Tag Archives: kevin salcido

Under increasing public and media scrutiny, ASU starts waffling in the case of Officer Ferrin

????????????????

As Assistant Professor Ore’s case continues to make its way from the headlines to the courtroom, ASU Police Officer Stuart Ferrin’s actions are under further scrutiny by an FBI and another ASU investigation! ASU has stepped away from its original investigation which cleared Officer Ferrin of any wrongdoing in the arrest of Ursula Ore, and instead decided to submit to the media/public pressure calling for Ferrin’s termination.

On June 28, 2014, ASU officials originally released a statement to 3TV and other news outlets that said,

“ASU authorities have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the arrest and have found no evidence of inappropriate actions by the ASUPD officers involved. Should such evidence be discovered, an additional, thorough inquiry will be conducted and appropriate actions taken. “Because the underlying criminal charges are pending, there is not much more we can say at this time. The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has reviewed all available evidence, including the police report, witness statements, and audio and video recordings of the incident, and decided to press criminal charges of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, refusing to provide identification when requested to do so by an officer, and obstructing a highway or public thoroughfare.”

In response to the increasing media coverage and controversy over of the incident, ASUPD released a secondary statement to the Huffington Post one day after the original statement:

“The ASU Police Department is enlisting an outside law-enforcement agency to conduct an independent review on whether excessive force was used and if there was any racial motivation by the officers involved.

In addition, although no university protocols were violated, university police are conducting a review of whether the officer involved could have avoided the confrontation that ensued.

According to the police report, ASU Police initially spoke to Assistant Professor Ore because officers patrolling the area nearly hit her with their police vehicle as they turned the vehicle onto College Avenue to investigate a disabled vehicle.  Officer Stewart Ferrin had no intention of citing or arresting Ore, but for her safety, told her to walk on the sidewalk.  When Ore refused to comply and refused to provide identification after she was asked for it multiple times, she was subsequently arrested.”

Only AFTER ASU received a slew of negative media coverage (and AFTER ASUPD cleared Officer Ferrin) did the university place him on administrative leave, and subsequently initiate a SECOND investigation (based on no violations of law or policy).

 Following the carefully camouflaged terminations of Chief John Pickens and Assistant Chief James Hardina, Assistant Chief Michael Thompson assumed command as interim Chief of ASU Police. He issued a customary introduction letter via email and stated, “As you know there is an ongoing investigation into the contact between Officer Ferrin and Professor Ore. Therefore, I cannot go into detail about the incident beyond the following: No decision has been made within our department, or Arizona State University executive administration, with respect to the outcome of that incident. Once the investigation(s) are concluded, I expect those documents will be forwarded adjudicated based on all of the available facts.”

ASUPD interim positions during meltdown

How can Thompson state that no decision has been made within the department? What about the decision that was already made which cleared Officer Ferrin of any wrongdoing? Where is Officer Ferrin’s voice in this entire discussion?

Professor Ore has been allowed to publicly defend herself and speak freely to the media, but Officer Ferrin–under order from the university– hasn’t been able to speak and defend his actions. This scenario perfectly illustrates the notion that ASU has very different rules for its employees depending on where they fall in the administrative food chain.

Retired Mesa police officer Bill Richardson decided to be Officer Ferrin’s “voice” in a recent article published in the East Valley Tribune. We wanted to repost this article in its entirety because it sheds light on a very one-sided media issue.

Reposted here in its entirety:

Who is Arizona State University Police Officer Stewart Ferrin, the officer who has been accused of abusing ASU Professor Ersula Ore?

On May 20, 2014, Officer Ferrin arrested ASU Professor Ore on multiple charges, including felony assault on a police officer, following her being stopped for walking down the middle of the road. Ore initially pled innocence and self-defense to the public and national media, but has now pled guilty to resisting arrest and faces up to six-months in the Maricopa County Jail’s “Tent City.”

ASU Police reportedly investigated Ferrin’s conduct following the arrest and no misconduct was found. Even with Ore’s guilty plea and ASU officials clearing Ferrin of any misconduct, as soon as Ore’s publicity machine took her plea of being abused nationwide, Ferrin became the target of another investigation and a request by university officials to have the FBI investigate Ferrin for civil rights violations.

