Tag Archives: ASUPD Tempe AZ

Jan 22 2014
17 Comments
General

DoJ’s analysis of university PDs, and how ASUPD falls short in comparison!

The US Department of Justice has published statistics which analyze a myriad of variables that are applicable to university/college police departments.

This include demographics of sworn officer to student ratio for a several population sizes of universities/colleges.  According to page 3 of the report:

  • Campuses using sworn officers employed on average 2.3 full-time officers per 1,000 students. Private campuses averaged 3 sworn officers per 1,000 students compared to 2.1 sworn officers per 1,000 students on public campuses.  

ASU currently has approximately 73,000 students enrolled on all four of its campuses. If ASU followed the national average of employing 2.1 sworn officers per 1,000 students, the department should employ 153 sworn employees. To put this number into perspective, ASUPD currently has 72 sworn employees (which includes the Chief, Assistant Chiefs, and several Commanders, none of which work patrol. This number also incorporates employees who are in the academy/being hired who should NOT be counted in the “sworn employee” total).

Which universities had the LARGEST amount of sworn employees? According to page 2 of the report:

  • Campus served/Full-time sworn officers:

    Howard University: 166

    Temple University: 119

    University of Pennsylvania: 100

    University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey: 97

    George Washington University: 95

    University of Florida: 86

    Georgia State University: 79

    Yale University: 78

    University of Maryland – College Park: 76

    Vanderbilt University: 76

Of these universities, the only one that has a comparable amount of enrolled students is the University of Florida, at approximately 49,000 students. Interesting to note that the then University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (which has since been incorporated into Rutgers University) had a student population of approximately 7,000, yet had MORE SWORN POLICE OFFICERS THAN ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY!

The DoJ also analyzed the demographics of its sworn employees, both by sex and race. According to page 5 of the report:

  • During the 2004-05 school year, 31% of sworn campus officers were a racial or ethnic minority. A sixth (17%) were women.

In it’s 2011 Final Report, CALEA noted that 88% of ASUPD’s officers were male (26% percent being a racial or ethnic minority), and 12% of its officers were female. The numbers of minority and female officers has also dropped considerably since 2011. CALEA also noted, in its report, that ASUPD “failed to reflect its available workforce (48.3% female) as it relates to female officers”.

The type of work the majority of sworn university/college police departments were engaged in was also analyzed. On page 6 of the report:

  • 90% or more of sworn police officers were responsible for routine patrol, special event security, violent crime investigation, property crime investigation, traffic enforcement
  • 90% or more of non-sworn security were responsible for routine patrol, building lockup/unlock, special event security, parking enforcement .

The latter sounds like the majority of work ASUPD’s officers are required to do by Command staff.

Perhaps after reading this post, Chief Pickens and his illustrious Command staff should read another publication by the Department of Justice, entitled Establishing Appropriate Staffing Levels for Campus Public Safety Departments.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 20 2014
13 Comments
General

ASUPD spends federal grant money on items “outside the grant’s purpose”

Anti-terrorism ‘fusion centers’ get failing marks from US panel

October 08, 2012 12:00 am  •  Maryann Batlle Cronkite News Service

WASHINGTON – Arizona agencies were among those singled out in a two-year Senate probe that reported “widespread deficiencies” in a Homeland Security Department program that officials touted for years as a centerpiece in U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

The report found that the local-federal “fusion centers” that were supposed to aid the federal government in terrorism prevention instead produced intelligence that was “oftentimes shoddy” and “unrelated to terrorism.” It also said federal officials could not adequately track millions of dollars directed to the centers.

Included in the questionable spending was money to Arizona law enforcement agencies that was used to buy sport utility vehicles and to outfit the “wire room,” a surveillance monitoring room at the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, the state’s fusion center.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said in a written statement that the committee’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations “found a remarkable degree of ineffectiveness, ineptitude and waste” in the program.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, said the subcommittee’s report is “wrong and misleading by omission.” She said she believes fusion centers provide “a big service to the community” by augmenting existing counterterrorism efforts.

