD officers is felt during “serious situations”, “in the expertise they offer to facilitate proper action”, and also as “a brother or sister in arms, willing to put their lives on the line”.

Instead of using the email as opportunity to address some of these concerns, Salcido responds with the following:

ASU Head Kevin Salcido Response to officer responding to his absurd blanket email.

First and foremost, Salcido makes NO attempt to address the obvious concerns for officer safety mentioned in the second “concerned employee” email (saying that the loss of employees is felt during “serious situations” seems like a pretty clear indication that low staffing is impacting officer safety). If Salcido’s primary concern is officer safety (as he has asserted before), why does he repeatedly FAIL to address the staffing and morale issues which compromise officer safety?

Simple; it is much easier for Salcido blame another entity (in this specific case, The Integrity Report) instead of taking responsibility for the mess in HIS area of concern, ie, staffing and HR-related issues. Salcido has claimed that The Integrity Report has compromised officer safety several times. In the first instance, Salcido incorrectly cited ARS and claimed we violated the law by posting a picture of Sgt. Pam Osborne failing to follow orders of a Commander by parking illegally. DPS refused to investigate the alleged “criminal violations” and determined that ASUPD should handle the policy violation by itself.

Now, Salcido states The Integrity Report is compromising safety of university employees by inciting “malice toward [your] fellow officers and the administration of the university”, and fostering “a hatred for authority”. He also likens the discussion on the blog as being analogous to the two right-wing extremists who shot and killed two police officers in Las Vegas. Not only are these statements exceptionally incorrect, they are outrightly unprofessional and offensive.

As police officers, we have nothing but respect for law, authority, and integrity; if we did not believe in respecting any of these concepts, our willingness to sacrifice our lives would be for naught. Therefore, when we perceive that the foundation of our core beliefs for which we are willing to lay down are lives for is compromised, we have an obligation, a duty to address the issue. When numerous employees have attempted to address these issues through formal channels with NO result, the only way ASUPD employees to can address these issues is through informal channels, such as The Integrity Report. To say that we are deliberately “inciting malice” against our fellow officers and employees, or we are fostering a hatred for authority is a disgusting mischaracterization of a problem, quite frankly, ASU perpetuated.

Furthermore, comparing the blog to two individuals who killed police officers and left a Nazi swastika on one of the victim’s body is extremely disturbing. We have never suggested, mentioned, or condoned the use violence in ANY form against ANY other employee, period. Feel free, Mr. Salcido, to point out a circumstance where we have done so.

In response to the assertion there were comments on the blog suggesting Salcido be put down like a rabid dog: the original comment made by a VISITOR of the site, not the administrators, stated that Salcido “should be removed from office like a rabid dog on a playground”. Those are two completely different statements which mean two totally different things. Again, the comment was not made by the site administrators, like Salcido is alluding.

These emails illustrate a fleeting glimpse into the mind of the man who is running the HR department for THE largest public university in the United States. When the people tasked with hiring, retaining, and dealing with employees act as unprofessional and depraved as Mr. Salcido does in his emails to ASU Police employees, it is not surprising to see how ASUPD has survived so long in its present state.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 11 2014
37 Comments
General

The beginning of the end for Chief Pickens and ASUPD Command Staff

Is this the beginning of the end for ASUPD Command Staff? McD’s is still hiring.

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

Earlier today, ASUPD Chief Pickens sent out a bizarre email to the entire PD:

From: John Pickens (Chief of Police)
 Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:54 AM
 To: DL.ORG.DPS.PSD
 Subject: New Opportunity

 I wanted to make you aware of this before it is announced sometime this afternoon.

 Arizona State University Chief of Police John Pickens is pursuing a new opportunity after 14 years of service. Chief Pickens initially was hired as the Director/Chief of Police for the Department of Public Safety, Tempe Campus, after serving as Director of Public Safety at Northern Illinois University.

 “I have given much thought to what I would like to accomplish during the next phase of my life,” Pickens said. “After 14 years of service, it is time to pass the baton to someone else. It has been an honor to serve as the Chief of Police at ASU.”

 Pickens will continue to serve as ASU Police Chief while a national search is completed and until his successor is on board, noted Morgan R. Olsen, ASU’s Executive Vice President, Treasurer and CFO. He then will assume his new duties as Executive Director, University Security Initiatives. Pickens’ duties in this new role will include overseeing expansion of the university’s video security system and other emerging public safety technologies, assisting the Office of Emergency Preparedness in ensuring that ASU is positioned for effective emergency response and recovery, and leading security planning for the Sun Devil Stadium project.

