Tag Archives: CALEA

May 10 2014
10 Comments
General

Local media outlets pick up on ASUPD’s Clery issues

From abc15.com:

TEMPE, AZ – Most public universities are required to follow the Clery Act — which states a university must post accurate crime statistics.

The federal law requires universities to ask neighboring police agencies for Clery crime statistics in three separate areas: on-campus, public property (as in streets, sidewalks and parking lots near campus) and non-campus areas.

Attorney Judd Nemiro says, “Non-campus places would be things that are owned and operated by ASU, but not specifically on campus, so things like student run organizations.”

Crimes handled by Arizona State University Police get reported immediately, but the ones that occur near campus don’t always get added because they fall into a grey area.

For example, back in 2010, ASU student Kyleigh Sousa was brutally killed directly across from campus.

The 21-year-old was robbed and then dragged behind a car. However, the robbery started in a private parking lot. Under the Clery Act, it doesn’t have to be included in ASU’s crime report.

ASU’s Annual Fire and Safety handbook says various police departments are “unable to provide a statistical breakdown appropriate for the Clery Act.”

ASU would not go on camera for an interview.
ASU Assistant Police Chief James Hardina said police departments do supply the necessary data.
 
He said it had not been brought to his attention, that the handbook accused police departments of not providing data to ASU.
However ABC15 found a discrepancy. Back in September of 2013, Tempe Police Chief Tom Ryff did question ASU about the inaccuracy of the clause. You can read the correspondence here.

ASU Official Julie Newberg says that clause doesn’t mean the police departments don’t provide the university with information.

“Letters are sent to each of the agencies every year and many of them do respond with the statistics that they can filter out,” said Newberg.

Newberg says it’s because how data is reported differs.

“Cities report data by FBI standards, which is not the same as universities that are asked to report crime data according to the Clery Act,” said Newberg. “Definitions of crimes also differ according to the difference in federal reporting law. That is why the statistical breakdown of city crime data is not appropriate for the Clery Act report.

Newberg says police departments do send them information and ASU filters out what statistics work under the Clery guidelines.

ASU says they provide a third party link to a website to get local statistics for “extra measure since the definitions of what each captures is different,” said Newberg.

Violating the Clery Act could result in losing some federal funding.

We’re happy the local media has decided to probe further into issues surrounding ASU’s Title IX and Clery Act reporting; hopefully this will be the first of many stories the local media does on these issues.

In the video on the abc15.com site, you can see excerpts from emails sent on behalf of Tempe Chief Ryff to ASU Chief Pickens, in which Ryff expressed concern over ASU stating they were not able to appropriately report some crime statistics. It is very concerning when another agency’s Chief has more regard for providing accurate crime statistics than our own Chief does.

Finally, Commander Hardina: you are very much aware of the department’s assertion that it was unable to provide a breakdown in crime statistic information; in addition to the fact that Pickens was discussing this issue with Chief Ryff, we have mentioned this assertion several times on The Integrity Report (and we know you are an avid reader, sir).

In the interiem, standby folks…this article could be the start of something bigger

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 08 2014
29 Comments
General

Another day, another ASUPD staffing concern!

Another decent ASUPD employee left the department today, which has been a routine occurrence in light of the ongoing staffing crisis transpiring at the department.

The Commander over the Tempe Campus, K. Williams left ASUPD today with only two days notice (presumably for greener pastures). Commander Williams was a seasoned 20 year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, and managed to survive ASUPD for only four years! This should speak volumes about the type of toxic work environment that exists throughout the department…even amongst members of Command staff!

Best of luck in your new ventures, Williams. We hope you go to a department that appreciates your experience and education.

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

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

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

From abc15.com

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

An ASU alum wants to trigger a second inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 01 2014
14 Comments
General

ASU faces a Federal investigation over complaints of mishandling sexual abuse cases

We initially wrote about how easy it was for ASUPD to skew its crime statistics in October 2013, just after ASUPD released its 2012 crime statistics (here and here).

In February 2014, we did a lengthy article explaining what the Clery Act is, the reporting requirements under the law, and how it is applicable to ASUPD. In March 2014, we followed up this article with a second part which analyzed ASUPD’s crime data and illustrated exactly how ASUPD misrepresented its crime statistics and violated the Clery Act. Shortly thereafter, we wrote an article explaining what Title IX is, and how ASU is also violating provisions of it.

After months of reporting about ASU has failed to meet the requirements of the Clery Act, as well as Title IX, a formal complaint has finally been filed against ASU. This complaint has now launched ASU into the national media spotlight (as well as ASUPD, for their role in under reporting/reclassifying of statistics).

Hopefully, the pressure of a looming Federal investigation is what will help ASUPD clean house, and get on track to establishing itself as a legitimate police department.

Stand by.

