The Eye wishes everyone a Happy New Year. The Eye looks forward to a 2012 and to the many changes that are hopefully coming!
Dec 31, 2011
Happy New Year!
The Eye wishes everyone a Happy New Year. The Eye looks forward to a 2012 and to the many changes that are hopefully coming!
Dec 27, 2011
Can Someone Please Fix The Computers?
Several Months ago, Officers were called into the IT Office to have their computers transitioned to Radio IP. This transition was a supposed upgrade and allegedly cost the department millions of dollars.
Instead of an upgrade, Radio IP is a definite downgrade. Soon after having it installed, officers were going into the office, begging to have it removed. They were told "no" because everyone had to have Radio IP installed. It did not matter that it wasn't working properly. It did not matter that the officers in the unit would temporarily fix the problem, however the program would become unworkable shortly after being "fixed".
When working, officers are able to pull vehicle registrations, dispatched calls, warrant checks, etc. When Radio IP isn't working, officers are not able to do any of those things.
Two weeks ago, the entire system went down AGAIN. The city was forced to pay thousands of dollars in overtime for the Lieutenant, Sergeant, numerous officers, and several civilians to work on each computer individually to try to get the program running. Well, the fix lasted less than two weeks and the employees are back to square one.
Part of the problem is training and experience. The IT unit is comprised of sworn officers that came from varying backgrounds, none of which was computer technology. A couple of the officers were detectives, one was a field officer who had just left the academy, another was an officer that was brought in because she was on ILD due to a pregnancy. Computer classes were taken AFTER being brought into the unit. Are these positions that are really necessary and beneficial for sworn police officers? It seems like computer college students from UNM could be doing better. The trained civilians in tech services seem to be doing much better than the sworn officers.
Does the city not care about officer safety? Officers can not run the registration or warrant checks for subjects prior to making contact. Officers can not receive dispatches and have to constantly ask the dispatcher to repeat the calls. Officers can not pull the "hazards" from the call. "Hazards" are a type of warning to the officers about any safety issues that the location or subject may be involved in. For example, a hazard may flag a mentally unstable subject that has threatened to kill police officers should they come to his/her house.
It seems like Chief Schultz acted on impulse yet again and chose to "fix" something that was not even broken. Should there have been a trial period, the glitches of the system could have been found before spending the money, before wasting the resources, before wasting the "airtime" having to broadcast every single thing, before placing the officers in a more dangerous situation every day.
Instead of an upgrade, Radio IP is a definite downgrade. Soon after having it installed, officers were going into the office, begging to have it removed. They were told "no" because everyone had to have Radio IP installed. It did not matter that it wasn't working properly. It did not matter that the officers in the unit would temporarily fix the problem, however the program would become unworkable shortly after being "fixed".
When working, officers are able to pull vehicle registrations, dispatched calls, warrant checks, etc. When Radio IP isn't working, officers are not able to do any of those things.
Two weeks ago, the entire system went down AGAIN. The city was forced to pay thousands of dollars in overtime for the Lieutenant, Sergeant, numerous officers, and several civilians to work on each computer individually to try to get the program running. Well, the fix lasted less than two weeks and the employees are back to square one.
Part of the problem is training and experience. The IT unit is comprised of sworn officers that came from varying backgrounds, none of which was computer technology. A couple of the officers were detectives, one was a field officer who had just left the academy, another was an officer that was brought in because she was on ILD due to a pregnancy. Computer classes were taken AFTER being brought into the unit. Are these positions that are really necessary and beneficial for sworn police officers? It seems like computer college students from UNM could be doing better. The trained civilians in tech services seem to be doing much better than the sworn officers.
Does the city not care about officer safety? Officers can not run the registration or warrant checks for subjects prior to making contact. Officers can not receive dispatches and have to constantly ask the dispatcher to repeat the calls. Officers can not pull the "hazards" from the call. "Hazards" are a type of warning to the officers about any safety issues that the location or subject may be involved in. For example, a hazard may flag a mentally unstable subject that has threatened to kill police officers should they come to his/her house.
It seems like Chief Schultz acted on impulse yet again and chose to "fix" something that was not even broken. Should there have been a trial period, the glitches of the system could have been found before spending the money, before wasting the resources, before wasting the "airtime" having to broadcast every single thing, before placing the officers in a more dangerous situation every day.
Dec 24, 2011
Dec 17, 2011
What About His Certification?