 John L. Pickens
 Chief of Police
 Arizona State University
 Police Department

This email was clearly crafted by someone in ASU’s PR department, as the email is much more articulate than Pickens’ normal emails. Also, the entire email is written in third person! Either Pickens is a member of British royalty, or someone wrote the email on his behalf (we are speculating it is the latter).

Later on, the university made an “official” announcement via a digital press release. The press released detailed all of of Pickens’ vast “accomplishments” in his 14 year tenure which are pathetic and exaggerated, at best:

• All marked police vehicles have been equipped with in-car video recording systems and enhanced communications. Upgrading the vehicles to a standard nearly every other major police department across the country merits kudos for Pickens? The CIVILIANS who work on maintaining and upgrading the vehicles are the ones deserving of credit, NOT Pickens.

• Expansion of the community-based policing program by establishing internal and external partnerships and a team-building philosophy to promote higher levels of service to the university community. ASUPD’s Command Staff has VERY strained relationships with the surrounding police agencies, namely Tempe PD. TPD is forced to deal with problems that ASUPD won’t because of poor staffing. Internally, ASUPD has very few positive partnerships with members of the student population; after all, why would students be willing to trust the PD when the Command Staff has turned a blind eye to properly investigating and reporting sexual assaults?

• Establishment of the Chief’s Advisory Board to enhance communication and problem solving within the department. This is a complete lie! The Chief’s Advisory Board was resurrected in September 2013 after being defunct for approximately five years. The board came back into existence coincidentally around the time departmental discord (in the form of indeed.com and The Integrity Report) began going public. After we posted some Advisory Board meeting minutes, the Chief forbid anyone from having any hard copy notes or meeting minutes. None of the board’s suggestions were adopted, and the board met a total of three times before going defunct, again.

• Reorganization of the university’s police functions to consolidate the West, Polytechnic and Tempe campus police departments under his leadership, in accordance with the “One University in Many Places” philosophy. This amounted to changing the names of the West and Poly campus departments, and assigning a Commander to each respective campus. However, this is pointless because the Commanders at the satellite campuses are rarely there, and are usually at Tempe campus in meetings.

• The 2006 implementation of law enforcement and security services at the newly-formed ASU Downtown Phoenix campus, using a new model designed specifically to meet the unique nature of that campus. The “new model” of the campus is to assign only civilian employees to patrol it, and leave the majority of actual police work to Phoenix PD.

• Expansion of the police aide ranks, which often are used as a recruitment pool for ASU Police officers. (ASU Police officers who then leave abruptly as soon as they are able.)

• Aggressive pursuit of grants that allowed upgrading the 9-1-1 system to include police vehicle laptops and implementation of the Live-Scan fingerprint system. Other people wrote these grants, so the Chief should not take credit for it.

• Development of a new, state-of-the-art police facility on the Tempe campus, including a sophisticated Emergency Operations Center. ASUPD had an extra room in its brand new facility, so they spent a lot of money on equipment to convert it into an EOC. It has never been used.

• Four successful reaccreditations through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, including the department’s 2008 reaccreditation as a “Flagship Agency.” Pickens had Blythe do all the work of fixing ASUPD enough for it to be accredited by CALEA; Pickens doesn’t deserve any credit. Furthermore, we would be surprised if ASUPD gets accredited by CALEA this year, given the current situation in the department.

• Reduction of the department’s carbon footprint by adding hybrid vehicles, Segways and three-wheeled motorcycles for patrolling ASU campuses. Pickens spent money to purchase hybrid vehicles that are terrible, Segways that mostly Police Aides use, and a few three wheeled motorcycles. Since when is spending money an accomplishment?

• Legislative testimony successfully supporting the university’s ban of firearms on its campuses. Pickens’ testimony wasn’t the final nail in the coffin that upheld the university’s ban on firearms on campus, so this statement seems misleading.

Also according to the press release, Pickens will assume his new duties as “executive director of University Security Initiatives” once his replacement is settled into the PD. This new “position” Pickens is transitioning to did not exist prior to today. There was no job posting for the role of “executive director of University Security Initiatives”, nor were there any other candidates. Pickens has been very verbal about his unwillingness to leave the PD, telling multiple employees that he would “die in his chair or be dragged out”. Seeing as how he is very much alive, our deductive reasoning skills tell us that Pickens was ousted out of his position as Police Chief and, in exchange, given a cushy six-figure position that was made up specifically for him.

