Tag Archives: discrimination

The FBI is poking around at ASUPD!

…and the plot thickens.

Today an email was sent out to PD employees everyone that ASUPD has requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigate the allegations that Ursula Ore had her civil rights violated by Officer Ferrin. This is not surprising to any PD employee, because the issue of racially profiling was already brought up the Arizona Critical Ethnic Studies group, as well as the mainstream media.

Although Officer Ferrin was administratively cleared by ASUPD, he was crucified in the court of public opinion! Therefore, to remove themselves from any potential conflict of interest in the eyes of the public, ASUPD asked the FBI to investigate Ore’s arrest (which was a surprisingly smart move for ASUPD). However, what ASUPD does not realize is they also put an ENTIRE department’s actions under the microscope! This would include other officer’s arrests where force was used, the department’s IAs/”reviews” of other uses of force, as well as ANY allegations of biased policing against ANY officer at ASUPD.

We have previously mentioned several allegations of racially-charged comments and possible bias on behalf of Sgt. Mark Aston in a previous post (Aston was also mentioned at length in our post about ASUPD’s firearms training). Some of these situations were investigated  and “cleared” due to the fact the IA was conducted by a friend of Aston. Some other situations were never investigated and were subject to an “informal review” (thanks to a poster for mentioning specific dates and IA numbers)! These “informal reviews” allow the department to appear as though they are investigating a situation, but there is no paper trail available for an outside entity to FOIA–in other words, the “reviews” or “investigations” do not exist.

We have also mentioned allegations of excessive use of force by Corporal Luke Khalid against a student which was never initially investigated, then subject to an “informal review” months later. A FOIA request for this particular investigation was submitted to ASU’s General Council which turned up ZERO documentation or evidence of any IA.

We are more than confident Officer Ferrin will be cleared of any racial bias; he is an honest cop who has never engaged in any activity that could remotely be construed as racism or bias. We are also confident that the FBI’s investigation will turn up the true bad guys who routinely engage in illegal behavior at ASUPD.

Two birds, one stone.

The FBI investigates ASUPD

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Kevin Salcido ASU head of human resources

After the overwhelming amount of negative attention due to Kevin Salcido’s email to all PD employees on 06/05/14, we assumed that someone in the university administration would start to “screen” his emails. thus preventing further public embarrassment of ASU.

We were very wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ASU Police Budget 2013

We created a new “page” on the main site titled ASU Police Budget 2013.

It contains ASUPD’s FY 2013 budget; all department requisitions for training and equiptment; credit card statements for state-issued credit cards; travel reimbursment receipts; and petty cash receipts.

It will take a little time to upload and sort the documentation in its entirety, so please be patient.


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

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


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

From: John Pickens (Chief of Police)
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:54 AM
Subject: New Opportunity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stand by.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A concerned employee responds to Salcido’s email + a possible DPS investigation?

Recently, the head of ASU’s HR (Kevin Salcido) sent a very strongly worded email to all ASUPD employees in an attempt to dissuade people from posting on The Integrity Report. We assembled a carefully crafted letter where we discussed the legal issues Salcido brought up in his email, as well our take on the entire ASUPD/HR situation. However, our response was later eclipsed by another ASU employee who voiced HIS concerns in a formal email, addressed to PD-ALL with a CC to CFO Morgan Olsen and President Michael Crow.



Sir, thank you for having the courage to send the most epic email chain in the history of ASUPD; you are deserving of a “Lifetime Achievement” Sun Award, at a minimum! We wouldn’t be surprised if the Chief is scrambling behind the scenes, contacting legal council to see how the sender of the email could be reprimanded. This email perfectly addressed how ASU HR had reason to know about the issues occurring at ASUPD, but failed to take any corrective action at all.

Speaking of nonfeasance, we have heard whispers ASUPD Command Staff has requested a possible investigation of The Integrity Report by DPS. Allegedly, citing violations of a few broad ARS statutes, DPS has been tasked to investigate the blog’s release of a picture of Sgt. Pam Osborne and her personally owned vehicle.  After months of emails, meetings, and phone calls to Command Staff/ASU HR about problems in the department, none of the issues (which have been discussed at length on The Integrity Report) apparently meet the threshold for an HR INVESTIGATION. However, after Salcido inappropriately applies ARS , somehow the threshold for a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION is met? This is nothing more than a formalized witch hunt to attempt to stop people from posting on the blog, after an attempt to discover the blog creators via ASU’s IT department were unsuccessful.