ADDED TODAY (December 21, 2011):
Chief Schultz was found guilty of violating Officer Orlando Camacho's Right to Due Process. Just another day in the life of Chief Schultz.
On Tuesday, there was an emergency meeting of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy Board. After the meeting it seems like the certification of police officers is being attacked. The Law Enforcement Academy Board is set up to review officers that are suspected of misconduct or even termination and decide whether the officer's certification should be suspended or even pulled indefinitely. Once the officer has their certification pulled, they can not be a law enforcement officer anywhere in the state. One of the hearing officers of the board expressed his displeasure in the Attorney General's office as to the current amount of pending cases. The board was also concerned with the accused ineffectiveness of the Attorney General's office.
The board's obvious passion for officers certification poses a question for the Law Enforcement Academy board. Is being found in violation of one's constitutional rights enough to decertify an officer, better yet decertify a Chief of Police?
In November of 2009, Chief Ray Schultz was found guilty by a jury of violating former officer Sam Constales' civil rights (See cv-00827-MV). Being found guilty of violating someone's civil rights is extreme to say the least. No law enforcement officer ever wants to be found quilty of such a violation. It appears to the Eye that a violation of this caliber more than meets the definition and criteria of officer misconduct. Chief Ray Schultz currently has at least one other pending case in Federal Court in reference to his violation of civil rights. D-202-CV-201106829 (Terysa Welch vs City of Albuquerque, et. al. ) accuses Chief Ray Schultz of Deprivation of Civil Rights Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42USC sections 1983 and 1985, and the New Mexico Human Rights Act. As it turns out there are numerous cases where Chief Ray Schultz has been accused of violation of civil rights (nmcourts.gov). Are we the only ones that see a pattern here?
Why hasn't the certification of Ray Schultz been questioned by the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy Board? We did fail to mention that Chief Schultz is a member of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy Board.
According the New Mexico DPS website, "Oversight of the Law Enforcement Academy operations, revocation or suspension of certifications for officer misconduct, and direction for in-service training of officers are but a few of the many responsibilities of the Board." In our opinion, the accusations as well as the 2009 Costales jury decision against Chief Schultz is more than enough to warrant a hearing before the Board. Whats good for one officer is good for The Chief, isn't it?
Chief Schultz was found guilty of violating Officer Orlando Camacho's Right to Due Process. Just another day in the life of Chief Schultz.
On Tuesday, there was an emergency meeting of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy Board. After the meeting it seems like the certification of police officers is being attacked. The Law Enforcement Academy Board is set up to review officers that are suspected of misconduct or even termination and decide whether the officer's certification should be suspended or even pulled indefinitely. Once the officer has their certification pulled, they can not be a law enforcement officer anywhere in the state. One of the hearing officers of the board expressed his displeasure in the Attorney General's office as to the current amount of pending cases. The board was also concerned with the accused ineffectiveness of the Attorney General's office.
The board's obvious passion for officers certification poses a question for the Law Enforcement Academy board. Is being found in violation of one's constitutional rights enough to decertify an officer, better yet decertify a Chief of Police?
In November of 2009, Chief Ray Schultz was found guilty by a jury of violating former officer Sam Constales' civil rights (See cv-00827-MV). Being found guilty of violating someone's civil rights is extreme to say the least. No law enforcement officer ever wants to be found quilty of such a violation. It appears to the Eye that a violation of this caliber more than meets the definition and criteria of officer misconduct. Chief Ray Schultz currently has at least one other pending case in Federal Court in reference to his violation of civil rights. D-202-CV-201106829 (Terysa Welch vs City of Albuquerque, et. al. ) accuses Chief Ray Schultz of Deprivation of Civil Rights Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42USC sections 1983 and 1985, and the New Mexico Human Rights Act. As it turns out there are numerous cases where Chief Ray Schultz has been accused of violation of civil rights (nmcourts.gov). Are we the only ones that see a pattern here?
Why hasn't the certification of Ray Schultz been questioned by the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy Board? We did fail to mention that Chief Schultz is a member of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy Board.
According the New Mexico DPS website, "Oversight of the Law Enforcement Academy operations, revocation or suspension of certifications for officer misconduct, and direction for in-service training of officers are but a few of the many responsibilities of the Board." In our opinion, the accusations as well as the 2009 Costales jury decision against Chief Schultz is more than enough to warrant a hearing before the Board. Whats good for one officer is good for The Chief, isn't it?