However, the question of “why now?” still has yet to be discovered. Perhaps ASU wants a Chief that will stop publicly embarrassing them, or wants to geniuenly solve the current staffing and moral crisis at ASUPD. Whatever the reason, removing Chief Pickens is a baby step in the right direction, and a sign that the house of cards may start falling soon.

Stand by.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jun 05 2014
20 Comments
General

Kevin Salcido addresses The Integrity Report once again

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

To: All Members of the ASU Police Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARS 39-123:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARS 39-124:

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

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

ARS 39-128:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 26 2014
46 Comments
General

Breaking down ASUPD’s morale problem, piece by piece!

Shifting gears a bit, we are going to do a series of posts breaking down ASUPD’s morale problems piece by piece. If any of you have any suggestions for topics you’d like us to cover, feel free to drop a line to firstamendmentftw@hushmail.com.

First up in this segment, we’ll be discussing one major contributor to ASUPD’s low morale, and that is the lack of uniformity/transparency in the discipline or internal affairs (IA) process.

According to ASUPD’s Policy Manual PSM 261-01: : “It is the policy of the ASU Police Department to foster a program of discipline which
defines the word ‘discipline’ as ‘training or development through instruction’. This will enable the department to retain its discretionary authority for the ‘individualized’ imposition of disciplinary action while ensuring a systematic and consistent administration of discipline to all personnel.”

Essentially, the department has stated that it will determine what, if any, discipline is appropriate in any situation. It is possible to have two officers disciplined differently for the same offense. Also, who is ensuring that discipline is systematic and consistent? The department itself? This gives the appearance of an extreme conflict of interest; one sole entity (the Command staff) cannot be the judge, jury, and executioner for an officer’s discipline process.

Now let’s address some real situations where ASUPD has failed to uniformly discipline or investigate its employees.

  • Several employees have been investigated for allegedly “scuffing” a patrol car, this becomes especially important if one of those employees is trying to lateral out of the department, despite already notifying a supervisor and writing a memo for the entire incident.
  • Some employees get investigated for minor damage vehicle accidents, others do not.
  • An employee has been investigated for allegedly denting a patrol car weeks after the incident took place, after several officers had used that vehicle in the meantime and routinely haven’t signed it out for overtime events.
  • Several employees have been investigated and received some form of punishment for failing to submit their times sheets on time.
  • Several employees were the subjects of investigation, discipline, to include time off from work, for photoshopping pictures making fun of the workplace.
  • One employee trying to leave to another agency, with no discipline in his file for 7 years, was immediately notified of two outstanding internal affairs. Another employee trying to leave to another agency was notified of four outstanding internal affairs against him by the agency he applied to prior to ASUPD notifying him of the internal affairs!

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!

One very incident in which a supervisor (Sgt. Pam Osborne) disobeyed a direct order from a supervisor is a prime example of the arbitrary nature of ASU’s discipline process (and one major contributor to low morale, which eventually leads to a higher employee turnover). Sgt. Osborne was issued a direct order from her supervisor advising her NOT to park in from of the Tempe Station (which she routinely did and continues to do).

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

After this email was sent out, Sgt. Osborne continued to park in front of the Tempe station, after explicitly being instructed NOT to. Another employee also continued to park in the PD compound ALSO after being told explicitly not to. Neither employee has received any discipline nor been involved in an investigation, despite disobeying orders from a supervisor. However, an employee WILL be investigated for submitting a time sheet late, even if the mistake was not intentional.

Lack of uniformity and transparency in discipline at ASUPD only serves to harm morale. and subsequently officer staffing! If employees don’t feel they are being treated fairly (while others act with impunity), they have ZERO motivation to promote or stay invested in ASUPD. Furthermore, circumstances such as the above mentioned just further prove that Command staff has no ability to impartially investigate its own problems. (The public visible license plate identification is blocked to protect the subject in question. Police employees do not have safe parking, but must park their vehicles in Parking Structure One or any other lot with the rest of the public. We were notified that Commander William Orr and Assistant Chief Mike Thompson both claim to CARPOOL to work and have preferential CARPOOL parking spots on the south side of Parking Structure One. They both ride to work alone and do not see or care about the integrity issue of lying to state government, ASU Parking, about carpooling, what’s next? Handicapped parking?)  The ASUPD command routinely does employee retention internal affairs for little or nothing on baseline employees, we expect them to do what they’ve done so far with these lying employees who pick and choose what rules to follow, nothing.)