Mr. Salcido, Chief Pickens, and ASUPD Command Staff: You are dangerously close to stifling the 1st Amendment rights of your employees.

  • 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.

Additionally, you assume the creators of the blog are ASUPD employees, which is why you are citing ARS statutes aimed at persons who are “employed by a state or local governmental entity”. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we are students, or members of the press, or people unaffiliated with the university in any capacity. Would you still be so eager to instigate a criminal complaint, and in the process, violating the 1st Amendment rights of the general public? Didn’t think so.


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kevin Salcido addresses The Integrity Report once again

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

To: All Members of the ASU Police Department

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARS 39-123:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARS 39-124:

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

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

ARS 39-128:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Another reminder of ASUPD’s refusal to properly and fairly discipline employees

Just another reminder of ASUPD's refusal to properly and fairly discipline employees.

Another shining example of the “Orr’s Boys” clique that has done so much to undermine the mission of the Arizona State University Police Dept. so it could operate like a street gang with fellow employees.


While the Arizona State University Police Department continues to lose both new officers just off their year probation, as well as old salty veterans to other departments, ASUPD has dusted off an age-old retention strategy:

The internally generated retention internal affairs (IA) investigations.

This post goes out to all of our brothers who escaped with their careers intact, and also to those who have been aggressively targeted by ASUPD command for “retention IAs”. The department leadership is desperate to retain officers at all costs and has no intention of fixing the moral issues plaguing the department. We addressed this issue in a prior post regarding the arbitrary nature of punishment at ASUPD.  It is the first of many posts aimed at addressing the double standards within ASUPD, and how they are directly affecting the department’s ability to retain employees.

We are tired of the double standards and the unwillingness to change. Petty punitive actions against some employees (while favored ones commit policy and criminal violations regularly) only make us fight harder and dig in further. We are not going away. We will keep pressing forward with The Integrity Report until the issues discussed here are resolved, or the people that have created them are removed.

To those that have stood by and have refused to act, either out of malice or cowardice: we ask that you take the time to read your oath again; read it and honestly ask yourself if you have honored it.

To see the other ASU Police Firearms Photos and story see the link below.



Are you surprised by the corrupt good old boy way this department is run? We're not.

Are you surprised by the corrupt good old boy way this department is run? The vast majority of it’s employees are not.



Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ASU Police Budget: Where does all of ASUPD’s money go? Part 1

Many of us have asked, “I heard ASUPD has an 11 million dollar budget! Where does all that money go?”.

We know nearly all of the excess funds in the department have NOT gone toward improving morale in the department by increasing the salary for line level officers or civilian employees. Many of the vehicles and equipment at the auxiliary campuses are old and in desperate need of repair…the money definitely isn’t going there. What about to pay for more training for officers/civilians? Pay for secured parking? No and no.

Where does all that money go, then?

It pays for insignificant garbage. Instead of trimming the fat and paying its employees a more competitive wage, ASUPD has decided to give its officers a 10-cent pay raise and spend the rest of the department funds on nonsense.

This is only a sneak preview of what we were able to uncover….the rest will be in a much larger post.

That’s nearly a HALF MILLION DOLLARS for security at the BioDesign building, 2 “spy cameras” for Det. Dunwoody (costing 295 and 379, respectively)…and a pair of black elbow pads for the Chief, at a whopping $21.81. No knee pads?

ASU Police paying for biodesign security

ASU Police pay close to a half million for biodesign security

ASU Police Parker Dunwoody Spy Camera

ASU Police more covert cameras

ASU Police Chief John Pickens opts for elbow pads

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contrast this with issues including CRIMES of ASUPD supervisors that don’t get investigated:

  • A supervisor who has been investigated several times for using racial slurs (including to a black officer in training) and has received no punishment, his friends cover for him every time.
  • A supervisoe tases a handcuffed prisoner in custody four times with another officer present. No internal affair is done, instead a informal inquiry is done months later with no time off, administrative leave, for the employee. The “investigator” didn’t even bother to interview the officer who was there because he was told what conclusion he needed to have by the chief. (Sounds like aggravated assault, four counts.)
  • A supervisor who has allegedly falsified documents with no investigation or punishment into the situation despite this being common department knowledge.
  • A supervisor has allegedly falsified time sheets with no known investigation.
  • A supervisor who has taken home public documents and files (a recent Tempe PD employee was fired for this same situation).
  • A supervisor who has taken department-issued equipment home for personal use for months.
  • A former Assistant Chief who received no punishment and was allowed to retire from his position, despite the fact that the Chief had knowledge the employee had sexually harassed female employees and was being investigated by DPS. This investigation was delivered to the chief and sat on his desk for over a year allowing this employee to be eligible for rehiring by the university. When this employee “left” Chief Pickens was free to make the investigation disappear.
  • Another friend of the chief, a civilian employee entrusted with money, decides to give herself a pay raise. ASU human resources catches the crime, notifies Chief Pickens and the employee was allowed to retire once the money was paid back.

