Tag Archives: discrimination

Dec 20 2013
14 Comments
General

Our response to the Chief’s Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

We broke down the meeting minutes piece by piece to share our thoughts on the topic. We could have discussed this document in even greater depth, but we decided to make it (somewhat) concise.

1.       The Chief instructed his advisory board he wanted to keep the discussion “positive”.  How do you have a constructive discussion about the departments’ problems in a “positive” way? Where do you go if the information isn’t positive? The Integrity Report on the ASU Police Department blog? The advisory board was assembled to fix the negativity Chief’s inactions and inattention have fostered, so the underlying purpose of the board will inherently be negative, even if the discussion itself is “positive”.

2.       Make new employees feel welcome? Absolutely, always do. The people discussed in the blog, (the people Chief has protected for years), those are the people making new and old employees feel unwelcome and alienated. They have brought this organization to crisis mode, and that will continue to happen despite the number of fresh bodies you bring through the door for them to devour.

 3.       The community gives positive feedback on what we do here…that’s great. There is no correlation between a positive rating by the community and how happy/ appreciated your employees are.  It simply means we won’t compromise what we do for others, compromise our ethics and integrity simply because we get treated like garbage from our department.

 4.       In regards to your community feedback: we love our community, but they don’t know squat about policing and quite frankly, they would be appalled if they knew how ASUPD treated its employees. Of course any feedback the community would give wouldn’t address major issues like staffing and retention, namely because the public has no idea this is transpiring! If the community could see Chief’s track records from his former agencies, they wouldn’t view the department in the same positive light.

 5.       Chief has placed a lot of urgency in this meeting on greeting new employees, making the testing process more expedient, referrals, posting vacancies… everything but addressing the people who put him in the current staffing situation. Your commanders and some of your sergeants created this exodus of new employees’ year after year right under your indifferent, inattentive nose.  The only reason why Chief is “concerned” now is because it has become so obvious he can’t hide it from his superiors any longer.

 6.       For the Police Officer Recruiter position, it has yet to be filled. You are asking for higher criteria in this position than most of the ones at the police department, but with a fraction of the pay.  Nobody wants to be honest with the Chief unless it’s anonymous. Even still, Chief denies these issues exist because acknowledging them requires a measure of accountability

 7.       How is ASUPD in the 90% salary range of surrounding agencies in the East Valley?  Did you add over inflated command staff salaries to the average? The $160,000 the Chief makes, and the $70k the Sergeants make would skew the averages of salaries assessed for this statement. Let’s see the math on this.

 8.       Incentives are for FTO are good, but this isn’t the real reason you don’t have trainers. The past FTOs have seen what the predatory supervisors have done with the people they were training, and have refused to participate in the destruction of another rookie’s career.  Until you can get a solid FTO program established, and an FTO Supervisor that won’t take their own interpretation on it, the FTO program cannot function.

 9.       A security fee to supplement our budget?  Given the current ASU enrollment of approximately 76,000 students, that would total approximately 3.8 million dollars!! This is insane! The department’s total expenditures and his budget is information limited to the Chief and a few members of command staff. Does anyone but the chief know what’s in the budget or where the money is going? Does anyone know how much money is in the ASUPD budget so we can compare it to other university departments who publish what their budget is? Why the secrecy? This is a public university funded with public tax dollars!

 10.   The suggestion made by Cpl. Khalid on doing ride-alongs with an FTO is ridiculous. Focus your attention and efforts on retaining your CURRENT employees. Besides, having a prospective employee witness first-hand how ASUPD treats its employees will drive them away.  However, the suggestion to look at how other departments are doing things is a good valid suggestion that will be ignored like the rest of the good ideas suggested by the advisory board.

 11.   On the “gossiping” issue: people talk in private because they see what happens to people when they talk openly about issues. If things are jacked up and employee complaints have been continually ignored then people are going to talk about it. If you are not happy with people talking about it then do something to fix the problem they are talking about!  Unfortunately, a clique does run the department in the form of most of the commanders and a number of senior sergeants.

 12.   On the “Internal Affair Investigation Retention Program”:  Your one and a half year of data leaves out the years of pattern IA’s that prove the point everyone already knows. How about an audit from the time the chief started until now? Look at the IA post cited here on the blog. Quite a different picture than the one being painted at the advisory board.

 13.    If a person was subject to so many IA’s why would the chief want to keep them in the PD? Because the chief has always needed people on the ground to continue doing the job making him look good . If you put enough internal generated IA’s in officer’s files you can keep good people from leaving.  Other agencies hear the word “IA” and think about serious allegations of wrong doing; ASUPD’s “IAs” amount to silly nonsense that almost every other PD wouldn’t have the time or energy to investigate.

 14.    If the chief is complaining about not hearing about what’s going on, about the communication lines not reaching him, about people not speaking,  up he only has to look here on the blog and read. It won’t get any more open and honest than here. Sure there are some snarky comments on occasion, but the everything asserted here is valid information this. The next chief can use this information to make this place a real good place to work!