Thank you for the photo submissions, this was by far the best one received. We would also like to thank the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol, for educating ASUPD’s undereducated command staff on the difference between a crime and what is at best a policy violation. This is a whistleblower on a supervisor of police officers breaking the law, Tempe municipal code. Read the sign again and obey the oath of ethics you swore to uphold. Don’t dishonor the uniform any more than you already have.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 04 2014
11 Comments
General

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

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

From abc15.com

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

An ASU alum wants to trigger a second inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 09 2014
25 Comments
General

How The Integrity Report has changed ASUPD

We have received a few emails and comments from critics of The Integrity Report who like to categorize us as a  small group of “disgruntled ASUPD employees” whose issues aren’t important or legitimate. We also know ASUPD Command Staff and university officials have a similiar perception of the blog–complaints from one or two department members who don’t represent the majority opinion of the department.

The issues discussed here are very relevant to the majority of the department, and have been previously or are currently being discussed by members of ASUPD. Also, the reaction from ASUPD Command staff and university higher-ups have in regard to the blog supports the assertion that the issues discussed here ARE relevant, because many of them have elicited a knee-jerk response on behalf of ASU. Here’s our list of changes at ASUPD brought about as a direct/indirect result of the issues discussed at The Integrity Report:

The Indeed.com Pay Raises:During the Summer of 2013, an ASUPD employee posted a negative job review on the job searching site indeed.com. Soon after, a giant discussion began to brew on indeed’s employer forums area about how miserable people were working at ASUPD (the majority of the posts were subsequently removed by indeed.com, thanks to a call from a member from Command staff to the site’s administrators). Following in the footsteps of indeed.com for The Integrity Report was created for the purpose of continuing the open discussion about ASUPD’s problems.

After the slew of negative publicity about ASUPD continued (and was not able to be stopped), ASUPD decided to give its officers a “pay update” after 5+ years of pay freezes. The timing of the pay raise was very coincidental, especially considering that employees had broached the issues of a pay raise since 2009, only to be dismissed by Chief Pickens.

Resurrection of the Chief’s Advisory Board: The Chief’s Advisory Board is a tool where a select group of people chosen by the Chief go to voice their concerns over departmental issues , in hopes of some resolution. The Board has been around for years, but essentially went defunct in 2009. However, in September of 2013–directly following the indeed.com and blog scandals–the Chief’s Advisory Board sprang back to life. Pickens’ sent out a department wide email promising to use the board to resolve issues and move the department in a positive direction. Since the advisory board has come back, it has only met a handful of times, and none of the suggestions on improving the department have been implemented (other than getting rid of the mosquito problem in Tempe 103).

ASUPD’s involvement with HR: In an effort to straighten out ASUPD’s problems (and perhaps quash the flow of information to the blog), the head of ASU’s Human Resources, Kevin Salcido, began to look into the situation at the PD. Many felt (us included) that Salcido was genuinely interested in helping the PD; he listened to the concerns of at least 10 previous and current employees and stated that he would “look into”problems that were reoccurring. However, after plainly stating he was not formally investigating anyone in the PD, it became apparent Salcido was only interested in intel gathering from these “disgruntled employees”, mentioning the blog to several employees.

Employees can’t access their email on days off, post old schedules: One of our posts (where we released an old schedule to show how dangerously low staffing levels are) prompted an email to be sent to all PD employees from Kevin Salcido. This email first discussed all the things the department is doing to turn itself around (none of which have made a positive impact), and went on to state that posting an old schedule was a “security” concern and could result in termination. Shortly after this email, another email was sent to department employees forbidding them from accessing their email on their days off.

ASUPD tried several tactics to bolster staffing numbers: Following the slew of posts made about ASU’s low staffing numbers, as well as the discussion in the Chief’s Advisory Board, ASU posted a job opening for a PD recruiter position on indeed.com, as well as started an employee referral program., and created a recruiting video and brochure.

ASUPD kicked off it’s “2014 Apology Tour”: Chief Pickens held mandatory meetings at each of the satellite campuses in his first even “Apology Tour”. He felt the need to tell all of his supposed disgruntled employees personally how hard he was working to improve the department, and how much he cares about each of his employees in an effort to preserve his job. Prior to the blog, Pickens would rarely go to any of the satellite campuses, especially not for a positive reason.