Dec 13, 2011
What Exactly Doesn't He Control?
For years and years Albuquerque City Employees have signed up for insurance benefits and have had the option of choosing their provider. It seemed only fair. Lovelace, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Presbyterian all were available health care providers that had both pros and cons. Finding a primary care physician can sometimes be a feat in itself, and when you finally find a good provider you do not want to have to change.
Unfortunately, Mayor Berry helped to make sure that city employees no longer had a choice in the matter. Earlier this year he forced others out and allowed only Presbyterian to be the sole provider.
This sudden change caused hardships on many city employees. Co-pays went up, premiums were increased, and service went down. For example, prescription medications and treatments that were provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield are no longer being approved by Presbyterian. Employees are left with two options, pay for the treatment and medication completely out of pocket or go without.
In fact, the Eye was contacted by two separate parents of special needs children. These parents are employed by the Albuquerque Police Department.
One parent explained to the Eye that the co-pay and out of pocket expense has risen so much, their family can not afford to get the care their child needs. Another parent explained that they have now been forced to apply for Medicare as Presbyterian does not provide the same treatment that is needed for their child's survival. These parents explained that this lack of service is the exact reason why they did not enroll in the Presbyterian Health Plan when they were hired by the city.
Our last email recieved stated that this employee has been prescribed the same medication for several years for an untreatable medical condition. The medication provides relief for the pain and discomfort this condition is causing. This employee has tried other medications and the one they are currently using is the only one that works. Presbyterian refuses to pay for the medication and it is forcing this employee to spend four hundred dollars just to remain healthy. The employee tried to appeal, however the staff at Presbyterian wants this employee to try all the other medications, yet again and even now is refusing to compensate the employee.
What gives Mayor Berry the right to chose what health plan employees are allowed, especially those that have been long time employees and were promised to be able to make the decision on health care when they first enrolled. What benefits is the Mayor personally receiving to have had this radical change become permanent?
Is the Mayor concerned that his employees are suffering and are inconvenienced at his hands?
Will Mayor Berry ever allow the citizens of Albuquerque to have a choice about ANYTHING or will he continue to dictate everything?
One thing is for sure, Mayor Berry's independant, selfish ways of "ruling" are not only ruining morale, they are physically hurting the employees as well.
Unfortunately, Mayor Berry helped to make sure that city employees no longer had a choice in the matter. Earlier this year he forced others out and allowed only Presbyterian to be the sole provider.
This sudden change caused hardships on many city employees. Co-pays went up, premiums were increased, and service went down. For example, prescription medications and treatments that were provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield are no longer being approved by Presbyterian. Employees are left with two options, pay for the treatment and medication completely out of pocket or go without.
In fact, the Eye was contacted by two separate parents of special needs children. These parents are employed by the Albuquerque Police Department.
One parent explained to the Eye that the co-pay and out of pocket expense has risen so much, their family can not afford to get the care their child needs. Another parent explained that they have now been forced to apply for Medicare as Presbyterian does not provide the same treatment that is needed for their child's survival. These parents explained that this lack of service is the exact reason why they did not enroll in the Presbyterian Health Plan when they were hired by the city.
Our last email recieved stated that this employee has been prescribed the same medication for several years for an untreatable medical condition. The medication provides relief for the pain and discomfort this condition is causing. This employee has tried other medications and the one they are currently using is the only one that works. Presbyterian refuses to pay for the medication and it is forcing this employee to spend four hundred dollars just to remain healthy. The employee tried to appeal, however the staff at Presbyterian wants this employee to try all the other medications, yet again and even now is refusing to compensate the employee.
What gives Mayor Berry the right to chose what health plan employees are allowed, especially those that have been long time employees and were promised to be able to make the decision on health care when they first enrolled. What benefits is the Mayor personally receiving to have had this radical change become permanent?
Is the Mayor concerned that his employees are suffering and are inconvenienced at his hands?
Will Mayor Berry ever allow the citizens of Albuquerque to have a choice about ANYTHING or will he continue to dictate everything?
One thing is for sure, Mayor Berry's independant, selfish ways of "ruling" are not only ruining morale, they are physically hurting the employees as well.
Dec 9, 2011
Hey Ray and Kari, Why Don't You Tell The Public The Whole Story?