In an email to ASU faculty, University Provost Rob Page praised Ore and pointed a veiled finger in Ferrin’s direction. For a man who is a trained scientist and “charged with the stewardship of Arizona State University,” you’d have thought his bias would’ve been kept in check and he’d have at least waited for the results of the FBI investigation before taking sides.

Talk about getting thrown under the bus.

ASU has yet to publicly announce if it is even going to investigate Ore’s criminal conduct and her reported alleged obscenity laced threats against the officer. I won’t hold my breath waiting.

The portrayal of Ore as the victim and Ferrin as a thug has been well orchestrated. No one has talked about Ferrin as a person.

The following information was obtained from those who know and work with him. Ferrin has been ordered to sit at home and been “gagged” by university officials from speaking for himself.

Ferrin grew up wanting to be a cop like his dad. At 12 he had his own lawn mowing business. He spent 10 years as a Boy Scout and earned the Eagle Scout Award. His Eagle Scout project was organizing and gathering together 50 volunteers to attack Tempe’s serious graffiti problem in a gang-ridden neighborhood. During his ten-years in the Scouts he also served four-years with the Mesa Police Explorers where he was presented with the Prudential Spirit of Service Award for his dedication and volunteerism.

In high school he worked at a local bank in an internship program. After high school he used his own savings to pay part of the costs for his Church of Latter-day Saints mission. He served two-years in Chile where he not only held a leadership position among his fellow missionaries, he was called upon to work with the U. S. Air Force as a translator in the massive 8.8 earthquake relief efforts in 2010.

Following his mission he worked full-time and volunteered at the Tempe Police Department where he was again recognized for his service and presented the Presidential Service Award.

He was hired by ASU Police in 2011 to work in communications. Six-months later after passing a series of examinations including a psychological evaluation, polygraph test and background investigation he was selected to attend the police academy. He attended the same five-month police academy officers from throughout the valley attend, including Tempe officers. He then completed an equally long field-training program before being assigned to patrol duties. Because of his Spanish speaking and cultural skills his fellow ASU officers and Tempe police called upon him often to assist in translations and investigations.

Since joining the ASU PD his volunteerism has continued with the W. Steven Martin Toy Drive at Christmas and the annual Scottsdale Police Department’s “Shop with a Cop” program. He has a wife, a child and a baby on the way.

Years of caring and service aren’t the character traits of a badge heavy police officer that abuses someone during an arrest.

The portrayal of Ferrin as a thug and out of control rogue cop is far cry from who he really is and his lengthy record of service and compassion as a Boy Scout, LDS Missionary, Tempe police volunteer, dedicated ASU police officer, husband and father.

I’d rather have Officer Ferrin responding to help my child who attends ASU than having her in a class with professor Ore.

 

Professor Ore has been afforded the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, so why is ASU still waffling over whether or not Officer Ferrin is also afforded that right? Are our rights as police officers and also private citizens also subject to the aforementioned waffling?

 

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

The media is reading the Integrity Report and they want YOUR stories!!

4i8NS

The past few days at ASUPD have been very hectic; the administrative melt-down we’ve all been hoping for has finally happened at ASUPD (and it may be a sign of the times for the department).

On Thursday, we were the first to report that Chief John Pickens and Assistant Chief Jim Hardina were abruptly removed from their positions within the department. According to witnesses, both employees were given boxes and seen pushing carts full of their belongings out the door to their vehicles. The Phoenix New Times Valley Fever blog quickly picked up on our story, and cited us as a primary information source (see the story about Pickens here, and the follow up story about Pickens/Hardina here). New Times blogger Ray Stern contacted the university’s PR gurus (who confirmed the emails we posted were authentic) for a statement, and they were unable to provide a logical explanation for the abrupt nature of both Pickens’ and Hardina’s departures.

On a separate, but not totally unrelated note: another media source has contacted The Integrity Report in search of current and former ASUPD employees who are willing to share their stories. The source has stated that anyone wishing to share their ASUPD experiences CAN have their identities withheld! If you are interested in participating, send an email to:

firstamendmentftw@hushmail.com

We don’t need your name or your story; once we receive an email expressing interest, we will send you the contact information of the person with which you can share your story. We strongly encourage EVERY current and former ASUPD employee to speak up and allow their experiences to be shared with the WORLD! This is one more medium we can all collectively use to affect positive change and accountability at ASUPD.

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

In this edition of ASUPD’s Hunger Games: Hardina and Pickens are immediately removed from their positions!

ASU Police chiefs fired

Everyday life at ASUPD has morphed from a job that somewhat resembled a watered-down version of  law enforcement to a real life version of The Hunger Games; if one can survive the work day in the presence of low morale and arbitrary enforcement of policies/law without going insane or killing/harming themselves or another employee, they will be safe until the following days reaping. Those that don’t make it to the end of the workday are thrown to the wolves (metaphorically, of course) and become another HR statistic on a piece of paper in Kevin Salcido’s office.

In today’s edition of ASUPD’s Hunger Games, the two employees that didn’t survive the workday today were Assistant Chief James Hardina, and Chief John Pickens.

This afternoon, ASU CFO Morgan Olsen sent the following email out to all ASUPD employees:

Chief out by Friday and Thompson is in

Hardena dont let the door hit your ass on the way out

The Assistant Chief (Thompson) over admin “ascends” to the position of acting Chief instead of the AC above patrol operations…odd. There is also no mention of Hardina vacating his position AT ALL in the above email; only after Hardina was seen packing up his desk and officially left the building was patrol notified about Hardina’s departure. We speculate that Hardina was forced out of his position by someone in the university, simply because Hardina doesn’t have another job waiting for him, nor is he remotely close to retirement.

The email also mentioned that Pickens will be vacating his position as Chief by this Friday, July 11th. This is a complete 180 from the email sent to all ASUPD employees barely a month ago, which stated that Pickens would remain in his position until his successor was hired. Pickens’ “leave” was probably forced upon him by the university who will most likely allow him to “retire” quietly, instead of rewarding his bad behavior with another cushy ASU job.

Someone at ASU finally wised up to the fact that the entire ASUPD Command staff was allowed to function relatively unchecked for decades. Command staff’s strategy of punishing those who speak out against them while allowing their “battle buddies” to do whatever they please FINALLY backfired; its hard to employ that tactic when your department is beyond critical staffing levels and the FBI/news media are sniffing around your dirty laundry.

Until the department has cleaned out “Chief” Thompson and  all of his Command staff, we expect to see ASUPD’s Hunger Games played out on a daily basis.

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

AZCES raises relevant questions about ASUPD’s ability to train and investigate its officers

ASU Police Officer assaults prisoner

The Arizona Center for Ethnic Studies group raised some pretty interesting questions regarding ASUPD’s ability to train and investigate its officers. In the post, AZCES appeal to ASU’s administration with the following questions:

  • What policies and practices are in place at ASUPD regarding accountability for racial profiling and use of force?  How are complaints filed and investigated?  What is ASUPD’s record of complaints?  What kinds of training are in place to ensure police conduct that upholds the rights and dignity of all ASU community members?
  • What is the name of the outside law enforcement agency that will be reviewing this case?  What, specifically will they be reviewing?  What are the standards they will be using to evaluate officer conduct?  How many similar audits have they conducted in the past and what have been the outcomes of their investigations?

Although we strongly disagree with AZCES’s assertion that Officer Ferrin used force excessively and engaged in racial profiling, the points they raised are valid ones and are not just limited to the topics of use of force/racial profiling. AZCES’ blogpost has grazed the surface of the much larger issues raised on The Integrity Report involving training and supervision of ASUPD employees and transparency/fairness in internal affairs investigations

In any major investigation (such as the FBI’s probe of ASUPD), the actions of the individual involved is dissected, as well and the training and supervisor that the individual received. If the department acted negligently by not providing either adequate supervision or training, then the department (and also university) is also at fault. This could mean a litany of lawsuits against the university in circumstances where the arresting officer was trained by an FTO who wasn’t certified to be training, or supervised by an FTO or patrol Sergeant who wasn’t properly certified or trained to supervise others. Not only does this hold true for officers currently employed at ASUPD, but would also include officers who made arrests while employed at ASUPD that work for other departments or who have left LE completely.