 ASUPD starts taking training seriously: We have emphasized the important of training a lot here, especially in regards how poorly training your employees opens up your department for civil liability. After years of arbitrarily assigning officers/PAs to train new employees (without any formal training on how to properly do so), ASUPD has been actually sending their sworn and civilian employees to the appropriate training.

Recently, all of ASUPD’s supervisors also had some legal training from ASUPD’s legal advisers, Ginn and Edwards. The topic of discussion was none other than civil liability for supervisors! After year and years of improper training and supervision, it seems quite odd that ASUPD finally broached the issue now?

ASUPD’s “Start By Believing”: Again, the sudden emphasis on sexual violence victims comes on the heels of an article we posted on the safety of students on campus under Title IX, as well as an article about how ASUPD omitted or incorrectly reported the number of sex offenses reported under the Clery Act.

This blog and its issues have helped to set the stage for change, but it has happened because of all of ASUPD’s employees who refuse to get treated poorly, who refuse to work in a hostile environment, and who don’t accept the status quo! Thanks all for disseminating this blog and its issues to the entire AZ LE community (and also the rest of the world); it has shamed ASUPD into slowly changing their ways. However, there are still more hard issues worth discussing and battles worth waging in the near future, so stay tuned.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Mar 01 2014
26 Comments
General

ASU misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part Two)

In our last Clery post, entitled “ASUPD misrepresents its crime statistics, violates Clery Act (Part One)” , we looked at what the Clery Act is, what reporting is required  of universities who are obligated to adhere to Clery, and why the Clery Act is so important. In this second installment, we are going to discuss how exactly ASUPD is misrepresenting its crime statistics (and how that violates the requirements of the Clery Act).

1. ASUPD omits crime stats from specific reporting areas required under the Clery Act

In our previous post about the Clery act, we discussed different areas other than campus ASU is required to provide crime statistics for, namely:

Public Property

  • Public property (All public property, including thoroughfares, streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities, that is within the campus, or immediately adjacent to and accessible from the campus, as well as any public transit stops adjacent to campus).

However, according to page 33 of ASU’s 2013 Annual Security and Crime Safety report, we found this small disclaimer:

Clery public prob

Similarly, on page 34 of the Crime Safety report, we found this disclaimer for West, Poly, Downtown and Lake Havasu campus’ public property reporting:

West poly public

Down Lake Havasu

So essentially, what ASUPD is telling the public via the Crime safety report is that the crime stats on the report do NOT include areas adjacent to ANY campus, nor do they include the crime stats for the EIGHTEEN areas considered “non campus properties”.

ASUPD’s excuse for not including public property crimes is that ASU “is unable to provide a statistical breakdown appropriate for Clery Act reporting” is a weak excuse. The “Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting” requires a university  to show a “good faith” effort to collect crime data from another non-university police agency.

This “disclaimer” about not having statistical data appropriate for Clery reporting is to be utilized when other agencies refuse to release their crime statistics, or  the information provided to the university is unable to be attributed to ANY of the university’s Clery geography (page 103).  ASU IS provided crime stats/information (by Tempe PD) that are able to be broken down to the “public property” level simply by looking at the physical location of the offense; this is the type of work that crime analysts routinely engage in.

ASU is also able to request the crime stats for their non-campus properities by merely providing the address of the property to the appropriate jurisdiction. We reached out to Scottsdale PD, home of Skysong (one of the non-campus property locations) and we were told that ASU contacted them approximately one time to request crime information.

We accessed the database referenced in page 33 of the Crime Safety report to see what crimes ASU may have missed because of its exclusion of public property statistics, and this is what we found for ASU’s Tempe Campus:

Tempe 1

Tempe 2

ASU excluded a significant amount of crimes occurring adjacent to campus (and several that occurred ON campus but were handled by other police agencies) from its Crime Safety Report (go to raidsonline.com and use the date range of August 2012-August 2013 to view the above posted data in a clickable format)

 Non-campus property

These are the non-campus statistics from ASU’s Skysong Campus which are not included on the Tempe non-campus property in the Crime Safety report (cited from raidsonline.com, using the date range of August 2012-August 2013): Note that the campus boundary is marked with a solid blue line, and each of the crimes are circled in red.

Skysong crimes

Note there are five motor vehicle thefts, one sexual assault, and one commercial burglary NOT included in ASU’s Crime Safety Report.

 

2. ASUPD improperly classifies crimes so they don’t meet the criteria for Clery reporting

Sex offenses

Perhaps the most misclassified/reclassified type of crime are those linked to sex offenses. Clery Act has a much more broad definition of what a sex offense is compared to definition used by the UCR (which excludes forcible fondling). Under the Clery Act, there are two types of sex offenses: forcible and non-forcible.