If you watched the local news last night, especially Channel 4 (KOBTV), you would see that the Schultz/Brandenburg media manipulation is at it again. It was reported that approximately 1/3 of the DWI cases brought to Metropolitan Court are dismissed because the "prosecution was unable to proceed". If you have had any experience with Metropolitan Court, you would know this more than likely means the officers were not able to attend court. Kari Brandenburg stated she did not want to point the finger at just one person, but the lack of support for APD officers speaks differently.
For the most part, DWI cases being dismissed is NOT the police officer's fault. For those who are unaware, here is a quick breakdown of the logistics with officers and court cases. At the most, officers are given seven days notice of court hearings. There are actually times when officers get only one day notice to appear in court. In essence, this means that although officers have days off, they really do not have any days off. This can make it very difficult for officers to plan for doctor's appointments, daycare, personal time, etc.
Instead of being sympathetic to the needs of the police officers, Chief Schultz has (as so typical of the Chief), made it into a blame game with the officers on the receiving end. Memos threatening officers with absolute discipline have been circulating and the discipline seems to be escalating. For example, if an officer calls in sick, some employees are being forced to provide doctor's notes, proof of the sickness, and proof of calling in to the APD Court Liaison Office. How many people go to the doctor every single time they (or their child) is sick? In fact, if an officer is going to miss court, that officer must provide a thirty day notice to APD Court Liaison advising their absence. Again, an officer's scheduled day off is not really a day off, they are at the mercy of the department and the District Attorney.
Day shift Officers are faced to log out at court and are not available to take calls for service. On those instances where the officers are stuck on a call, they must call into court and then later prove they were in fact on a call. Swing shift and graveyard officers usually are at court when their shift is just beginning or just ending. Not only is personal time comprised, so is their sleep time. For example, you can have an officer work from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., proceed to court at 8:30 a.m., then they may have court in the morning, afternoon, etc. So the officer may leave court at 3:00 p.m., or even later in the instance of a trial. The officer gets home at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m., only to go to work a few hours later. For typical case of "when I say jump, you better jump".
Let us not forget the aspect that defense attorneys know the loopholes and many attorneys continue their criminal cases over and over knowing that the one time the officer does not appear, they will more than likely receive a dismissal. As stated in the kobtv.com story, Retired Sergeant Paul Heh, had once attended court 23 separate times for one single DWI case. According to Paul Heh, he has no idea what the outcome of the case was because he never received notice for his 24th appearance.
It would seem like Kari Brandenburg and Chief Schultz are so conceited, they can not admit that the system is severely broken and the fault does not lie within the officers, but lies with the Chief of Police as well as the District Attorney's office. It would have been so nice if either one of them took the responsibility or admitted that the Officers are the ones placed with the burden and are not to blame. , but then again we dont live on Fantasy Island do we?
For the KOB story, click here.
For the most part, DWI cases being dismissed is NOT the police officer's fault. For those who are unaware, here is a quick breakdown of the logistics with officers and court cases. At the most, officers are given seven days notice of court hearings. There are actually times when officers get only one day notice to appear in court. In essence, this means that although officers have days off, they really do not have any days off. This can make it very difficult for officers to plan for doctor's appointments, daycare, personal time, etc.
Instead of being sympathetic to the needs of the police officers, Chief Schultz has (as so typical of the Chief), made it into a blame game with the officers on the receiving end. Memos threatening officers with absolute discipline have been circulating and the discipline seems to be escalating. For example, if an officer calls in sick, some employees are being forced to provide doctor's notes, proof of the sickness, and proof of calling in to the APD Court Liaison Office. How many people go to the doctor every single time they (or their child) is sick? In fact, if an officer is going to miss court, that officer must provide a thirty day notice to APD Court Liaison advising their absence. Again, an officer's scheduled day off is not really a day off, they are at the mercy of the department and the District Attorney.
Day shift Officers are faced to log out at court and are not available to take calls for service. On those instances where the officers are stuck on a call, they must call into court and then later prove they were in fact on a call. Swing shift and graveyard officers usually are at court when their shift is just beginning or just ending. Not only is personal time comprised, so is their sleep time. For example, you can have an officer work from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m., proceed to court at 8:30 a.m., then they may have court in the morning, afternoon, etc. So the officer may leave court at 3:00 p.m., or even later in the instance of a trial. The officer gets home at 4:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m., only to go to work a few hours later. For typical case of "when I say jump, you better jump".
