Tag Archives: asu news

Dec 04 2013
15 Comments
General

How ASUPD is attempting to violate your 1st, 4th Amendment rights.

ASUPD has been in a tizzy regarding the posts on The Integrity Report, to the extent the department has been actively trying to find the persons responsible for creating this site. Obtaining our IP address would require a search warrant to do so, and no judge in their right mind would sign one, simply because ASUPD “doesn’t like what is being said about the department”. Remember, although we are law enforcement officers, we still have protections under the 1st Amendment which include your freedom of speech. In this post, we’ll assess how ASUPD’s policies and practices are infringing on YOUR 1st Amendment rights as a US Citizen. It’s important to note that the department CAN control what you say while you are working in the capacity of a police officer, because the speech you are making is viewed as connected to your employment.

ASUPD has created some broad, catch all policies to curtail negative things being said about them, including:

Employees of the Department shall not criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other officers or employees by speech, writing, or other expression, when such speech, writing, or other expression:

1. is defamatory, obscene, or unlawful;

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

provide public services;

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

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

Department and/or its officers and employees;

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

Department; or

6. is made with reckless disregard for truth.

Let’s evaluate this policy, shall we? Nothing that has been said here on The Integrity Report is obscene, untrue, would interfere with ASU’s ability to provide public services, interfere with discipline, or recklessly disregards the truth. All of those parts of the policy are fall in line with parts of the 1st Amendment that are NOT considered to be “protected speech”.

However, the parts of the policy which seek to limit speech based on the negative impact it would have on the public’s confidence and integrity of the department, as well as the potential damage the speech would have on the department are OVERLY BROAD.

Citing Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), The US Supreme Court held that an employee’s interest as a citizen in making public comment needs to be balanced against the employer’s competing interest “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.” This “balancing test” will weigh in favor of the employee when the speech is made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. In 2006 the Federal Circuit court ruled in Garcetti that an employee is protected only if the speech is unconnected to employment (in addition to the balancing test established in Pickering). (Please see this article at PoliceOne for an expanded view of the aforementioned court cases).

Additionally, on Oct. 1, 2012, U.S. District Judge William W. Caldwell ruled in Beyer v. Duncannon Borough that a former police officer’s anonymous online speech was a form of protected citizen speech because he was speaking matters of formal concern.

This blogs exists as an informal mouthpiece for ASUPD’s employees to highlight areas we feel are of GREAT public concern; additionally, the anonymity of this blog separates it from any formal connection to ASUPD.

The ASUPD policy that seeks to infringe upon the 1st, and 4th Amendment rights of its employees is annotated under “Public Relations, General”. The policy states:

·         When reasonable suspicion exists that the police department is being discredited by an employee through electronic media, the employee may be required to allow access to personal accounts or hardware/equipment for inspection.

The “reasonable suspicion” standard was established in O’Connor v. Ortega, which held that governmental employees are afforded 4th Amendment protections during investigations by supervisors for administrative investigations. However, this case dealt with a person’s office being searched, NOT a more intrusive search of a person’s social media accounts.

If we as police officers seize a person’s password-protected computer as evidence and the suspect refuses to consent to a search, we must obtain a search warrant to view the contents of the computer. How is requiring its officers to turn over their PASSWORD PROTECTED personal accounts any different? Especially since everything written here has been written and accessed OFF-DUTY.

As police officers, we are bound by the constraints of the Constitution in order to effectively impart justice. Our position does impose limitations on what we can/cannot say while discharging our duties as a law enforcement officer. However, we are also all private citizens who ALSO have Constitutional rights and protections, with free speech being one of those. The policies made by ASUPD that attempt to thwart free speech can NOT usurp our protections under the Constitution.

Chief, you need to have a long talk with ASU’s Legal Counsel to assess the legality of some of your policies.  

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 04 2013
2 Comments
General

How secure are ASUPD’s stations?

Excuse the colorful wording used in the title, but this is a major issue that hasn’t yet been broached on The Integrity Report. It’s one we’ve all had to deal with to some extent, and that is how secure our respective PD compounds are.

ASU’s Tempe campus has one of the most poorly-secured PD compounds around. First and foremost, there is absolutely NO secured parking for PD employees. How many of us have had our cars damaged, or had confrontations with people we had just arrested hours earlier? Almost all the major valley PD’s have some sort of secured parking for its employees (and we’re not even going to mention the COST to park in a place where your car gets messed with regularly!)

How secure is the INSIDE of a building when people who have NO business being there are allowed to roam freely? Prime example, former Assistant Chief Alan Clark. We understand he is still employee at the university in a different capacity, but why is he allowed unrestricted access to the PD? We’re sure not even Michael Crow himself could just waltz into the PD freely, so why is Clark allowed to? Additionally, Clark’s access to virtually every part of the PD poses a significant risk to the integrity of sensitive information. It is unheard of to let a former employee with a significant history of complaints against him potentially having access to IAs/complaints where he is listed as the perpetrator. The potential exists for him finish cleaning up some messes he may have left behind. (We are not suggesting this has happened, merely pointing out a hypothetical scenario).

What about the satellite campuses? They are in an even more critical situation than Tempe.

At Downtown Campus, It is not unusual to find transients sleeping/defecating around ASUPD’s “office” in the Post Office after hours, or even mentally ill transients trying to use the women’s restroom in the (old) basement of the post office. There’s no secured parking even for the PD vehicles, so they are easily susceptible to tampering by bad guys.

West Campus has a “temporary detention facility” that is completely unsafe. None of the cameras in the facility which monitor the area work, which means a prisoner must be physically observed by a secondary officer while the primary officer is completing paperwork. This opens up pandora’s box of safety/liability issues. Again, no secured parking for employees.

Polytechnic Campus has a building that is being eaten by termites, so needless to say, it would just take a strong kick and a bad guy could probably force his way into the building. No secured parking for employees here either.

Where is all the money the PD/university has budgeted to deal with physical infrastructure issues? The areas the students live in are nicer and more secure than what the university provides for its police department! Furthermore, the access the PD gives to non-employees needs to be address immediately to avoid a conflict of interest…or worse.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 01 2013
10 Comments
General

Internal Affairs Spotlight: A Look at the Numbers

Tonight’s post comes courtesy of a guest writer, A.I. Thanks for the insight!!

Internal Affairs Spotlight:  Policing Ourselves in a Police State – A Look at the Numbers

ASU Police Department boasts regularly that they are proud of the fact that the majority of internal affairs (IAs) are generated internally and do not come from outside sources.  This is typical, backwards, ASU PD logic.  How is having more internal complaints better than having more external complaints?

If you look at the 3rd training bulletin on Blackboard for 2013 , there is a significant difference in the number of sustained complaints in the external complaints (hardly any) versus the number of sustained complaints in the internal complaints category (significantly higher).

This internal complaint system is perpetrated by a very select number of employees, referred to across the department as “the click”.  How are 4 employees responsible for more than 25% of internal complaints out of more than 130 employees?  The main five members of “the click” represent roughly 5% of the department staffing yet are responsible for the 25% of our internal IAs.  That is a huge red flag regarding these employees’ characters.  The Chief has acknowledged that there is a click and yet has done nothing to deal with it.  This unchecked power base stemming from line level supervisors to Commander shows how corrupt police management can lead to internal issues.

Here are some of the highlights of “The Click” and ACTUAL internal affairs investigations!!

Commander William Orr

  • ACTUAL IA: Illegally seized an employee’s personally owned firearm.  Tsk. Billy.  Didn’t your mother teach you that you can’t take things that aren’t yours?
  • ACTUAL IA: Busy chasing employees out of the department with bogus firearms issues. Well, I guess if Pam, Aston, and Louis couldn’t get you I will!!

Commander Louis Scichilone 

  • ACTUAL IA: Busy wasting time targeting an employee and trying to catch them sleeping on duty, numerous times. Great job Lou!!  The knees on your paints are looking warn from kneeling down to kiss so much of the Chief’s ass!
  • ACTUAL IA: Investigated an employee for driving 5 miles off of campus. Yes, 5 whole miles! Running code at 60 mph it would take exactly 1 minute to get to an emergency call.
  • Ran to Command Staff when an employee who was in the police association left a copy of an email talking about a staffing survey was found by Lou.  Again, get a life.  Oh wait, you make life size Star Wars characters. Enough said!
  • ACTUAL IA: Writing up employees who were late to work. Great use of the IA system Lou! It is clearly proves that you have nothing better to do then to mess with employees.

Sergeant Pam Osborne

  • Ran the FTO unit into the ground.  Proud of her FTO “failure rate”.  Too incompetent to understand that isn’t something to be proud of.
  • ACTUAL IA: Investigated employees for not using in-car video (which don’t work half of the time) on a traffic stop.  Really?  Maybe Pam should have spent time investigating why our equipment regularly doesn’t work instead!!
  • Talks down to employees she doesn’t like.  Pretends to know more about police work but is a coward and afraid to leave the station.  Want an IA ASUPD?  Go investigate how many times Pam actually leaves the station.
  • Ran a female police officer out of the department because she didn’t like her.  Refused to let the employee see her training records or DORS.  It’s because she had to go back and change things in order to get rid of this employee. Corrupt!

Sergeant Mark Aston

  • ACTUAL IA: Busy writing up Police Aides for not wearing a bicycle helmet. Great supervision there Sarge!
  • ACTUAL IA: Investigated a Police Aide for damaging a wall at a cop shop with a Segway.  Words escape me on this one!
  • ACTUAL IA: Was accused of racial bias from a citizen. Although, he was cleared this time look at the majority of people he has targeted with IAs or bullshit write ups:  Ray Kizee, Damion White, Matt Parker, Tony Momon, Luke Khalid, Rudy Freese (anyone noticing a “racial” pattern here). 

Also, notable is that every IA the Chief himself has initiated has been sustained findings.  If he is the accuser and the finder of facts doesn’t that amount to an obvious conflict of interest?  If the Chief initiates an IA shouldn’t an outside agency investigate the findings if it involves an employee’s termination?  Like a former female officer who was railroaded out of the department? One would think but not with “Slim” Pickens at the wheel.

Even better is the continuous violating of officers rights under Arizona law.  The department engages in a process called an “administrative review” instead of conducting an IA.  They do this so the rights for police officers under Arizona law do not apply.  Again, here is another example of police mismanagement and abusing employees.

Here is my message to the Chief: Take a hard look at the state of the department.  People are leaving in droves because they refuse to put up with the bullshit.  You have done this to the department and the morale because these people go unchecked.  You have created a “police state” inside of a “police department” instead of honorable and trustworthy employees.  Stop the nepotism, favoritism, and politicalism and get rid of the poisonous leeches that are ruining the department. 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 01 2013
5 Comments
General

Mismanagement of state agencies: ADOC and CPS have had their turn…is ASUPD next?

Within the past few months, two very major state entities–Arizona Department of Corrections, and Child Protective Services–have been under major scrutiny, due to issues ranging from fiscal mismanagement, low staffing, to poor leadership. Many Arizona lawmakers have began to ask the question…what else is happening at the state level?

ADOC has been critically understaffed for years; according to an article written by abc15.com, it is common practice to have 2-4 officers watching anywhere from 100-200 inmates. Staffing is so bad it has created an unsafe environment for its employees; ADOC averages 335 officer assaults A YEAR!! Or what about the ridiculously low salary most of its corrections officers make (about $31k), yet ADOC’s budget is $1 billion dollars?! (Sound familiar?)

CPS has also had their dirty laundry aired all over the news media. Since 2009, nearly 6,000 cases received from the CPS hotline hadn’t been investigated. One of CPS’ former employees has also come forward and stated that low pay and staffing issues make it impossible for CPS to function effectively (Again…familiar territory). The situation at CPS is so critical that a member of the legislature’s CPS oversight committee stated, “The public must know that this neglect of duty will never happen again and that the people responsible for this disturbing practice are held accountable. In addition, a long-term reform of the agency is warranted to restore public confidence.” Furthermore, a representative from the State House has asserted the director of CPS (Clarence Carter) must be removed for the agency to succeed. “Either the governor or Carter — one of them needs to go. This is another state agency that’s failing under her.”

Both the situation at ADOC and CPS parallel the problems that ASUPD is currently having. Mismanagement of personnel and money by higher-ups leads to staffing problems, low work productively, and high employee turnover. These state agencies which have gone largely unchecked for quite some time are starting to face scrutiny for their mismanagement…how long will it be before ASUPD and Chief Pickens’ names are also thrown into the mix?

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 30 2013
5 Comments
General

Shocking revelation! ASUPD can write citations. In other news, water is wet.

In the latest story from ASU’s State Press, Downtown Phoenix Campus students verbalized their disagreement with ASU’s new ban on smoking. Mind you, this policy is peer-enforced…has nothing to do with the PD whatsoever (despite the fact the university was initially misleading by having officers and random members of command “ask students nicely to stop smoking”).

ASUPD’s own Commander Chris “Sparky” Speranza was compelled enough to take the time out of his super busy day (ie, doing nothing) to make ASUPD look even more ridiculous. “There have been no citations for littering since the no-smoking policy went into effect”. Someone should inform him that he has two STELLAR Sergeants that have the ability to enforce the law, but that also requires them to 1) show up to work 2) dress out into their uniforms and 3) leave the Post Office. Maybe have an Officer enforce the littering law? Oh wait…they keep getting pulled to work at other campuses due to staffing concerns.

In case you were wondering about his street credibility folks, Sparky also said, “This [lack of littering citations] was not because the no-smoke policy is peer-enforced, as an ASU officer can issue a citation to any citizen”.

So just to clarify…we can write citations to any citizen. Gotcha. I was wondering what that book of citations was for!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 30 2013
4 Comments
General

Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad

Thanks to one of our readers for sending us this article courtesy of LawOfficer.com. Read this and ask yourself…does this sound familiar?

In her book Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad, Marcia Whicker describes toxic leaders as “maladjusted, malcontent, and often malevolent, even malicious. They glory in turf protection, fighting, and controlling rather than uplifting followers.” A toxic police leader is maladjusted to the police context that values service to others over self; malcontented possibly because of a perceived slight experienced at some point in their career; often malevolent stemming from a pervasive disregard for the welfare of their subordinates; and surreptitiously malicious toward superiors who represent authority, while observably malicious toward peers and subordinates who are viewed as potential competitors. Toxic leaders specialize in demoralizing and humiliating subordinates in public.

We might well ask why world-class police organizations would put up with such behavior. One alibi stems from their ability to kiss up the chain of command while kicking down. Toxic police leaders always seem to have well-prepared presentations ready for their superiors and are ever ready to accept tasks without regard for the impact on their subordinates. Because they lead using fear, subordinates respond quickly to their direction. But they comply without commitment.

Toxic leaders are seen by many their subordinates and others in the police organization as arrogant, self-serving, inflexible and petty. Word among police officers spreads fast and they’ll go out of their way to avoid the toxic leader.

A chief-level officer in a large police agency once asked, “How do you know a leader in your organization is toxic?” We suggested that he observe how the patrol bid fills in. The last supervisors to get officers to voluntarily sign up for their sectors are often the ones being avoided by police officers because they display toxic tendencies. Patrol officers are not likely to voluntarily select the sector of a supervisor that displays these characteristics:

  1. An apparent lack of concern for the well being of subordinates.
  2. A personality or interpersonal technique that negatively affects organizational climate.
  3. A conviction by subordinates that the leader is motivated primarily by self-interest.

It is not one specific behavior that deems one toxic; it is the cumulative effect of de-motivational behavior on unit morale and climate over time that tells the tale.

When asked whether they have toxic leaders in their organizations police officers from many different police organizations and at varying levels respond with a resounding affirmative. After repeating that question in dozens of seminars we have anecdotal information that suggests toxic leaders are ubiquitous in police organizations.

It can be demoralizing when toxic leaders continue to get promoted to levels of increasing responsibility. In a recent coaching course for newly promoted police supervisors, a police sergeant stated, “We all know who the bad leaders are, but the police department sticks that person away in a bureau out of sight where the bad leader can spend all his time studying for the next promotion exam. The bad leader scores high on the promotion exam, gets promoted and is released back on the troops to exact revenge. Once they screw up again and/or destroy the careers of good, hard-working officers, they are placed back into a bureau to study for the next promotion exam.”

This newly promoted police supervisor’s statements must have resonated with the other 40 newly promoted police supervisors from varying police agencies in the room because everyone was shaking their heads in agreement and raising their hands for the chance to tell their toxic leader story.

Assignment changes and promotion provide the avenue that toxic police leaders use to go from one place to another within the police organization spreading their poison. Police officers who have to work with or for a toxic leader are relegated to waiting them out because it is only a matter of time before the toxic leader is removed, placed into another assignment or promoted.

This can have devastating effects on police officers and police organizational culture. Toxic leaders leave in their wake an environment devoid of purpose, motivation, and commitment. In short, toxic police leaders deny police organizations and individual police officers true leadership.

Some suggest that exposing toxic police leaders for what they are would go a long way to solving the problem. Unfortunately, tools like multi-rater leader assessments, climate assessments and employee surveys are not commonly used in police organizations. The argument stems from a questionable belief that these “business tools” do not work or translate well to police organizations.

A tool like a 360-degree feedback instrument would provide some insight into toxic police leadership, but according to Dr. Howard Prince, Brigadier General U. S. Army (Ret.) and Director of the LBJ School’s Center for Ethical Leadership, there is not a validated 360-degree feedback tool available specifically for law enforcement. Perhaps toxic leadership is so prevalent in police organizations because the organizational culture enables and sustains it.