  • Forcible sex offense: Forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling.
  • Non-forcible sex offense: Incest, statutory rape.

“Schools can wrongly categorize reports of acquaintance rape or fondling as “non-forcible” sexual offenses — a definition that should only apply to incest and statutory rape”, according to an article by publicintegrity.org.

In August 2007, an ASU student reported being sexually assaulted at the Sigma Chi fraternity house. Subsequent follow-up emails to then Assistant Chief Jay Spradling went unanswered, and the sexual assault was later reclassified. The student alleged that her sexual assault was not investigated by Officer Janda (who documented the assault on a field investigation card) because she was intoxicated. Clery specifically states that a sex offense is presumed to be forcible if the person is incapable of giving consent “due to his or temporary/permanent physical or mental incapacity”.

The woman, who later sued the Arizona Board of Regents for violating Title IX, stated ASU has in recent years systematically and severely underreported sexual assault reports. Her complaint states that in 2008, ASU reported and posted only four forcible sexual assault reports in its 2009 Annual Security Reports, despite, on information and belief, having received at least several dozen reports.

A 2010 State Press article interviewed a counselor who works with sexual assault victims and is closely affiliated with the university and stated, “ASU does not take sexual assault reports seriously enough, creating a climate that keeps victims quiet and crime stats low”.

In 2011, ASUPD arrested a man accused of fondling at least 14 victims on ASU’s campus the previous year. Under the Clery reporting guidelines, forcible fondling is required to be reported as a forcible sex offense. For the year the incidents occurred (2010), ASU reported a mere 6 forcible sex offenses that occurred on campus (see Campus_Security_Policy )

Prevalence of under reporting sexual assaults

USC, UC Berkley, and Occidental College are all major universities currently facing the possibility of sanctions from the Department of Education for failing to properly report the number of sexual assaults on campus.

Robbery

ASU has also reclassified several robberies into felony thefts, which would prevent their inclusion into ASU’s Crime Safety Report. Under the Clery Act, robbery is defined as:

    • Robbery: is the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person
      or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear.

ASU has had several strong arm robbery series which occurred on ASU’s campus where the victim was robbed of an IPhone and then dragged by a vehicle; under the Clery Act, these crimes should have been listed as a “robbery”, but they were later reclassified to a “felony theft” or merely “theft”.

3. ASU doesn’t utilize its resources properly

While formal training in the field of statistics and crime analysis is not required for persons preparing the Crime Safety Report under the guidelines specified by the Clery Act, that type of knowledge is useful when tasked with processing a large amount of data in a relatively short period of time. ASUPD has been fortunate to have a crime analyst on board for the past few years, but unfortunately, the analysts’ job has been reduced to producing crime maps for bike thefts on campus.

ASU’s former analyst (who has subsequently left the department for greener pastures) was much more qualified to process and analyze crime data compared to the Commander in charge of Clery reporting (Michele Rourke), who merely possesses a bachelor’s degree in English and has no formal training in statistics

Additionally, with such a large criminal justice undergraduate/graduate program, ASUPD could utilize several unpaid student volunteers or interns to process and catalog crime reports; this is a relatively common practice in larger departments such as Tempe PD.

4. ASU needs stronger partnerships with other agencies

After looking at the various locations where ASU has property/research labs, it is obvious that the university’s footprint is pretty significant. ASU has demonstrated that it does not have the resources, training, or personnel to effectively fulfill its obligations under the Clery Act; ASU needs to form stronger partnerships and more effective ways to communicate with other police departments. Building a rapport with another agency would assist ASU in obtaining the proper crime information necessary for a thorough Crime Safety report, and perhaps allowing ASU to assist that agency in some other area in the future.

 All of this information, especially when coupled with the storm of negative media coverage over ASU’s crime situation, are evidence that ASU’s students/faculty/staff are NOT as safe as the university would lead them to believe. ASUPD knows the magnitude of the crime problems on and around all campuses, but refuses to do anything about it. 

There is no more hiding behind Tempe PD or any other police agencies; the other agencies did not create the staffing shortages, the lack of training, or incentives to stay in the department—you did, Command staff!  ASUPD is unable to fulfill its basic obligation to serve and protect its community. It is now a matter of time before ASU starts losing students (and $$) because of these shocking safety issues.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 23 2014
16 Comments
General

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →