Tag Archives: ASUPD Tempe AZ

Feb 20 2014
15 Comments
General

A note from Kevin Salcido regarding The Integrity Report

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

As a university, ASU supports freedom of expression.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Sent on behalf of:

 

Kevin Salcido

Associate Vice President/Chief Human Resource Officer

Arizona State University

 

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

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

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

      1. is defamatory, obscene, or unlawful;

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

      provide public services;

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

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

      Department and/or its officers and employees;

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

      Department; or

      6. is made with reckless disregard for truth.

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 17 2014
10 Comments
General

ASUPD’s current staffing…by the numbers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schedule

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 14 2014
10 Comments
General

ASUPD continues to piggyback off Tempe PD’s hardwork!

From azcentral.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 11 2014
18 Comments
General

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

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

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

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

What is the Clery Act?

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

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

Why is the Clery Act so important?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] http://studentaid.ed.gov/about/data-center/school/clery-act

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act

[3] http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20116872,00.html

[4] http://police.vanderbilt.edu/crime-info/clery-act-frequently-asked-questions/

[5] http://clerycenter.org/summary-jeanne-clery-act

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 09 2014
14 Comments
General

MCSO conducts THIRD active shooter training this year!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students watching the simulation said it was a reality check.

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 08 2014
11 Comments
General

Big things are on the horizon!

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

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

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

real

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Feb 04 2014
9 Comments
General

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 30 2014
14 Comments
General

Dissecting ASUPD’s recruiting video

ASUPD recently put out a recruiting video (you can watch it here) that was very well produced, but it was full of inaccurate  or misleading statements. Here’s our dissection of ASUPD’s recruiting video.

#1 “Great New Facility” This is a misleading statement because the building is going on 8 years old. While this building is a huge improvement over the old one, it remains mostly empty except for the top heavy management third floor and one quarter of the second floor.

#2 “Specialty Assignments” This video gives you the impression that if you work hard you will get a specialty assignment, which is inaccurate. Specialty assignments, with the exception of investigations, are one person details that took half a law enforcement career to get into. All of these assignments are currently filled, and the people in them aren’t leaving anytime soon.

#3 “Bike Squad” There is no designated ASU bike squad, and there never has been. The phrase “Bike Squad” implies you are out patrolling on a bike alongside fellow officers as part of a team. The only ASU officer on a bike squad is the one loaned to Tempe to be a part of their bike squad. The only place you will see more than one ASU officer on a bike is at an ASU football game working overtime. It’s not a squad, it’s a once in a while overtime detail lasting a few hours. ASUPD policy requires more than one officer on duty in order for one to be allowed to ride bikes. The numbers of officers has been so low that no officers have been riding bikes for years unless it’s at a football game.

#4 “Narcotics Unit” There is no ASU Narcotics Unit whatsoever! The phrase “Narcotics Unit” implies you are part of a group of people going after drug dealers, suppliers. There should be one considering the amount of illegal drug use on campus (and the recent DPS bust of an ecstasy pill factory in Vista). We don’t even have a drug dog on campus!.  The only ASU officer on a narcotics unit is the one we loaned to Tempe to be a part of their narcotics unit.

#5 “Investigations” Investigations consists of a Sergeant and two officers currently. There is currently one competent detective left, as the other competent one left the department for another agency that appreciates his experience and work ethic. The footage shows the other remaining “detective”  dusting for prints inside the department. This “detective”  spent under a year on patrol after the academy before she moved into investigations.

#6 Joint Terrorism Taskforce Our only link with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Taskforce is the corporal we sent them to work full time in their office. His time in the JTTF has really no benefit for ASU, as he spends most of his time doing work unrelated to ASUPD. The footage here shows us at “the qualification range” which is a patch of desert on the Salt River Indian Reservation which is usually 110+ degrees in the summer time.

 Urban Environment: Not sure what benefit this is supposed to represent. Urban compared to Phoenix AZ? No. Urban compared to Gilbert  AZ Yes. Was this selling point supposed to represent all four of the campus’s we staff? Polytechnic campus is urban? No. The last officer in this slide quit the department for another department prior to the release of this video!

 Unique Modes of transportation: You get to be ridiculed for driving around in an electric powered hybrid Ford Escape mocked up to represent a police patrol vehicle.  If there’s more than one officer (and there never is unless you are at Tempe) you get a Segway like Paul Blart Mall Cop, or a mountain bike, or a small cc scooter…if you wait a year or many more for the training to come around. Remember, you can’t pedal a bicycle unless you’re trained.

 Special Events: Probably a third of the ASUPD staff work overtime for the university. The ASUPD earns half of what the vendors pay for your overtime and you get the other half. Too few ASUPD staff work overtime details that the events coordinator is required to offer outside agencies overtime details to get them filled.  After a group departure of dispatchers from three years ago we are still offering department overtime for outside agencies to work our dispatch.

Promote from within: Some internal promotions have been merit-based (we do have some Sergeants that genuinely care about their employees), but primarily promotion processes at ASUPD are riddled with politics. Factors such as who you know, how much brown nosing you accomplished, how you made yourself look competent by putting down others become standard. Promoting people with these character traits reinforces the idea that in this organization it’s not about what you can do in police work.

Tuition Waivers: Assuming you are looking to utilize this benefit, the department’s short staffing make it impossible to take advantage of this perk; after all, how can you plan your class schedule if your work schedule changing REGULARLY due to “poor staffing”

Join us in partnership: The most watered down, over used generic phrase imaginable. The department is a house divided against itself when it should be one team, so if the public doesn’t join us we have nothing.

In conclusion this video packed with half-truths  in order for the department to attract prospective employees. ASUPD has a lot of internal work to do before it will be able to respect and retain its employees, and thus eleminate the need for a video filled with fluff.  This gimmick video is the latest of a series of gimmicks enlisted to retain or attract employees without any effort or cost to the department.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 29 2014
9 Comments
General

According to an FBI report, the number of active shooters has INCREASED.

From Campus Safety Magazine:

According to a study recently released by the FBI, from 2000 to 2012, the rate of active shooter incidents in the United States increased, particularly after 2008.

Between 2000 and 2008, approximately one event occurred every other month (five per year), but that rate increased to one per month between 2009 and 2012 (nearly 16 per year). The authors say the high rate continued in 2013 — there were 15 incidents last year.

The most common location of an active shooter incident between 2000 and 2012 was a business (40%), while schools were the second most common location (29%). Nearly one in five events (19%) occurred outdoors.

The median response time for law enforcement was 3 minutes, and the median response time for solo officers was 2 minutes. The median number of people shot per event was five, not including the shooter. All of the events identified by the authors involved single shooters (94% were male), and in 55% of the events, the shooter had a connection with the attack location.

View the charts from this report.

“It also is worth noting that in the five largest-casualty events (Northern Illinois University in DeKalb; Sandy Hook Elementary School; Fort Hood Army Base, Killeen, Texas; Virginia Polytechnic and State University in Blacksburg; and the Century 21 Theater) the police were on scene in about 3 minutes; yet, a substantial number of people still were shot and injured or killed,” the report claims.

Nearly half (49%) of the incidents ended before police arrived at the scene: 67% percent ended by the shooter dying by suicide or leaving the scene; 33% ended by the potential victims stopping the shooter themselves.

Of the 51% of incidents that were still going when law enforcement arrived, 40% of the attackers either died by suicide or surrendered to police.  In the other cases (60%), police officers used force to stop the attackers, most often with firearms.

Again, it is important to note that it is a matter of WHEN, not IF an active shooter scenario transpires at ASU. According to this report, schools are the second most frequent location for an active shooter!! Proper and regular training of officers would ensure an appropriate response, but instead ASUPD has given NO additional training for its officers about how to respond to an active shooter. This, coupled with dangerously low staffing numbers on campus make ASUPD vulnerable to lawsuits when an such an incident occurs, primarily because of the lack of training officers receive to handle these types of calls.

When will the Chief realize the importance of active shooter training and appropriate planning for a critical incident?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 27 2014
20 Comments
General

Racist frat party highlights ASU’s discrepancy in addressing problems!

On Thursday, January 23, 2014, ASU’s President Michael Crow issued an official statement slamming the racist actions of an ASU fraternity on Dr. Martin Luther King day (the fraternity, TKE, held an MLK-themed party in which participants wore stereotypical hip-hop clothes, flashed gang signs, and drank out of watermelon cups).

In his statement, Crow says, “TKE was suspended on January 20, 2014 for hosting an unregistered, off-campus event on January 19, 2014 that encouraged a racially-incentive theme and created an environment conducive to underage consumption of alcohol. ASU is continuing to investigate the actions of individual fraternity members and other students who may have attended the party under the ASU Student Code of Conduct. When students gather as part of a university recognized organization, whether it is a varsity sports team, the student newspaper, an academic club or a fraternity, students are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the core values of ASU, which include respect for all people, races and cultures. The TKE party held last weekend was not held on campus and was not a sanctioned university event.”

This party managed to elicit a response and reaction from the PRESIDENT of ASU practically overnight! What distinguishes this specific party from any of the other egregious actions committed by members of ASU’s Greek community is the fact that this party made national news. CNN’s Anderson Cooper called these ASU students “morons” in a 2 1/2 minute segment on CNN.

Contrast this situation to that which is transpiring currently at ASUPD: a department chronically plagued with low morale, low staffing, and a litany of issues in regards to sexual harassment, mismanagement of public funds, and a training program rife with legal liability. Why is Michael Crow so quick to decry this specific situation, when far bigger issues go unaddressed? The simple answer is negative publicity. When something so overtly disgusting–such as a racist party–makes the national headlines, ASU’s primary concern is saving face. Notice how in Crow’s statement, he asserts TWICE that this incident was NOT university sanctioned, and was off campus (in a recent dorm room drug bust, ASU press releases also emphasized that the incident occurred “off campus”). After all, having a university which is known for partying, crime, and racism is bad for business. ASU is desperately attempting to revamp its public image so more parents feel safe sending their kids here, which equals more $$ for Crow and the rest of ASU’s administrators.

Michael Crow is acutely aware of the situation at ASUPD and is frantically trying to control the negative press and buzz generated by The Integrity Report. He has dispatched Kevin Salcido (head of ASU HR) to do a half-hearted “investigation” on assertions made on this blog. This investigation exists solely to minimize the university’s liability in the chance that ASUPD’s dirty laundry ever becomes public (ASU will assert that they had no knowledge of what was happening at the PD, and will blame Chief Pickens).

The true irony in Crow’s statement is that while ASU students are expected to adhere to a code of conduct, employees are rarely held accountable to their own code of conduct. This becomes obvious when a handful of employees (none of which have been reprimanded or fired) are the common denominator in virtually every problem at ASUPD. The larger issue then becomes a question of how much more negative press linked to ASUPD is Michael Crow willing to tolerate? Issues which were once only known within the confines of the department have now spread like wildfire throughout the law enforcement AND civilian community in Arizona–it is a matter of time before ASUPD’s problems also make national news.

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