In their book Toxic Workplace! Managing Toxic Personalities and Their Systems of Power, Mitchell Kusy and Elizabeth Hollaway suggest that toxic leaders can only thrive in toxic cultures. Promoting and moving toxic leaders around the organization might be an inappropriate organizational response that serves to enable them.

Another troubling explanation for the existence of toxic police leadership is the possibility that toxic behavior is tolerated, if not encouraged, by leaders at the top of police organizations. Police executives lose credibility when they claim to be advocates of healthy police cultures yet fail to take action against toxic police leaders. Leaders at the top of the organization often mistake short-term mission accomplishment for good leadership. It is possible to run even a good organization into the ground if attention is not paid to the long-term health and welfare of its members.

Leaders who serve at the executive level in police organizations may be the only ones that have the power and authority to counter toxic leadership. Subordinates are not generally in position to address the problem of toxic leaders because toxic leaders are characteristically unconcerned about them and immune to influence from below. Lynne F. McClure, author of Risky Business: Managing Violence in the Workplace, explains why toxicity goes without remedy: “The biggest single reason is because [the behavior is] tolerated.” McClure, an expert on managing high-risk behaviors, believes that if an organization has toxic managers, it is because the culture enables it—knowingly or unknowingly—through nothing more than apathy.

Police organizations can take steps to minimize the number of toxic leaders in their organizations by fostering a shared vision of what good leadership is and is not. Possible antidotes to toxic leadership include:

  • Put a label to the problem (toxic leadership) and talk about it openly.
  • Develop and select with an eye to leadership style, not simply technical skills and short-term effectiveness.
  • Hold supervisors responsible for the leadership style of their subordinates.
  • Implement climate assessments and 360-degree multi-faceted evaluations as developmental tools.
  • Have the hard discussions with subordinates who display toxic tendencies and promptly address behaviors that are not in keeping with the values of the organization.

This article summarizes ASUPD’s “leadership” style perfectly: ones who can’t hack it on the street are promoted (and allowed to run their subordinates into the ground), while the rest of command staff tolerates the toxic behavior.

Chief Pickens, whatever professionally credibility you previously had is now destroyed. You can’t claim you are a successful head of a police department when you have droves of employees quitting due to YOUR inaction and YOUR mismanagement. You have allowed the department to implode because you don’t care about the long-term health/well-being of your employees. But hey, McDonald’s is always hiring…right Chief?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 25 2013
3 Comments
General

How many more officers can ASUPD handle losing?

One more piece of evidence that illustrates perfectly the end result of ASUPD’s mismanagement:

We’re told that a grand total of six more officers will be out of ASUPD by the end of December (this number includes the officer who just went to MCCPD). That is unreal! All six of these officers are intelligent and talented, and we’re so happy to hear that they’ve decided to move on to greener pastures. It’s not rocket science! Treat your people well, impart them with the tools to do their jobs effectively, and trust they will do the right thing! Intervene when necessary, and stamp out fires/conflicts before they fester.

If everything that has been said here on The Integrity Report is not true, Chief Pickens, then why are so many people fleeing from ASUPD in droves? You can keep trying to explain away us and postings on indeed.com as just disgruntled employees, but the proof is in the numbers. There is obvious validity to our assertations here.

All these people who have left and who are actively trying to leave have formulated their own opinions of ASUPD based on their experiences in dealing with the department, seeing how others are treated, and hearing how other PDs in the valley treat their employees.

ASUPD can’t logically function with the staffing numbers they currently have, and aren’t able to staff the satellite campuses now. How much longer are you going to claim that there’s no problem, Chief Pickens?

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 20 2013
13 Comments
General

Excessive use of force cases: who watches the watchmen?

We’re all acutely aware how our reaction to a situation as law enforcement officers may sometimes have significant negative costs associated with them, sometimes in the form of criminal or civil punishment. How many times have we all seen a scenario where an officer used an excessive amount of force and was later sued civilly or sentenced to prison? Unfortunately, pretty frequently. But for every time an officer is reprimanded/fired for using force excessively, how many times did he/she use force excessively prior to this? Is it a sudden break in a person’s psyche that caused them to slip, or was their decent into the darkness of malfeasance a slow, yet loud path? More importantly, how are we as law enforcement professionals reacting to and dealing with the situation at hand?