There are 77 fusion centers across the country. While the state and local law enforcement hubs perform many roles, their anti-terrorism functions were beefed up, and the number of centers increased, after 9/11 to aid the federal government in terrorism prevention.

Matt Mayer, a former senior Homeland Security official who worked under Secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, said he fought the expansion of the centers but lost. Mayer said the department focused on “quantity over quality” and is underfunding centers in critical areas.

“There are bright spots out there … but, unfortunately, a lot of (fusion centers) exist that don’t deserve funding,” said Mayer, now a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

Among its findings, the subcommittee said that DHS could not provide an “accurate tally” of the program’s total costs, but that estimates ranged from $289 million to $1.4 billion.

Some of that DHS grant money went to the Arizona Department of Public Safety to fund initiatives at the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center.

The subcommittee questioned federal oversight of some of the Arizona spending, including one case when a state official expressed concern about the legitimacy of spending $1.98 million to lease space, which is not strictly allowed. The state official was assured it would be OK in an email, complete with smiley-face emoticon, from an official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Federal funds also paid for two SUVs outfitted with specialized equipment, most of which fell outside of the scope of the program, the report said.

The Department of Public Safety used about $33,500 in grant funds to buy an SUV in 2008 for a terrorism liaison officer at the Flagstaff Fire Department, and another $9,400 on aftermarket equipment that would let it respond to chemical, biological and other events. But the report said such responses are unrelated to “essential fusion center capability” under the program.

“The city official to whom the vehicle was assigned told the subcommittee he keeps the truck at his house and uses it primarily to commute between his home and the Flagstaff Fire Department,” the report said.

In 2009, the Arizona State University Police Department got an SUV that was paid for with about $47,000 in grant funds, also for a terrorism liaison officer. Again, the subcommittee found the expenses outside the grant’s purpose.

The subcommittee also pointed to $64,000 in federal funds used to buy software, a laptop, monitors and two 42-inch flat-screen televisions for “the wire room,” a surveillance room used for criminal investigations. But the subcommittee noted that program guidelines “do not include covert or surreptitious intelligence gathering.”

The report said the centers have not “yielded timely, useful” counterterrorism information. It noted that ACTIC was linked to incorrect information after the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Tucson, which suggested that shooter Jared Lee Loughner was linked to an anti-Semitic and anti-government group. Many of the claims made in the document were later proven false, the report said.

Fusion confusion

Included in a Senate investigation into federal spending on local-federal “fusion centers” was spending by Arizona officials on items that members of the subcommittee questioned:

• In 2008, the Arizona Department of Public Safety spent more than $33,500 on a Chevrolet Tahoe SUV and another $9,400 to install aftermarket equipment. The report said the expenditures were unrelated to “essential fusion center activity.”

• In 2009, the state used $47,000 in Department of Homeland Security funds for a Chevrolet Tahoe SUV that it gave to the Arizona State University Police Department.

• In 2009, roughly $64,000 went for surveillance-technology training and to equip a criminal-investigation surveillance room, known as “the wire room,” for Arizona’s fusion center. It bought software, a new laptop, monitors and two 42-inch flat screen televisions, even though the program does not call for “surreptitious intelligence gathering.”

• In 2011, faulty intelligence originating from the Arizona fusion center suggested Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner might have been be linked to an anti-Semitic and anti-government group, claims that later proved to be false.

http://m.azstarnet.com/news/world/military/anti-terrorism-fusion-centers-get-failing-marks-from-us-panel/article_77c27bdb-693d-50de-9511-308dab9a9a0b.html?mobile_touch=true

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 18 2014
20 Comments
General

New officer resigns after being sworn in at ASUPD

On January 16, 2014, Chief John Pickens was due to swear in the three new officers who had successfully passed their AZPOST test. These new officers were very desperately needed in the department to alleviate ongoing staffing concerns. After the swearing in ceremony, one of the three officers presented chief with something he should be well acquainted with–a letter of resignation. The chief was enraged. Shortly afterwards the issued equipment–the new clunky and garish badge, uniform with new patches–were all being turned back into the property room to await their new owner (who probably wouldn’t be hanging around long either).  