Let us not forget the aspect that defense attorneys know the loopholes and many attorneys continue their criminal cases over and over knowing that the one time the officer does not appear, they will more than likely receive a dismissal. As stated in the kobtv.com story, Retired Sergeant Paul Heh, had once attended court 23 separate times for one single DWI case. According to Paul Heh, he has no idea what the outcome of the case was because he never received notice for his 24th appearance.
It would seem like Kari Brandenburg and Chief Schultz are so conceited, they can not admit that the system is severely broken and the fault does not lie within the officers, but lies with the Chief of Police as well as the District Attorney's office. It would have been so nice if either one of them took the responsibility or admitted that the Officers are the ones placed with the burden and are not to blame. , but then again we dont live on Fantasy Island do we?
For the KOB story, click here.
Dec 1, 2011
Big Brother is Not Only In The House, But Big Brother Has Crossed The Line!
The Eye gets many emails every day, some giving us ideas for stories, others bad mouthing us. The Eye reads every single email. The last few emails we have received are from different people, yet all seem to have experienced the same incident. The Eye does not know if this is true, but The Eye can tell you several people have contacted us very concerned and wanting this to finally get out to the citizens of Albuquerque.
For those who don't know, APD has an Tech Services Unit that deals with the department computers and the problems that come with them. The Unit is not comprised of current college students, or computer "nerds". The I.T. Unit(Information Technology) has the newest computer gadgets and are not afraid to use them.
Rumor has it that there was a meeting where a flash drive was placed into a computer that was wired into the city network. This would be similar to an officer placing their thumb drive in any of the computers at the substation, or at the PTC. Let's face it, officers do it all the time. That is how the officers save their files, save their reports, etc. During this meeting the flash drive was removed from a city computer and then placed in an employees personal computer that was NOT hooked up to any city network and not affiliated with the city in any way. What comes next seems almost movie like, very Hollywoodesque. The Chief was able to see all of the files on the employees personal computer. This means if you use your flash drive in a city computer and then insert it into your home computer, the city is able to see what is on your home computer. Is nothing sacred anymore? Is there no line the Chief won't cross? What would justify the need for the Chief to retrieve any information from an employees computer? Where are the warrants?
Employees need to get locked flash drives (ironically the I.T. Unit has them already). Do not use the same flash drives on city equipment and then your personal computers. Password your file folders, do not let it be easy for them.
IF this is in fact accurate, this is more than an invasion of privacy. This is a complete disregard for the constitutional rights of an employee (DEJA VU isn't it CHIEF SCHULTZ)!
Again, The Eye has not been able to confirm these accusations. The Eye contacted a very reliable computer expert who stated, not only is this technology available and very plausible, it is very easy to do (especially in the APD setting). We would love to hear from Chief Schultz about this, however, he will never grant us an interview or answer his questions.
For those who don't know, APD has an Tech Services Unit that deals with the department computers and the problems that come with them. The Unit is not comprised of current college students, or computer "nerds". The I.T. Unit(Information Technology) has the newest computer gadgets and are not afraid to use them.
Rumor has it that there was a meeting where a flash drive was placed into a computer that was wired into the city network. This would be similar to an officer placing their thumb drive in any of the computers at the substation, or at the PTC. Let's face it, officers do it all the time. That is how the officers save their files, save their reports, etc. During this meeting the flash drive was removed from a city computer and then placed in an employees personal computer that was NOT hooked up to any city network and not affiliated with the city in any way. What comes next seems almost movie like, very Hollywoodesque. The Chief was able to see all of the files on the employees personal computer. This means if you use your flash drive in a city computer and then insert it into your home computer, the city is able to see what is on your home computer. Is nothing sacred anymore? Is there no line the Chief won't cross? What would justify the need for the Chief to retrieve any information from an employees computer? Where are the warrants?
Employees need to get locked flash drives (ironically the I.T. Unit has them already). Do not use the same flash drives on city equipment and then your personal computers. Password your file folders, do not let it be easy for them.
IF this is in fact accurate, this is more than an invasion of privacy. This is a complete disregard for the constitutional rights of an employee (DEJA VU isn't it CHIEF SCHULTZ)!
Again, The Eye has not been able to confirm these accusations. The Eye contacted a very reliable computer expert who stated, not only is this technology available and very plausible, it is very easy to do (especially in the APD setting). We would love to hear from Chief Schultz about this, however, he will never grant us an interview or answer his questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)