At the ASU Police Department, no one  at the command level seems to be asking the aforementioned questions (quite frankly, the only questions being asked on the 3rd floor are, “How do we make this blog go away!?”). We’re pretty impressed there seems to be accountability within the officer ranks, but what happens when your command fails you?

One Cpl. is a prime example of an excessive use of force handled poorly at the upper level. Recently, a Cpl. deployed his taser several times on a subject who was restrained and was not an active aggressor. The situation was documented properly, all the ducks were in a row…and then nothing happened (it’s important to note that we are criticizing ASUPD’s response to the situation, not the action itself). At the MINIMUM, why would a department not place the person in question on administrative leave merely to assess the merit of the situation, and to allow that person to mentally recover? No PD that wishes to minimize its legal liability would even dream of letting this person back on the road anytime soon. However, in the parallel universe that is ASUPD, no IA was conducted, and no higher entity reviewed the use of force in this situation.

There are several more use of force incidents that have occurred within the past six months–a rookie officer tasing a subject running away from him, for starters–we know have NOT been investigated by the upper tiers of the department, and definitely not by anyone OUTSIDE the department. There is NO civilian/sworn use of force review panel, NO IAs, and NO information being sent to AZ POST.

Congratulations in hitting a new low, ASUPD; there is no longer even a thin blue line separating line level officers (good guys) from common criminals (bad guys), because command staff has dissolved that line with their inactions and mismanagement.

Welcome to the final frontier of policing, folks.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 12 2013
4 Comments
General

Why Tempe PD’s officer sex scandal could mean trouble for ASUPD.

Everyone in the country right now is talking about the former undercover Tempe PD detective who slept with the drug dealer she was supposed to be investigating. This is pretty scandalous, even by Arizona’s standards!

Needless to say, we weren’t surprised when this story made national news on a major media syndicate, Fox News. They discussed the topic at length, and a prior law enforcement officer “consultant” for the show said the department investigating the complaint should also be assessing the detective’s TRAINING and SUPERVISION in addition to alleged offenses.

All of us in law enforcement know that when something major occurs  in a department (excluding ASU) quite often the supervisors/trainers are also held liable because of their negligence or nonfeasance in supervision/training. How many times has a supervisor at ASUPD been written up for negligence in training or supervision?

We’re willing to bet virtually none, because almost all supervisors and FTO Sergeants (current and past) would have been fired already. In case you weren’t aware, AS supervisors or FTO supervisors, your job description ALSO includes either supervising or training (sometimes both). Additionally, your SUPERVISORS also have SUPERVISORS. That means when stuff really hits the fan, someone in a position of authority should look to see who was managing the person that messed up as well as THEIR supervisor.

Adequate training also plays a key role in the liability game too. All of us at ASUPD know the hard work Sergeant T put into building a LEGITIMATE, liability free FTO program. He knew how a failure for officers to be properly trained could cause a huge legal issue for ASUPD, so he utilized a previously established and legally sound FTO program. After being destroyed by both Sergeant Pam Osborne and Sergeant Fuchtman, what remains of the FTO program is nothing like the one Sergeant T implemented; it remains now as one of ASUPD’s greatest liabilities.

At this point, ASUPD doesn’t even require a major incident in order for someone to peel back the layers of liability and find out who hasn’t been doing their jobs; it only takes a FOIA request and half a brain. In addition to the aforementioned issues, ASUPD should be aware of the fact that the nation’s focus right now is on the major scandal transpiring in Tempe, AZ. It wouldn’t take a whole lot of work to throw some of ASUPD’s issues into the mix too.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 10 2013
5 Comments
General

ASUPD’s temporary solution to staffing issues? Let the support service officers handle it!

Many officers have been unhappy lately with the departments’ slow, knee jerk reaction to the staffing crisis which is crippling police services at all four campuses.

The first solution was to ignore all the unhappy officers who were getting burnt out from the lack of officer staffing at ASUPD. Next, the solution to fixing the staffing problem was to try and hire every individual with a pulse who was referred by a current ASU employee. After these two plans failed miserably, ASUPD decided to now recall the support services officers to fill the gaps in the schedule. WHAT!

Instead of having your extraneous “specialty” assignments help out patrol (K9, the two officers assigned to Tempe Bike Patrol, the detective assigned to work with TPD, the Sergeant’s over various desk positions), you have the few detectives you DO have respond to calls “when patrol gets backed up”. How is that effective? Another idea…how about Command staff start shagging calls and running traffic?

 

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