Editorial

A Rogue Department

The University of Oregon's Department of Public Safety has trampled on your rights and those of its employees for years. The Oregon Commentator goes behind closed doors to bring you a view of DPS you've never seen.

This issue marks the culmination of several months' research, countless interviews with sources on the record and off, sources open and closed, and sources outside the Department of Public Safety and within. Some people were willing to speak on the record, and their testimony provides much of the information contained in the following articles. Many others were willing to speak on the condition of anonymity, and others simply refused - possibly afraid of repercussions or simply tired of dealing with the department.

For every allegation the Commentator makes against the Department of Public Safety in these pages, there are many others which were unverifiable and unfortunately had to be left out. Indeed, these allegations could merely be the tip of the iceberg.

For some time, it has been known by many at the University that all has not run smoothly at DPS. In October, the Oregon Daily Emerald ran a series of articles highlighting a handful of problems within the department. Several officers had left in recent months, DPS had installed supposedly illegal lights on their new vehicles, and a harassment lawsuit is pending. For a newspaper not usually known for their investigative journalism, these stories were a welcome change. However, the Emerald failed to follow up on these charges and overlooked others. Unfortunately, a newspaper with so many resources available to it has been either unable or unwilling to assemble a coherent picture of the department's transgressions. Enter the Oregon Commentator.

The Department of Public Safety (hereafter, DPS) operates out of a small office between Straub and Earl Halls. Until recently DPS went under the name of OPS, or the Office of Public Safety. In the past, the UO public safety office reported directly to the Vice President for Administration, Dan Williams. When former DPS Director Stan Reeves took over the DPS top spot in March of 1996, the department moved out from underneath the direct management of the vice president. Reeves instead reported to George Hecht, the Director of Campus Operations and head of Facilities Services and the department continues to do so today. However, Williams is now cosidering moving the management back to his office at the beginning of 2001. In the public's view, Fitzpatrick was promoted to the head of an independent University department not unlike that of University Housing, Intercollegiate Athletics and the Erb Memorial Union. In reality, as Williams said, Public Safety "has always been its own department." The decision came about as a result of Williams' changing commitments to other programs under his jurisdiction. Until "about four years ago," Williams said, "it reported directly to me." The name change was made at the request of Fitzpatrick, who had been working to improve the image of Public Safety on campus.

This administrative decision would be otherwise unworthy of mention had not a number of other changes, initiated by Fitzpatrick, accompanied it. Prior to and following this transition, the department acquired new vehicles, new uniforms, adopted a new set of rules called the "21 Codes of Conduct," revised its "Uniform Regulations and Specifications," and opened a new substation in the Walton Complex. To the untrained observer it would seem that Fitzpatrick, who came to the University in November 1999 from a long career of law enforcement (he was last in charge of California State University at Monterey Bay's University Police Department), was merely improving the department's facilities.

In fact, Fitzpatrick aims to do much more than that. Plans are underway to "commission" some of the department's force, giving them the authority to stop and search people, write citations and - though DPS has officially taken no stance - to arm the UO's public safety officers. However, the circumstantial evidence strongly points to the likelihood of armed officers. Williams discounted the possibility, saying, "What we're trying to do [with DPS] is to upgrade the standards of what we require of our officers." Because current Oregon law does not allow for campus security officers to be armed, Williams added that "it's not our expectation that we're going to have armed police officers on campus." However, Officers at Risk, a special interest group representing Oregon public safety officers is currently lobbying the Oregon legislature for such changes. When pressed as to whether he would support such a bill, Williams skirted the issue, saying "I don't want to say never-never, but I don't want people to assume that a step in this direction is unnecessarily called for." Despite this assurance, he conceded that "the day may come when we would have our own police force, but that's a ways away." In fact, by his own admission, Williams initiated the legislation that made commissioning DPS a possibility in the first place.

Many are fearful that expanding the department's authority while DPS suffers from internal problems such as the Emerald and the Commentator have reported on, would lead to more problems than it would solve. Hilary Berkman of the Office of Student Advocacy has been following the moves of DPS, and is concerned about the consequences of commissioning DPS officers. By empowering officers to stop, search and cite students, officers will have a good argument that they need something more powerful than pepper spray to enforce city ordinances such as those against alcohol, marijuana and disorderly conduct. But should DPS be handling such matters, especially when the UO has a $403,898 annual contract with the EPD to do exactly that? With a relatively young, inexperienced staff, and in light of the questions as to the department's ability to carry out its current duties, commissioning Public Safety officers would be a grave mistake.

For all of Fitzpatrick's endeavors, he has done nothing to correct the unethical actions of the department's management, which has damaged staff morale. Nor has he corrected the unethical behavior of his officers, which has damaged the department's relationship with the UO community. According to its critics, DPS management has been mediocre or worse for years. This is not the fault of Tom Fitzpatrick, but his failure to turn DPS around is. Furthermore, his unwavering push to make the department more police-like in spite of these problems is a serious issue. Perhaps he is unaware of these concerns. Perhaps he has considered them and dismissed them. If so, his decision is wanting for justification. Either way, DPS is at a crossroads, and the changes he has planned are not a step in the right direction.