 15.   Since you’ve been made aware of these problems, address them chief! It’s  been two months and counting and the only thing done you’ve accomplished is speeding up requisitions for equipment and attempting to get more bodies in the door? You still haven’t address the REASON why people are leaving!

 16.    You have plenty of employees making six figures who should be offering you suggestions to fix the department, but instead you only get one with a plan: a civilian police aide making  $30,000 a year. He has taken the time, done the research, planning, and implementing solutions the rest of your overpaid command staff can’t be bothered to do, or doesn’t have the mental capacity to do.

 17.   Party Patrol and Tempe Bike positions are highly political, and ASUPD’s solution is to loan them a few officers while secretly relying on Tempe PD’s officers to solve ASUPD’s staffing shortage. Tempe PD should NOT be a crutch to solve ASUPD’s problems!! When shit hits the fan, we all know Tempe PD, Phoenix PD (Downtown), and Mesa/Gilbert PD (Poly) will be the ones saving ASUPD’s ass.

 18.   The only additional training ASUPD’s officers is by MS Powerpoint and Blackboard. We need the outside police training because we can’t do it ourselves, it obviously isn’t working. We need active shooter training too! WE GET NONE!!

 19.    There is no uniformity in employee evaluations. Sergeants send up evaluations and frequently get them marked down to lower numbers by people who have never worked with the employee. The criteria for higher ratings changes from one supervisor to the next.  How about having employees do evaluations of their supervisors to stay ahead of issues before they get out of control and affect more employees?

 20.   Promotions are not taken seriously when everyone at the department sees you pass over more qualified candidates’ process after process. The notes from the advisory board clearly state this problem:  “a six year ASU officer will be promoted over a 30 year officer from another agency”. There is no incentive to stay.

 21.   Morale doesn’t exist. The ASUPD Indeed.com reviews, this blog, the chief’s advisory board all make this alarmingly clear, but ASUPD command ignores it all calling it, “…a few disgruntled people.”

 22.   You want honest assessments? Ask past employees,  pay them to do an assessment so you can see the shocking reality of how awful ASUPD treats their employees. Otherwise, stand at attention and wait for the blog to report.

 23.   The report has just too few pages to get the ball moving down field. The thing is, it doesn’t matter how many pages are filled with solid answers to problems when the chief hears them and STILL does nothing.  If the chief and his command are unable to put things in motion while the department falls apart it is time to find fresh new employees that can. The troops will be sure to give them warm welcomes and make them feel at home because they would provide hope that ASUPD could be a better place to work at.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 19 2013
14 Comments
General

A Call to Arms

We’ve had a lot of folks contact us privately in regards to speaking out against ASUPD, even in an anonymous setting. We understand the apprehension in putting yourselves out there, even if it IS anonymously…but here is some food for thought:

Are you wondering if you should speak out, complain, or have you decided not to? As an officer you swore an oath before God to serve and protect the citizens of the State of Arizona, be them students, faculty, staff, the public, or your brothers/sisters in blue. How are you serving them by allowing the people responsible for their lack of safety a free pass by continuing in your silence despite what you know (what we ALL collectively discuss with our friends/coworkers)…namely things the public could never know about how dysfunctional the ASU Police department is?

If you are silent then you are part of the problem. You share the negligence, and you share in the responsibility if something bad happens through your inaction. You stood by, passing the buck, knowing of wrongs that led to a tragedy and did nothing. Do you want that on your conscience? By talking about these issues we are trying to change the department so that it can finally start fulfilling its mission instead of cutting all corners. You fight for truth and resolution or you quit and turn the cheek joining company with self-promoting deceivers; there’s no fence, none at all.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 18 2013
18 Comments
General

Chief’s Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the Chief’s Advisory board; what issues are being addressed with the Chief, and what steps command staff has taken to pull back its department from the brink of disaster.

Attached are the Chief’s Advisory Board meeting minutes from 10/17/13. We’re posting this primarily so the public can see that ASUPD’s employees have made EVERY effort to address the department’s problems with the Chief directly, and even posed possible solutions to each problem individually. Pickens STILL has yet to take ANY action to wrangle the department’s problems (despite the fact this meeting was TWO MONTHS AGO), and he has now actually removed himself from his own advisory board!!

Nearly everything stated on the Chief’s behalf is a half-truth: the clicks DO run the department; you’re NOT being personally attacked by the blog, Chief (you are professionally though!); you have NOT fixed the requisition process; you do NOT have magical ideas that will benefit the department that are so secret none of us can know; and the idea that you’re unaware of the problem, Chief, and thus you can’t address the issues at hand.

EVERY issue discussed in the advisory board meeting has been also mentioned on The Integrity Report in one form or another, (with the primary difference being the person discussing the problems/solutions in the advisory board is much more articulate and concise than we are). We count ourselves among the masses of people that have attempted to make you aware of the problems in YOUR department, Chief, but you still deny there are massive problems in the PD.

Chief, in your own words: “the communication lines are open”…you actually have to pick up the phone, though.