Considering the amount of officers that have left ASUPD in the past 5-10 years, ASU could be facing a major class action lawsuit. 

Although this situation with Officer Ferrin is unfortunate (and again, we do believe he will be exonerated), it has brought a lot of attention and media scrutiny to a major problem that has been plaguing ASUPD for years. It will be interesting to watch the chain of events unfold in real-time.

Again…stand by, folks.

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

How many people are reading The Integrity Report?

??????????????????????????????????

While we are busy writing and researching behind the scenes, we’d like to answer one of the MOST frequently asked questions on the blog: how many people are reading The Integrity Report everyday?

A lot.

The site averages about 150 hits per day! 70 of these hits are “unique vistors” or distinct individuals visiting the page during a given period (regardless of how many times these individuals visit a page).

The bounce count for the page (ie, people who visit the page and immediately close the window or go to another page) is pretty low–around 20%. This means the majority of people who head over to The Integrity Report‘s site are staying and reading the posts. The average time a person spends reading posts on the blog is fairly high also, around 6 minutes.

Which pages are the most popular? Our home page is the most popular (with an average of 80 visits a day), followed by our post about ASU General Council botching a FOIA request (average of 60 visits a day), and then our post about Kevin Salcido sending unprofessional emails to ASUPD employees (average of 35 visits a day). The most popular keyword search is “ASU Police Chief Pickens resigns”; on our internal search tool its “firearms”.

How high The Integrity Report is listed on major search engines (such as google) is also a major indicator of site traffic. Sites that have lots of user traffic and are linked by other sites are ranked higher in search results than sites that have little to no traffic. Using the google search engine and searching for “ASUPD”, we are SECOND only to the official ASU website. The pictures from our post about unprofessional behavior amongst firearms staff is number ONE in google image search.

For a blog that was labeled as the work of “a few disgruntled employees”, this is very significant. Employees (both inside and outside the PD), Command Staff, students, and staff are reading The Integrity Report. People outside of Arizona State University are reading the information we post, the comments that others post, and are beginning to ask questions about the situation at ASUPD.

This is one baby step forward toward our goal of shining the light of integrity into ASUPD and holding those that dishonor their oath accountable.

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

ASU’s General Council botches FOIA request, releases social security numbers of several officers!

Earlier this year, we submitted a MASSIVE FOIA request to the Office of General Council for the FY13 budget documents, as well as departmental requisitions for training and equipment. We are acutely familiar with the way the State of Arizona’s FOIA laws work; under Arizona’s Public Records exemption, information which would be considered an invasion of personal privacy and would outweigh the public’s right to know and can be redacted. This can include addresses, phone numbers, date of birth, and social security numbers.

Therefore, after we received and preliminarily reviewed our FOIA request, we were acting upon the good faith that ASU’s General Council did their jobs and redacted the personal information contained in the files we requested (we looked at all 300+ pages of the file to the best of our ability). However, this morning we received several emails from concerned readers of The Integrity Report who let us know that several of the requisitions submitted for training between 2012-2013 contained FULL social security numbers that were NOT redacted! We have subsequently removed the entire FY 13 budget until we can redact the personal information of officers/police employees.

Coming from a university that claimed showing a picture of an officer’s vehicle was a security threat…releasing the social security numbers of police employees on public documents is a MUCH larger security threat!! With a SSN number, an officer’s identity, credit, and bank account could be completely compromised! This situation also begs the question: what other personal information has ASU released to the public via a FOIA request? The possibilities are endless.

We will be contacting all the officers personally whose information was released by ASU via a public records request, so they are aware of the situation.

Clearly, the safety and security of ASUPD’s employees isn’t too concerning to university administration. It’s not enough to allow staffing to reach alarming levels which can compromise the lives of sworn and civilian employees alike; ASU must ALSO compromise their employees financial livelihoods as well!

We’re expecting some sort of “damage control” email on behalf of ASU’s General Council shortly.

 

 

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.

https://network23.org/theintegrityreport/2013-asu-police-budget/

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

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

From abc15.com

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

An ASU alum wants to trigger a second inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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