As esteemed members of the ASU Police Department, we would like to extend a special thanks to this officer for embodying the department’s toxic state into one singular action. It serves to illustrate the disturbing reality we live with daily which is putting more bodies into a lousy workplace won’t fix any of the problems at the department, it will only perpetuate them.

This latest lateral officer isn’t the first officer to do this by any stretch; there have been plenty who have quit in short order once they were exposed to our workplace. Chief Pickens is too proud to acknowledge the problems, too inept to understand and fix them. How many more employees must we tear through before Pickens realizes poor morale is the cause of the staffing problem??

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 16 2014
7 Comments
General

Transparency in police budgets: why it needs to happen at ASUPD

Because Arizona State University is a public university–funded by tax payers–budget expenditures for the university are readily accessible (via web/hard copy). However, one budget that is noticeably absent from public view would be that of the ASUPD! When referenced in the context of the university’s budget as a whole, it is summarily tossed in to the “public service” sector tag with other departments. Therefore, seeing the actual operating costs and expenditures of ASUPD is impossible, short of a FOIA request.

Why is this important, you ask?

There has been a huge discrepancy in the amount of funds Chief Pickens repeatedly says the department doesn’t have (and then arbitrarily spends), and the amount of money the department has frivolously spent. 

For a department that is so cash strapped, ASUPD seems to materialize funds when they are desperate to retain people. Prior to the indeed.com situation in the summer of 2013, the only raise ASUPD employees had received in five years came from the Governor’s office (in which state employees were given a 3% pay raise). This is coupled with the fact the 3% pay raise did NOT replace the lost wages accrued from a lack of cost of living raises, and a uniform allowance. [As an aside, the Chief and Command staff have been consistently  receiving pay raises/incentives during the time period when the rest of the department was on a pay freeze! Chief Pickens’ is also one of the highest paid Chiefs in the valley!] .However, after the indeed.com scandal broke, Sergeants and Officers found themselves receiving a pay increase after being told previously there was no money in the department’s budget to do so. Additionally, several members of the department who were leaving for greener pastures were also offered small amounts of money to entice them to remain at ASUPD.

Frivolous spending throughout the department’s “tough financial situation”, however, remained at an all-time high.

Chief Pickens decided to replace ALL the sworn cotton uniforms with a cotton/wool blend that degraded faster and cost more to maintain. He also completely redid  and replaced ALL of the department’s badges, despite the fact funds were desperately needed on the patrol side for new employees and new vehicles. Fairly soon, the Chief will also be revamping the departments’ patch, costing time and money to replace the preexisting patch.

Chief Pickens also routinely spends unknown amounts of money on other items such as regular lunches for himself and command staff, a take home vehicle for himself and several other members of the department, and possibly even traveling with the football team.(As an aside, several other Police Chiefs across the country have come under intense scrutiny for frivolous spending of tax payer money, such as Baltimore’s former Police Commissioner  ,a St. Louis County Police Chief, and an Ohio Police Chief).  Not surprisingly, in a 2011 assement, CALEA noted that the methodology utilized by ASUPD to track cash account activities made it difficult to keep track of how much was actually being spent.

The Integrity Report also did a cost analysis on ASUPD’s FTO program which showed the department had spent nearly a million dollars in two years on its failing FTO program; approximately 1/2 million dollars was spent on training employees who quit the department after less than a year of working there (with some only staying for MONTHS at a time!). This number is especially shocking when you consider it doesn’t include the salary of the Sergeant who had no qualification/training to run an FTO program (approximately $70k), or the salary of the FTO’s who were also not qualified to train new officers.

In summary, there has been an untold amount of tax-payer money being misappropriated by the Chief in various forms, which could be used to aid the underpaid, under trained, and unequipped employees who are still trying to hold the department together. The tax paying citizens of Arizona should be outraged enough to demand each requisition, receipt, and budget from ASUPD so that the many of these  public officials–including Chief Pickens–are help accountable. Perhaps this blog post will prompt the mainstream media to undertake this challenge?

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 14 2014
8 Comments
General

Civilian employees: the backbone of ASUPD

The primary focus at The Integrity Report has been addressing department-wide issues in general; however, these issues are most applicable to the sworn sector of the department. We wanted to specifically address our civilian sector, too; without them, the department would be even more in shambles than it currently is (if that’s possible!).

When we discuss civilian employees, who do we mean specifically? Police Aides, dispatches, administrative assistants, evidence and fleet technicians. Because of their support staff roles, we feel their concerns have a tendency to be overlooked by command staff (who is currently fixated on the sworn staffing situation). Here’s a brief list (and by no means “all inclusive”) of issues command staff needs to address to improve the productivity and retention of the backbone of ASUPD–the civilian employees.

  • Pay Raises: Yes, we know everyone wants a pay raise, but the civilian employees definitely deserve one. While officers have been getting pay raises (albeit insignificant ones), the PAs and dispatchers have not been receiving any sort of pay raise, and also make considerably less than their peers (see the salaries tables located here). If you want to hire and retain best employees, you have to give them an incentive to stay!
  • Training: PAs have been routinely used to supplement the low patrol numbers, which means they are regularly dispatched to calls in which they are ill-equipped to respond (dispatched to violent subject calls, often backup for an officer when they’re going hands on). Give them taser training as well as some advanced cuffing techniques, so they can be utilized effectively. PAs and dispatchers should also be incorporated into sworn training when possible.
  • Use them effectively: There are lots of PAs with former law enforcement/military experience, or highly educated/specialized degrees who are not being utilized effectively. There are many ways the department could deploy these people with experience, especially in a way that would be helpful during a staffing crisis. Instead of ignoring or discounting their experience, let them use it to make the department more effective and efficient.
  • Allow for career development…if they want it: Allow the civilian employees the opportunity to USE their tuition reimbursement or enroll in additional training, when possible. It is difficult to schedule classes/training when your workweek can change at the drop of the hat to suit the department’s needs. Also recognize that some people DON’T want career advancement for whatever reason–its their retirement job, they’re going to school for another career field–whatever. Constantly hounding employees to test for officer positions is pointless for people who don’t want to work in the field or are using ASUPD as a vehicle for somewhere else.
  • They’re the “eyes and ears” for the department…but they’re not sources of intel: Civilian employees are used as “eyes and ears” for the sworn staff; there are easily more civilian employees than sworn, so they can observe and report activity that patrol wouldn’t normally see. However, just because they see or hear a lot does NOT make them a source of intel or gossip! There has been several supervisors who have tried to use PAs or dispatchers to spy on other employees for the purposes of bullying/getting an officer in trouble. This is absurd! It’s not high school anymore, and the civilian employees don’t want to be involved in departmental drama or gossip.
  • Supervise their supervisors: This is a huge one. Make sure the people that supervise civilian employees know what they’re doing and know HOW to manage people. How long did a former dispatch supervisor terrorize her employees before she left? How many complaints were made against PA Lead Atkinson or Nasca before someone realized they were NOT good supervisors? Civilian supervisors should be instructed how to properly and unfairly evaluate employees using a standardized method in addition to receiving training on how to manage people and resources effectively. Just because you have a civilian in a supervisor position does NOT mean he or she know how to do the job. (That being said…there are also some pretty stellar supervisors!!)
  • APPRECIATE YOUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES!!: Some supervisors are excellent on giving accolades to their civilian employees when a major event transpires on the sworn side (Sgt. T was always giving out “atta boys” for this civilian employees)…but quite frankly, a lot of them don’t. You can (to an extent) mitigate low pay, poor working conditions–a myriad of other variables–IF you employees feel appreciated, invested, and are happy. This means giving them credit for great work they do, both visible or behind the scenes (look at how much work was put into revamping the evidence processing, fleet/equipment managing, or how much behind the scenes work the admin assistants do regularly). Their roles SUPPORT the function of the sworn side, so without them, the sworn side cannot perform their duties.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 12 2014
9 Comments
General

Why are the proposed solutions to ASUPD’s problems being ignored?

Recently, members of the Chief’s Advisory Board were tasked with assisting both Chief Pickens and ASUPD command staff in identifying major problems that are currently plaguing the department. Having “the worker bees” compile a list of problems would, in theory, put command staff more in touch with what issues the line-level employee is currently experiencing (and also allows the upper-echelons of the department to appear they are “tackling issues” when, in reality, their role is strictly reactionary).

However, what Pickens’ did NOT anticipate was that the problems his employees identified would be of any true significance, and  also how tired his employees were of having their problems rephrased in a “diplomatic way”. What was shocking about these revelations is how openly discussed they were in a generalized sense on the ground level, but how absent they seemed to be when pen came to paper on the third floor. Members of the advisory board even went one step further, by countering all the problems that were identified at ASUPD with possible short and long term solutions! (Please see here for the full document: Advisory Board Meeting_3rd_revision).

The reaction of Pickens  was to categorically minimize the actual problems that were identified, and then very generally appear to work on a solution when the grumbles of dissatisfied employees reached a fever-pitch. In reality, all the solutions to the aforementioned problems were already neatly and smartly presented to the Chief in the form of a PowerPoint by his “bees”, all he had to do was evaluate and implement them.

Why the absolute disconnect between the proposal of solutions at the employee level and the implementation at the command level? Approximately three months have transpired since Pickens was presented with this document! While we don’t have the complete answer, we postulate that staffing has damaged the department beyond the point of ANY intervention, or that command staff is attempting to alter this plan and present it as their own. Chief: regardless of the reason, it is reckless and cowardly to stand around taking NO action while ASUPD continues to fall further down the rabbit hole. You elicited the feedback from your employees for a reason; listen to them!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 10 2014
8 Comments
General

How ASUPD narrowly escaped dealing with an armed/dangerous suspect!

On Monday Dec 16, 2013, there was a police pursuit and standoff involving an armed subject in the East valley; however, what the media failed to mention is this incident originated in student housing at the ASU Polytechnic Campus.

24 hours prior to being apprehended, the suspect threatened to shoot and kill his girlfriend, as well as himself. He also had the means to carry out those threats by claiming he owned several guns (he was later apprehended with a shotgun and a handgun in his vehicle). After the victim reported the threats, ASUPD Sgt Phil Osborne claimed they had no charges against the suspect (please see ARS 13-1202, Threatening and Intimidating, for more info). According to Sgt Osborne, because they had no charges against the suspect, ASUPD was unable to detain or arrest him when/if they had the chance.

 Eventually, the suspect was  located outside of the victim’s workplace, but took off when officers attempted to stop him.  ASUPD Polytechnic Commander, L. Scicilone was stepping over the ASUPD officer’s radio traffic (who was trying to stop the suspect)  in an attempt to cover policy, repeatedly (and excitedly) asking over and over, “ you are not in pursuit are you?!?”. ASUPD officers eventually lost the suspect. Gilbert and Mesa officers who were in pursuit of the vehicle (which got up to speeds of 100 mph!) eventually found the suspect. An ASUPD officer responding to the scene driving code three was told by Mesa and Gilbert PD to stay out of their scene. Ultimately the standoff came to a peaceful end and the suspect was taken into custody in Mesa after negotiating with officers.

This situation could have been resolved much sooner had Sgt Osborne reacted appropriately by identifying the fact a crime had occurred and attempted to get the subject into custody soon. What would have happened if the subject would have come back to the victim’s room a day later and killed her? Or fired rounds at police? It is by sheer luck ALONE that ASUPD did not have this situation turn much worse.

This story illustrates perfectly how ASUPD is ill equipped—both with personnel and equipment—to deal with a major incident on campus. The blame lies upon ASUPD command staff who refuse to prepare a contingency plan for a major incident, and provide their officers with adequate training to be able to respond to a barricaded subject or an active shooter. Constantly functioning with the blasé attitude that “it can’t happen here” will eventually get someone seriously harmed/killed and is purely negligent on behalf of command staff.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 07 2014
5 Comments
General

“Integrity is its own reward”

Another great article from policeone.com. ASU has suffered from a lack of true leadership for years. Beyond the requirements of managing persons and money within the confines of a police department, ASU needs a Chief who knows how to lead his employees other than by coercing them with empty promises and vague punishments. A true leader is one who leads by example…who talks the talk, but can also walk the walk.

10 truths of police leadership

Integrity is its own reward, and other lessons drawn from longtime service

1.) No good deed goes unpunished.
Unfortunately, this negative truth can often mean the most diligent, hard-working officers get more than their share of the workload. As a leader, do you choose the easy way of handing out assignments to known performers who won’t complain, rather than motivating slugs to perform?

2.) It is NEVER so bad it can’t get worse.
Another potential negative, but a turn for the worst must be planned for, especially during critical incidents (a la Murphy’s Law). Plan for the worst and then plan for it to get still worse. You must always have (or be prepared to quickly formulate) a Plan B, C and D. And E.

3.) You can learn more from bad leaders than you learn from good ones.
Sometimes it is difficult to define what makes a good leader “good.” But it is usually very easy to define what makes a bad boss “bad.” Just do the opposite and you’re off to a good start.

4.) You can either DO the right thing or BE the right thing.
Colonel John Boyd (of the OODA Loop) used to deliver this “Do or Be” leadership speech:

“You can say and do the right things, to the right people, at the right times, and progress up the ladder and BE. Or you can DO what is right and make a real difference. It may cost you a promotion or even a career. It’s a decision we all have to make throughout our lives and careers: To DO or to BE.”

5.) Integrity is its own reward.
Telling the truth and doing the right thing, even when doing so could cause you problems, will not endear you to the upper management of some agencies (see #4). So, integrity sometimes becomes an internal reward, a personal choice of how to live your life.

6.) No man is a prophet in his own land.
There is truth in the old joke about an expert being a guy with a briefcase more than 300 miles from home. Whether due to jealousy of their expertise or simply ignorance of their talents, top performers may get brushed aside in their own organization.

7.) God gives each of us gifts, but no user’s manual.
I believe every person is endowed at birth with some special talent. The trick is to figure out your gifts and how to use them. As a leader, identify the gifts of your team members and try to put them into positions suited to their unique talents. All too often, people don’t recognize their own gifts.

“To every man there comes that special moment when he will be figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a special thing unique to him. What a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for that work, which could have been his finest hour.”
— Winston Churchill

8.) Work and home lives should be separated as much as possible.
Police officers get paid to do and see the things ordinary citizens don’t want to do or see (or even know about). Taking the crap home with you is always a fine balance between inadequate communication and information overload. But you must communicate with your family and share your feelings, if not the details.

9.) Cops rarely invent a bad attitude.
Many cops develop bad attitudes for either a period of time or a whole career. Why? Generally, because someone screwed them over — someone gave them the ingredients for a bad attitude. The measure of the officer is what they do with the attitude. As a leader, try not to give someone a bad attitude, and help the members of your team work through those they inevitably develop.

10.) You can judge a leader by the enemies they keep, rather than their friends.
In ancient times the great room in a castle was decorated with the standards of both the King’s enemies and allies — they were both held in high regard. You can buy a friend for a beer, but you must truly earn an enemy. Over the years I have come to be proud of the men I call enemies, because no honorable man would ever want to be counted among their friends.

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
— Winston Churchill

Tagged , , , , , , ,
Jan 07 2014
10 Comments
General

GA public safety chief resigns over police staffing

Interesting how in other jurisdictions, mismanaging your police staffing would elicit such a strong response from other public officials. Conversely, at ASU, the department and university have known about chronically low staffing issues for years, and no public official in a position to handle the situation has addressed this issue. 

From policeone.com:

By Dan Klepal
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

COBB COUNTY, Ga. — Cobb County’s top public safety official resigned Monday with acidic four-page letter to county manager David Hankerson, alleging that police staffing levels are dangerously low and that Hankerson and other county officials refuse to do anything about it, even though they have known about the problem for more than a year.

Jack Forsythe, director of the county’s Department of Public Safety, also said in the letter that the Atlanta Braves new stadium will exacerbate the problem if the county doesn’t add more officers.

“For over a year now, the decision to increase the police department’s authorized strength has been delayed or denied by continuing to request additional information that … is not available, or (by) requests of duplicate information that has already been presented,” the Jan. 6 letter says.

Forsythe went on to write that Hankerson has stonewallled his effort to commission a study that would document the need for more officers. Cobb’s police department has more than 600 sworn officer and 150 civilian employees. Forsythe also was in charge of the county’s fire department, 911 operations and animal control unit.

“You have stated that the county is not ready for what the report will say nor can the county afford the number of officers the report will say we need, therefore the study has not been given approval from your office to proceed even after I was directed” by Commission Chairman Tim Lee to have it completed, the letter says.

Forsythe’s resignation takes effect Jan. 24 but he is on leave until then. Hankerson will recommend to the Cobb County Commission that Fire Chief Sam Heaton replace him permanently. Heaton served as interim public safety director from August 2010 through January 2013, and will again handle the job on an interim basis until the commission acts on the recommendation.

Lee did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment on the resignation and the allegations in the letter. The county’s public relations office released statements by Hankerson and Lee Monday night, but neither addressed the substance of the letter.

Forsythe’s performance appraisal for 2013 shows that he was given a “meets requirements” designation in all areas of his job, and for his overall performance.

However, the appraisal noted: “Communication with County Manager and the office is very poor. This area needs improvement more than any other area.” It also noted that Forsythe missed public safety related events in the community “without any communication to the County Manager.”

Forsythe’s letter also hints at friction between him and Hankerson.

“You … stated that I don’t do things the Cobb Way,” Forsythe’s letter to Hankerson says. “It appears the Cobb Way is not to disagree or buck the current procedures, regardless of the validity or legality of the Cobb Way process.”

Forsythe worked as a senior law enforcement official for NASA from 2003-11. He was working as a consultant from 2011 until hired by the county in December 2012.

Forsythe’s letter also complains about his salary, which he says is “$30,000 below the national average.” But the major thrust is the lack of police manpower.

“Public safety in Cobb County has suffered from a lack of sufficient funding and resources to properly sustain the appropriate level of personnel, facilities and equipment needed to provide an adequate level of protection for the citizens,” the letter says. “This lack of support for public safety over the years has increased officer safety issues, reduced the number of officers available for calls, increased fire response times and ultimately (led to) the degradation of the morale of all public safety personnel.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 07 2014
3 Comments
General

What ASU really achieved in 2013

We were pretty struck by the article on ASU’s homepage: What we achieved in 2013! Granted, some of the achievements regarding research were pretty stellar, but the majority of the article was peppered with “achievements” such as: being one of the “greenest” schools in the country, revamping the business school building, and having the Sun Devils in a bowl game.

Noticeably absent, of course, are topics such as Michael Crow receiving a pay raise while the rest of his employees receive a measly 3% pay raise (after a 5 year pay freeze!), or the decrease in proactive policing (due to staffing issues). Therefore, we’re creating a list of what ASU also achieved in 2013. This is, by no means, a conclusive list.

 

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