Here are a few articles on the situation at ASU:

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/asu-among-schools-in-us-federal-sex-assault-investigation

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/colleges-sex-complaint-investigations/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/05/01/arizona-state-universities-sex-assault-inquiry/8565811/

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 26 2014
11 Comments
General

ASUPD nearly botches a missing student case!

 On 04-03-14, ASUPD botched yet another major call–this time a potentially missing international ASU student.

The student was last seen on the ASU Tempe campus, and this time it’s the job of ASUPD to search for and locate this student instead of the Tempe Police Department. The student’s apartment was filled with personal items someone typically wouldn’t leave behind if they were going somewhere–credit cards, money, purse, phone, and items that would have been of evidentiary value if a crime was involved. Due to this student’s status as an international student,  there were not many local contacts available to interview for further information. Additionally, the student’s Facebook and email was being used by someone admitting to be a third party and leaving cryptic messages about the status of the student without giving a location

The direct supervisor of detectives, ASUPD Sergeant Lewis was under the impression a crime had to already be committed to apply for a search warrant in this missing person case. Over the next five days this must have been believed to be true by the commander, assistant chief, and chief closely following this case and overseeing its lack of progress. All the ASUPD Commanders (who are hardly ever at their respective campuses) were running around the Tempe station in a panic, clueless about how to proceed.

What was ASUPD’s solution to finding this missing female student over the next five days? Have patrol Sergeant Macias and Detective Bryner knock on the door of the residence on three separate occasions with negative contact. A brief interview was done with the boyfriend (usually a person of interest in missing persons cases), but nothing was discovered. There was NO extensive search of the jails or hospitals, and no search warrants issued for her residence, phone, email…nothing! After five days with no leads, the case looked increasingly bleak. Instead of searching for more information, ASUPD stopped looking for more leads in this case.

As this investigation grinded to a halt, Chief Pickens (clueless has how to proceed), delegated the responsibility for handling the situation to his two assistant chiefs.  Assistant Chief Hardina reacted with a typical ASUPD response: let’s not enter it into NCIC…let’s give it to Tempe PD! His counterpart, Assistant Chief Thompson (with experience from a legitimate police agency) decided to enter it into NCIC and work the case like a responsible, capable, police department would. There was an internal debate raging on the third floor; should ASUPD continue to work this stagnant missing persons case, or should ASUPD hand it over to Tempe (where the student resided)? This was a last ditch attempt to avoid any more negative press about ASU.

When Tempe PD was notified of the missing person case (and how ASUPD failed to make any headway in the case), they immediately demanded a meeting with ASUPD’s Command Staff. Commander Michele Rourke was given the task of meeting Tempe PD to answer for ASUPD’s incompetence. However, at the last minute, a search of the local jails was done and the student was located; the meeting with Tempe PD was subsequently canceled.

This is further proof that ASUPD is incapable of handling a major incident on campus, due solely to incompetent leadership and an understaffed (and undertrained!) police department.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 13 2014
13 Comments
General

Tempe named one of the most dangerous suburbs in America!

From the Phoenix New Times Blog:

Of the 10 most-dangerous suburbs in America, two of them are suburbs of Phoenix.

That’s according to the real estate website Movoto, which ranked Glendale as the seventh-most dangerous, and Tempe the eighth-most, based on FBI crime data.

The people who put the ranking together took into account murders, other violent crimes, property crimes, and total crimes, all per 100,000 people, to compare the suburbs to one another.

In Glendale, there were 6,410 property crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, the worst of any suburb. Total crime, at 6,901 per 100,000 was the sixth-highest. Glendale also ranked 18th for murders, and 18th for other violent crimes.

The odds of being a victim of a crime in Glendale in 2012 were 1 in 14.

Meanwhile, Tempe ranked 14th for property crimes and 12th for total crime.

The violent crimes are what put Tempe on the list: with seven murders per 100,000 people, the 11th-most, and 519 other violent crimes per 100,000 people, ranking 16th.

That put your odds of being a crime victim in Tempe 1 in 19 in 2012.

The six most-dangerous suburbs, beating out Glendale and Tempe, were East Point, Georgia; Camden, New Jersey; Miami Beach, Florida; Midwest City, Oklahoma; Miami Gardens, Florida; and Clarksville, Indiana.

We’re speculating the high property crime rate stems from ASU’s Tempe campus, which reported nearly 1,000 theft related crimes from it’s 2012 Clery Report. Violent crimes statistics on ASU’s Tempe Campus (forcible sex offenses, robbery, and burglary) also showed significant increases in 2012, as compared to the previous year.

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

How The Integrity Report has changed ASUPD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Property

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

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

Clery public prob

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

West poly public

Down Lake Havasu

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

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

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

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

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

Tempe 1

Tempe 2

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

 Non-campus property

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

Skysong crimes

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

 

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

Sex offenses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevalence of under reporting sexual assaults

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

Robbery

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

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

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

3. ASU doesn’t utilize its resources properly

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

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

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

4. ASU needs stronger partnerships with other agencies

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
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 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 →