Chief Advisory Board Minutes of Meeting

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 04 2013
15 Comments
General

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

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

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

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

1. is defamatory, obscene, or unlawful;

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

provide public services;

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

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

Department and/or its officers and employees;

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

Department; or

6. is made with reckless disregard for truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 04 2013
3 Comments
General

Campus Police: The Feds are watching

…according to an article courtesy of one of our readers, thanks! This article presents several interesting points which ASUPD should take note of.

Questions emerge from DOJ’s investigation into University of Montana police

The blistering findings, though not always supported with documentation, serve as a warning shot for all campus police: the feds are watching.

Shar

In May, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Special Litigation Section, released a public letter of findings in their investigation into the Office of Public Safety response to sexual assaults at the University of Montana. The DOJ looked at a three-year timeframe in which the campus police department allegedly inappropriately handled / investigated 30+ sexual crimes.

This appears to be the first time that the DOJ has conducted an investigation into a campus law enforcement agency. I also believe this is the first time that an agency of fewer than 20 officers has been thusly investigated.

With regard to the investigation, based on my review of the report and additional documentation, it is hard to determine the veracity of all the claims by the DOJ relating to sexually based crimes. But that’s not the only question mark.

Does the DOJ Have the Standing to Investigate?
The DOJ specifically conducted an investigation because the agency determined there was a pattern or practice of violating citizens’ Constitutional rights — that women were unfairly treated and discriminated against because of the failed investigations, practices, policies and procedures of the Department of Public Safety.

A question comes to mind. Is the federal government attempting to control and interfere with the rights of police officers to act in a professional manner, or are they attempting to increase police professionalism within higher education?

There is some discussion on that question now taking place among higher education law enforcement professionals.

While it should be the goal of every police department to run its operations based on the Constitution, it is apparent that not every agency is following those standards to the DOJ’s satisfaction — otherwise, we wouldn’t have DOJ investigations into local police agencies.

The fact is, DOJ has the power to civilly investigate organizations that have demonstrated a pattern and practice that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the May 9 letter to the university from Gary Jackson (DOE) and Anurima Bhargava (DOJ) specifically states that “[t]he (MOU) Agreement will serve as a blueprint for colleges, and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault.”

To the lay person, this should serve notice that the federal government is coming after higher education law enforcement to ensure that they are conducting Constitutional policing, and not using any discriminatory practices. The DOE and DOJ are requiring remediation in regard to this civil investigation against the University of Montana, as well as the City of Missoula Police Department and the county.

Where did the University of Montana DPS Fall Short?
The Department of Public Safety (law enforcement) appeared in the report as completely incompetent when conducting investigations of sex-based crime — specifically when women are victims. But facts are sometimes not cited to back up the assertions.

Page 12 of the findings letter said, “We found that OPS response to reports of sexual assault is often marked by confusion, repetition, and poor investigative practices.” The DOJ does not provide examples to support their statement.

The DOJ also stated on page 11, “[w]omen who are intoxicated are at increased risk of sexual assault, and more than half of all non-stranger sexual assault involves alcohol use by the victim, assailant, or both.” This statement creates problems because it doesn’t present a way for the police department to address the alcohol factor.

The police department needs to patrol the campus community 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Additionally, the department needs to conduct regular police business, calls for service, crime prevention, and order maintenance activities. Addressing alcohol consumption, especially if done by legal adults behind closed doors, might be beyond the call.

How Can Campus Cops Prepare?
Change is knocking at the door of higher education. To address the base issue of sexual assaults, one solution is to form collaborative partnerships with community services organizations who serve victims on the campus and in the community.

To stay out of the government crosshairs it is important to keep a proactive, professional, and well-trained police agency. Keep a watch on the DOJ website and review laws, policies, and procedures that protect both the citizens and employees of the schools. Keep accurate records.

Review the Police Executive Research Forum policy meeting on consent decrees. If your organization falls subject to a DOJ investigation, contact a litigation group that specializes in dealing with consent decrees and federal monitoring to help prepare for the inevitable.

What Does it All Mean?
The lessons for campus law enforcement are not easily parsed from this report. But one is that campus law enforcement officers need to keep up on training so that they can avoid claims of failure to train, much like federal lawsuits that can be filled as set forth by the precedents of Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) and Canton v. Ohio (1989). If campus police officers are unaware of these two federal cases, it is clearly in incumbent on organizational leadership to make their officers aware of the principles and holdings of these cases.

The second implication may be more important. The federal government is watching, and will be more than likely conducting investigations into campus law enforcement. So these agencies need to keep up with best practices and data relating to crime that occurs on the campus.

To summarize: a university PD should properly train its officers to absolve the department from legal liability; failure to do so is the result of poor leadership. Also, the federal government is watching and will be investigating more campus PDs. Interesting…sounds like the DoJ would have a field day at ASUPD.

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

Internal Affairs Spotlight: A Look at the Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commander William Orr

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

Commander Louis Scichilone 

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

Sergeant Pam Osborne

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

Sergeant Mark Aston

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toxic Leaders: When Organizations Go Bad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many more officers can ASUPD handle losing?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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