See a discrepancy here? We do!

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


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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Student organization plans to file a half dozen more sex abuse complaints against ASU

PHOENIX (KSAZ)As federal investigators are looking into how ASU handles sexual violence and misconduct complaints, some students claim the university is turning a blind eye to a culture of sexual misconduct at the Barrett Honors College.

The students say the problem goes beyond a couple professors sleeping with students. They go so far as to say it’s a way of life within the college, where faculty flirts, dates, gropes, and has sex with students without consequence.

One group is trying to change that they started a petition asking the university to fire the teachers who do this. That petition has received a lot of support so far with nearly a thousand students have already signed it.

Jasmine Lester founded the group Sun Devils Against Sexual Assault, she says professors continually get away with taking advantage of their students sexually.

She says her professor took advantage of her during a study abroad trip.

“She would go out drinking with all the students getting me drunk holding me up feeling me up,’ said Lester.

Lester launched the petition to put a stop to what she calls the rape culture at Barrett. Since then, more than 900 have signed it, and many women have come forward with their own stories.

She describes a situation one of her peers encountered. “she and her professor were in a relationship while she was a student in his class that’s where the power dynamic comes in he had control over her grades letters of recommendation scholarship letters etc.,” said Lester.

The woman told FOX 10 via email that “she felt like she owed him sexual favors in exchange for things like letters of recommendation and extensions on class assignments”.

That professor no longer teaches at ASU; he left suddenly, in the middle of the semester after the woman says she filed a sexual abuse complaint.

But in the end the students say their complaints are not taken seriously by administrators and in some cases even discouraged.

“She said when we think of sexual harassment were thinking more shove you up against the wall kind of thing because a lot of what I’ve been describing was emotional harassment that shed been putting me thru,” she said.

Lester says she wants professors to be held accountable and administrators to educate students about the different forms of sexual abuse.

They don’t say this is what consent is and this how power can compromise that and just so you know your professors might behave inappropriately with you its not just frat boys its also people in positions of power,” said Lester.

We asked ASU to address these specific claims, they would not. The university did issue a statement: “Arizona State University is a community where sexual misconduct is not tolerated. The university has policies and procedures in place to handle such matters. We take all sexual misconduct complaints very seriously, thoroughly investigate them and deliver swift and appropriate punishment if violations are found”.

The group, Sun Devils Against Sexual Assault is preparing to file a half dozen more complaints about sexually abusive professors with the university.


No, the problem isn’t limited to frat boys. Unfortunately, the problem with people behaving inappropriately very much includes people in positions of power, some of which are employed by ASUPD. As mentioned on The Integrity Report previously, a former Assistant Chief (who is still employed by the university in a different capacity) was allowed to retire before the conclusion of his sexual harassment investigation against another employee was finished. This person STILL has access to the police department building (and the same female employees who worked around him before) even though he does not work at ASUPD anymore!
What about the lack of an appropriate punishment for an officer who majorly mishandled a sexual assault case, and who was later allowed to train several NEW employees?
Or the chronic underreporting and reclassifying of sexual abuse cases under the Clery Act? These situations represent only a few of MANY situations where university officials (in this case, ASUPD Chief Pickens and his illustrious Command staff) failed to respond appropriately to rectify these problems.
The university administration does NOT take complaints of any nature–be it sexual abuse, harassment, bullying, etc–against a member of faculty or staff seriously at all. The ASU approach to handing complaints lodged against faculty/staff/administrators is to discredit the individual making the complaint, labeling him/her “disgruntled” or “angry”, only to going through the motions of making it look like the university has done their due diligence in investigation the claim. However, if the issue at hand causes the university to look bad (and subsequently lose money), only then can a complainant expect some resolution or action on behalf of the university, This is apparent with ASU’s half-assed resolution to Ms. Lester’s situation, as well as ASU HR’s failure to properly investigate complaints against the police department.
We are hoping the additional sex abuse complaints will place additional heat on the university, eventually forcing out all the ASU administrators who failed to respond to this situations appropriately. Hang on, folks; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,