Several issues raised by the Emerald are expanded upon in this issue, and others not even hinted at are explored in considerable detail. The department Fitzpatrick inherited from his predecessor, Stan Reeves, suffers from violations of ethics, common practice, University protocol, and even Oregon state law.

For example, many questions surround the recently opened substation in the Walton Complex. Associate Director Tom Hicks and others contend that the substation is about reaching out to the on-campus student population and forming a relationship, or "community policing," as he put it. But according to the department's own numbers, most on-campus crime does not occur in the residence halls. What does this say about their priorities as a law-enforcement agency? Furthermore, the substation is located about 100 yards from the main DPS office. If a break-in were to be reported in Klamath Hall - the computer labs and chemical storage rooms are frequent targets - DPS would be in no better position to answer the call. Is this a wise tactical decision? [See "An Unwanted Presence?" for more information.]

The Emerald raised the specter of the red-and-blue lights on departmental vehicles and revealed that officers had been directed not to use them, as per state law, leaving it at that. However, the now-dismantled lights have allegedly been used on multiple occasions, though solid verification has proved difficult to lock down. The use of these lights constitute the Criminal Impersonation of a law enforcement officer (ORS 162.365), but the violations of this statute do not stop there. Some officers have identified themselves to students as "police officers," and the bicycles DPS rides around campus clearly display the word "Police."

The Oregon Daily Emerald briefly addressed the controversial promotion of Lt. Marte Martinez, and various complaints about harassment, but not in any degree of specificity. The hiring and swift promotion of Martinez, from Officer to Sergeant to Lieutenant in less than a year, is highly questionable. The rise of Lt. Martinez was the bellwether for a series of major personnel changes at DPS. Martinez was all but the protégé of Administrative Lieutenant Saylor, whom Fitzpatrick often defers to on personnel matters. Now officially on "personal leave," it is unlikely that she will return to DPS anytime soon - especially since her desk has recently been cleaned out. This is all for the better: Martinez's record of harassment and violation of state law (i.e. the use of the aforementioned red-and-blue lights) make her a poor example of leadership at a department already lacking in such areas.

According to more than one source, the administration, chiefly Saylor and Fitzpatrick, have been systematically pushing out the older and more mature officers in favor of a younger, more malleable force by raising standards unreasonably, arbitrarily enforcing the rules, and creating a hostile work environment. Saylor, a former caterer with no prior police experience, is in all likelihood the true head of the Department of Public Safety; the most egregious examples of harassment belong to her. [See "Working for The Man," page 12] Former officer Kim Maynard spoke extensively with the Commentator about the poor treatment not of just himself, but of his colleagues, by Fitzpatrick, Saylor and Martinez.

Sean Strahon, now a sergeant for DPS, took a set of keys to the University Housing residence halls home with him one night, in violation of departmental policy. Left in his vehicle overnight, Strahon's car was broken into, and the keys were stolen. The keys were recovered weeks later - after a re-key of the dorms had been undertaken.

Not only does DPS favor inexperienced officers who will go along with the program, but the department's hiring standards have been lackluster, failing to adequately investigate the backgrounds of some of its officers. One currently employed officer was hired with a restraining order against him, filed by his former wife in 1996 after physically threatening her and hitting her vehicle.

Are these the people you want protecting your person and property on this campus?

Given Fitzpatrick's desire to inch DPS closer and closer to full police status and Saylor's ability to quash dissension in the ranks, it would be fair to say that while DPS will upgrade the status of their officers, no improvements will be made to the quality of its operation.

The Office of Communications press release announcing his hiring last September describes Fitzpatrick as an "avid golfer, fisherman and outdoor enthusiast" and it has been said that Fitzpatrick's attentions lie in those pursuits, not improving the department. According to Maynard, Fitzpatrick's future with DPS, by his own statements, is tentative at best. "He was going to stay [with DPS] until he was 62, which is seven years, and then all of a sudden I heard it was five years, and now it sounds like maybe three years," says Maynard. "I bet he'll bail next year."

If Fitzpatrick is committed to building a professional operation out of the existing department, the issues surrounding the conduct of his employees must be addressed. Meanwhile, it would be in Public Safety's best interest to pull back from the commissioning of what otherwise would be a simple and effective security force. Otherwise, he will leave a legacy of mismanagement and dangerous operations behind him - and we could all suffer the consequences.

Any effective safety department - be it the mall security, city police or campus patrol - must have he trust of the public it serves. This trust does not come automatically; this trust must be earned: by enforcing the rules fairly, evenly and ethically. The University of Oregon Department of Public Safety has not done this and does not do this. Based on their actions as described in this issue, DPS does not seem the least bit interested in behaving like a legitimate office vested with the responsibility of protecting the UO campus.

Surely the University of Oregon deserves better protection than this.