Tag Archives: police corruption

Apr 13 2014
13 Comments
General

Tempe named one of the most dangerous suburbs in America!

From the Phoenix New Times Blog:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How The Integrity Report has changed ASUPD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 03 2014
12 Comments
General

Editorial: “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem!

ASUPD has been in the media spotlight a great deal recently, and this time, it’s for a good reason; ASUPD, in partnership with university officials, have kicked off a campaign called “Start by Believing” to show support for victims of sexual violence. According to the campaign website, the theory behind the slogan is:

…to bring attention to victims of sexual assault, and not revictimize them through disbelief when they report the crime. Disbelief may come from friends, family, nurses, law enforcement or others whom the victim normally would expect to support them….There are many instances that aren’t reported because of fear of being told that someone brought it on themselves. This type of thinking needs to change. We need to start by believing victims of sexual assault when they come forward. It’s traumatic enough.

The article also mentions the “proclamation” signed by Chief Pickens and Michael Crow (which all department employees received a copy of) that shows how committed ASUPD is to serving victims of sexual violence.

While we think the attention given to the issue of sexual violence on campus is much deserved, we can’t help but be struck by the irony of the situation. The sudden emphasis on sexual violence victims comes on the heels of an article we posted on the safety of students on campus under Title IX, as well as an article about how ASUPD omitted or incorrectly reported the number of sex offenses reported under the Clery Act. Let’s also not forget the rash of sex offenses that occurred during ASU’s “Safe and Sober Campaign”, or the increase in ASU’s sex offense numbers that were actually reported to Clery.

If ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they could start by appropriately reporting sex offenses in the Clery Report, as they are required to do, by law. Omitting or reclassifying sex crimes into lesser offenses (such as assault) not only revictimizes the victim, it is another way of telling the victim “we don’t really believe you”.

Next, to counter the recent increase in sex offenses, Chief Pickens could actually staff and maintain a fully-functioning police department that has the ability to proactively deter crime, instead of punting ASU’s problems to the City of Tempe. Actively participating in the campaigns you sponsor/are involved in such as “Safe and Sober”, DUI Task Force, or the Student Safety Taskforce would work to both deter crime and show the campus community how committed you are to making ASU a safer place.

Finally, if ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they can give their officers the appropriate training they need to effectively do their jobs. The academy spends very little time on training officers on how to deal with sexual assault reports, and the little bit of training that is retained fades exponentially with time. Allocating resources to the people who will actually be HANDLING sexual violence cases ensure cases are appropriately handled, and is more cost-effective than dealing with civil lawsuits or wasting tax payer dollars by writing a fancy “proclamation”.

No amount of squishy emails or “proclamations” sent to ASU’s students/faculty/staff can make up for the fact that behind the glossy exterior of ASUPD’s new building, new uniforms, new badges is a top-heavy Command staff completely devoid of compassion and integrity. No amount of campaigns that ASUPD “participates” in can cover up the glaring irony that exists within its “proclamation”.

Chief Pickens, you need to “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem before you can commit to supporting victims of sexual violence.

 

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

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

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

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

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

Public Property

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

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

Clery public prob

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

West poly public

Down Lake Havasu

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

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

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

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

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

Tempe 1

Tempe 2

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

 Non-campus property

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

Skysong crimes

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

 

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

Sex offenses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevalence of under reporting sexual assaults

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

Robbery

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

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

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

3. ASU doesn’t utilize its resources properly

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

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

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

4. ASU needs stronger partnerships with other agencies

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 30 2014
14 Comments
General

Dissecting ASUPD’s recruiting video

ASUPD recently put out a recruiting video (you can watch it here) that was very well produced, but it was full of inaccurate  or misleading statements. Here’s our dissection of ASUPD’s recruiting video.

#1 “Great New Facility” This is a misleading statement because the building is going on 8 years old. While this building is a huge improvement over the old one, it remains mostly empty except for the top heavy management third floor and one quarter of the second floor.

#2 “Specialty Assignments” This video gives you the impression that if you work hard you will get a specialty assignment, which is inaccurate. Specialty assignments, with the exception of investigations, are one person details that took half a law enforcement career to get into. All of these assignments are currently filled, and the people in them aren’t leaving anytime soon.

#3 “Bike Squad” There is no designated ASU bike squad, and there never has been. The phrase “Bike Squad” implies you are out patrolling on a bike alongside fellow officers as part of a team. The only ASU officer on a bike squad is the one loaned to Tempe to be a part of their bike squad. The only place you will see more than one ASU officer on a bike is at an ASU football game working overtime. It’s not a squad, it’s a once in a while overtime detail lasting a few hours. ASUPD policy requires more than one officer on duty in order for one to be allowed to ride bikes. The numbers of officers has been so low that no officers have been riding bikes for years unless it’s at a football game.

#4 “Narcotics Unit” There is no ASU Narcotics Unit whatsoever! The phrase “Narcotics Unit” implies you are part of a group of people going after drug dealers, suppliers. There should be one considering the amount of illegal drug use on campus (and the recent DPS bust of an ecstasy pill factory in Vista). We don’t even have a drug dog on campus!.  The only ASU officer on a narcotics unit is the one we loaned to Tempe to be a part of their narcotics unit.

#5 “Investigations” Investigations consists of a Sergeant and two officers currently. There is currently one competent detective left, as the other competent one left the department for another agency that appreciates his experience and work ethic. The footage shows the other remaining “detective”  dusting for prints inside the department. This “detective”  spent under a year on patrol after the academy before she moved into investigations.

#6 Joint Terrorism Taskforce Our only link with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Taskforce is the corporal we sent them to work full time in their office. His time in the JTTF has really no benefit for ASU, as he spends most of his time doing work unrelated to ASUPD. The footage here shows us at “the qualification range” which is a patch of desert on the Salt River Indian Reservation which is usually 110+ degrees in the summer time.

 Urban Environment: Not sure what benefit this is supposed to represent. Urban compared to Phoenix AZ? No. Urban compared to Gilbert  AZ Yes. Was this selling point supposed to represent all four of the campus’s we staff? Polytechnic campus is urban? No. The last officer in this slide quit the department for another department prior to the release of this video!

 Unique Modes of transportation: You get to be ridiculed for driving around in an electric powered hybrid Ford Escape mocked up to represent a police patrol vehicle.  If there’s more than one officer (and there never is unless you are at Tempe) you get a Segway like Paul Blart Mall Cop, or a mountain bike, or a small cc scooter…if you wait a year or many more for the training to come around. Remember, you can’t pedal a bicycle unless you’re trained.

 Special Events: Probably a third of the ASUPD staff work overtime for the university. The ASUPD earns half of what the vendors pay for your overtime and you get the other half. Too few ASUPD staff work overtime details that the events coordinator is required to offer outside agencies overtime details to get them filled.  After a group departure of dispatchers from three years ago we are still offering department overtime for outside agencies to work our dispatch.

Promote from within: Some internal promotions have been merit-based (we do have some Sergeants that genuinely care about their employees), but primarily promotion processes at ASUPD are riddled with politics. Factors such as who you know, how much brown nosing you accomplished, how you made yourself look competent by putting down others become standard. Promoting people with these character traits reinforces the idea that in this organization it’s not about what you can do in police work.

Tuition Waivers: Assuming you are looking to utilize this benefit, the department’s short staffing make it impossible to take advantage of this perk; after all, how can you plan your class schedule if your work schedule changing REGULARLY due to “poor staffing”

Join us in partnership: The most watered down, over used generic phrase imaginable. The department is a house divided against itself when it should be one team, so if the public doesn’t join us we have nothing.

In conclusion this video packed with half-truths  in order for the department to attract prospective employees. ASUPD has a lot of internal work to do before it will be able to respect and retain its employees, and thus eleminate the need for a video filled with fluff.  This gimmick video is the latest of a series of gimmicks enlisted to retain or attract employees without any effort or cost to the department.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 17 2014
15 Comments
General

Editorial: Show us the receipts!

It has been a minute since the writers at The Integrity Report have crafted any sort of ‘editorial’. Our main focus is factually reporting events that transpire at ASUPD, and intertwining them with pertinent news articles, snippets from books, and data analysis. We aim to present this information in a manner that is very straightforward, because the subject matter is shocking enough to speak for itself. On occasion, this approach can feel one-dimensional, and sometimes fails to tie facts and ideas into “the bigger picture”; that is where our editorial perspective is most effective.

In a very predictive fashion, ASUPD’s response to The Integrity Report has been incredibly reactionary in nature. The issues discussed on the blog have been a recapitulation of problems that have plagued the department for years, but the primary difference between the issues in the past and those in the present boil down to publicity. Because ASUPD’s problems are now out in the public realm, Chief Pickens and his Command staff are forced to react to this information, if only for the purposes of saving face.

This “kneejerk” response on behalf of command staff is readily apparent in the haphazard methodology in which the department has utilized to address problems. Instead of sitting down and hashing out a strategic plan to dismantle the self-destructing time bomb (which is common practice in the public sector when new programs/initiatives are implemented), Pickens has chosen to focus on the low hanging fruit–looking at the short term problem of staffing and ignoring the long term question of, “what is causing this chronic staffing issue?!”. Answering the latter question would require an honest and open assessment of the abilities and skills of your subordinates, as well as oneself (and its much easier to blame problems on “bad attitudes” or poor work ethic of your employees).

Nonetheless, the most recent and reactionary response [of the continuous bad press] by Pickens and Command staff is to have mandatory meetings for employees at the satellite campuses. These “meetings” have done nothing productive for the department’s employees and have only served the purpose of verbal masturbation–ie, tell me some positive information so I feel better about myself. If the department was truly serious about showing its employees it was actively working to fix problems, it would have some tangible thing to present (a game plan, if you will) that would serve the duel purpose of being an informative tool, and providing accountability to Pickens and Command staff.

Merely telling us that golly, you’re working really hard to make ASUPD a nicer place to work serves no purpose. It does not prove you have actively done anything but sit in meetings all day, freaking out. This is the same plot line as the movie The Wizard of Oz: we’re the leaders, you should believe everything we tell you, but you can’t know what secret plans we have going on, and you CERTAINLY can’t look behind the curtain!

Well Pickens–the gig is up. People from all over the valley are now paying attention to ASUPD’s missteps–other university officials, other police departments, the City of Tempe, the media, and private citizens, to name a few. You can’t hide from answering the hard questions anymore. If you are really serious about fixing the department, show us the receipts; outline the steps you and your Command staff are taking to tackle the hard issues. If not–to borrow one of your colloquial phrases–McDonald’s is always hiring.

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

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

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

Why is this important, you ask?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Jan 12 2014
9 Comments
General

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

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

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

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

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 24 2013
7 Comments
General

ASUPD acquires new scheduling software to fix staffing problems; meanwhile, the PD continues to fall apart!

In light of all the negative issues that have been brought to Chief Pickens’ attention–poor morale, mismanagement–he has decided to ignore the input in order to focus his efforts on implementing a new staff software!!

From virtual-strategy.com:

ASU Police Department chooses ScheduleAnywhere employee scheduling software to improve scheduling efficiency.

Atlas Business Solutions, Inc. announced today that Arizona State University (ASU) is now using ScheduleAnywhere to improve and streamline its staff scheduling process. The campus police department chose ScheduleAnywhere as its officer scheduling software solution to improve the coordination and communication of shift schedules and improve operations. ScheduleAnywhere allows the ASU Police Department to continue its commitment to maintaining a safe and secure environment to live, work, study, and conduct research.

“We’re pleased to have the ASU Police Department join the growing number of law enforcement departments using ScheduleAnywhere,” said Jon Forknell, Vice President and General Manager of Atlas Business Solutions. “ASU is a flagship department that’s accredited by the Commission of Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and we couldn’t be prouder of our selection.”

The ASU Police Department completed the transition from Microsoft Excel to ScheduleAnywhere about a month ago. With a staff of over 100 officers, the police department had a difficult time managing staff schedules and keeping track of availability. With ScheduleAnywhere staff scheduling software:

  • Updates to schedules are real-time and shared across the department.
  • Reporting and tracking vacations, time-off requests and availability is simple.
  • Existing staff can be better utilized.
  • Officers can access schedules online anywhere, anytime.

Another reason ASU chose to implement ScheduleAnywhere is because of its enterprise-wide visibility. Enterprise-wide visibility plays a vital role in larger organizations, where multiple people need real-time access to schedule information. In addition to regular staffing, ScheduleAnywhere is used to schedule security for all campus events, such as football games, parades, or ceremonies.

So apparently the department has had a difficult time managing schedule because they have SO many officers. REALLY!? I doubt there are even 100 sworn left in the department; when command staff is excluded, the number of people actually working the street is frighteningly low. How in the HELL will this “improve operations”? Chief, you don’t need a computer program to tell you what you already know…that the department is ridiculously understaffed, and no amount of computer wizardry will change that. Here’s a hint: START LISTENING TO WHAT YOUR EMPLOYEES ARE SAYING, INSTEAD OF SINKING MORE $$ INTO A COMPUTER PROGRAM YOU BELIEVE WILL SAVE YOUR DEPARTMENT!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 23 2013
63 Comments
General

The legal liabilities of ASUPD’s FTO program

Many comments have been made regarding the status of ASUPD’s FTO program–how it has been used as a tool to weed people out of the department, how different FTOs have different standards for each respective trainee–but none have discussed how poorly running an FTO program can have significant legal ramifications for ASUPD, as well as ASU.

The following excerpts were cited from J. Parkinson’s “The Cost of Inadequate Training“:

Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 1983 Claims states that all allegations of civil rights violations against the police are brought in Federal Court (Daane, D.M. and J.E. Hendricks, 1991).Section 1983 provides a remedy for the violation of an individual’s federally protected rights.

In order to file a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under the color of state law, their conduct deprived the plaintiff of their rights secured by the Constitution, the training the officer received (regarding the injury suffered by the plaintiff) was inadequate, the inadequate training led to the injury, and there was deliberate indifference on the part of the municipality.  The Court ruled in Monell (1978) that a municipality could be sued if the plaintiff could prove the defendant violated their rights because the municipality failed to adequately train the defendant.  The Court ruled that liability for failure to train has to follow the strict standard of deliberate indifference.  The requirements to prove deliberate indifference include:  plaintiff must prove the municipality knew the officer would have to deal with the situation, there was training available that would have made the outcome of the situation different, and the municipality chose to not provide the officer with such training (McNamara, 2006).

Supervisors are also able to be held liable for an officer’s actions under Section 1983.  There are three elements, the court identified in Shaw v. Stroud (4th Cir. 1994), that must be present.  They are:

(1) that a supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed ‘a pervasive and unreasonable risk’ of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor’s response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show ‘deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices,’ and (3) that there was an ‘affirmative causal link’ between the supervisor’s inaction and the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.”

            It is not good enough to say a police department is properly trained, there has to be clear documentation that includes when the training was held, which officers attended, who was the instructor, and what material was covered (Dahlinger, 2001).  Documentation must be organized in a clear, concise manner so if an officer becomes a defendant in a failure to train lawsuit, or any other type, the training records can be submitted as evidence of training. Basically, if it is not documented, then it didn’t happen.   McNamara (2006, p.3) stated:  “Taking this proactive step will help reduce department liability by showing an ongoing commitment to proper training.”

  • Therefore, ASU’s piecemeal FTO program could cause the department to be held legally liable under U.S.C 1983 if they can articulate the officer was NOT adequately trained. Considering the fact that the FTO program has previously allowed FTOs and an FTO Supervisor to train rookie officers when they THEMSELVES were not certified to be field training officers, we believe this to be grounds for a pretty significant civil lawsuit against the department.
  • Additionally, an FTO Sergeant (ie, the “Supervisor” of the FTO program) could also be held legally liable by allowing non-certified FTOs to train rookies, and failing to intervene when there were allegations of wrongdoings by an FTO (ie, “tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices”), Therefore, a certain FTO Sergeant who allowed several of her FTOs to terrorize a slew of rookies could be held legally liable in civil court.
  • Finally, as stated in this article, training records can be submitted as evidence of training…so what happens when those training records are altered from their original state to “prove” that a rookier officer isn’t qualified to pass field training? Beyond the possibility of a civil suit on behalf of a potential victim and the rookie themselves, this is a blatantly criminal act which has occurred several times at ASUPD.

The most disturbing part about the legal liability incurred as a result of ASUPD’s FTO program? Several members of Command staff, including the Chief have known about the situation at hand. Granted, these people have been removed from the FTO program, but they have all received NO punishment, and their actions have created a legal liability for the department that may linger for a long time.

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