Week after week it seems as if The Journal and other various news outlets are blaming the problems with APD on training, or lack there of. Chief Schultz preaches to the citizens that he promises to hire better trained officers. Newsflash, the training the officers receive at the police academy is State Regulated. This is an incredible deflection technique on the part of the Chief and the Mayor. The issues with the police department are not "training issues", they are ADMINISTRATION ISSUES!
The Eye has been told that there is going to be heavy duty training reconstruction going on at the police academy. From what the Eye has heard, the city is going to hire an outside individual with no ties to law enforcement and no ties to APD to oversee the police academy. This civilian will in essence be the highest in the Chain of Command for the academy staff. We have been told that this comes with a price tag of $100,000.00 a year.
So, lets get this straight: $100,000.00 will be spent YEARLY for someone to make sure that the academy is adhering to the standards set forth by the New Mexico Department of Public Safety (NMDPS). The current academy staff is fully competent and diligent in their teaching and training efforts. The lesson plans are not plans that they make up and do not solely represent APD only. The lesson plans are from NMDPS and follow the state standards. This plan is not only ludicrous and a waste of money, this is a slap in the face to the entire academy staff. Maybe Mayor Berry and Chief Schultz should rethink their $100,000.00 investment. If training is the major issue, maybe NMDPS should foot the worthless bill and not the citizens of Albuquerque.
Jan 17, 2012
Railroaded Out By Chief Schultz
The Eye received the following from Officer Alfred R. Walck. It is apparently his letter of resignation to Chief Schultz. The Eye finds it so "Schultz like" to railroad a very seasoned officer out of the department while also attempting to strip him of his dignity. This is no surprise, as this is definitely not the first time that Chief Schultz acts on emotion and not logic or professionalism.
Dear Chief Schultz:
I write to advise you directly that I am retiring in lieu of further action against me. It is my deeply held opinion that the proposed termination gave me no option but to retire to protect myself and my family from further action against me. My retirement will be effective November 14, 2011.
Although our professional relationship has been tumultuous and difficult, I never was your enemy, although you clearly believed differently. I disagreed with many of your decisions, but, in all fairness, I was hardly unique.
You proposed to terminate me for reasons that are inconsistent with the actual events. In that particular incident, I was dispatched to a report of burglary, with the suspects attempting to gain entrance into a medical facility while staff was inside the facility. The report showed that two suspects were attempting to batter their way in, and members of the public were directly at risk. Under those circumstances, making the victims safe is, as always, the highest priority, and I did so. My back-up arrived at about the same time, and the initial scene was made safe.
By the time we arrived, however, the suspects had fled in two different directions. I was not directly involved in the search (either by way of coordination or undertaking the search) for the suspects, because events were moving quickly, and other officers immediately undertook those. Indeed, although I was initially dispatched as primary to the scene, two other officers, including a sergeant, declared that they were primary. Neither the officer nor the sergeant was from a specialized squad; neither of them clarified their declaration or suggested that claiming primary status was in error. Instead, at the scenes of the arrests, those officers were in charge, not me, and no one, other than Internal Affairs and you, seem confused about it.
While my back-up and I continued to secure the scene as would be customary, a high-priority domestic violence call came in. Officer Barnard was dispatched first, and a back-up unit was ordered. Both Officer Barnard and I were cleared from the scene by our sergeant because the domestic violence call was a high priority call, and the medical facility was entirely secure. Officer Barnard and I directly responded to that call and it was resolved without difficulty. It is depressing beyond words that I would lose my job for that, but I would rather lose my job knowing that I did mine, than the alternatives.
As best can be determined, no one believed that I was primary officer at the scene at the time we were dispatched to the domestic violence call. Dispatch showed other officers as primary, but I was investigated. Because the suspects had fled (one was arrested, suffering injuries in the process, and another was arrested after breaking into another building), air support was called in, and officers, including at least one sergeant, were scattered around the area, taking the incident in hand. I was not directly involved in any of their activities; I have no command authority over those officers and those officers were not even within my immediate chain of command.
This was primarily why, when a priority domestic call came in, and back up was required by dispatch, two officers, including me, responded. Scott Barnard and I both cleared the departure from the scene with our sergeant who approved our leaving the scene. If I was primary- and by that time, two other officers had taken primary and declared so to dispatch-this would not have made sense. With a more thorough, and less targeted investigation, you would have learned that other officers were on the scene (including command staff), and were, in fact, operating as primary officers. None of them were proposed to be terminated by me.
Officers in APD have long known that Internal Affairs runs at your command. The fact that I was investigated (and no one else) is hardly shocking. No doubt you blame me for Darren White's departure from the City. Although you blame me, the blame instead, belongs on him for crossing the line between personal interest and law enforcement and failing to recognize the inherent conflict of interest that comes from his relationship with Mrs. White and his position with the City and his appearance on an accident scene. Mr. White did what no other husband of an accident victim would be allowed to do, and he did so by virtue of his position.
Because I had legitimate concerns about Mrs. White's medical condition, I permitted him to remove her, but of course, my options were, in truth, to arrest him (and perform a probably cause exam) or to allow him to remove her as he clearly expressed he intended to do, and to continue my investigation once she and he were gone, lights and sirens flashing. With his job title, I could hardly deny him his demands. Of course, you forcing me into retirement prevents me from completing that investigation and referring charges if they were appropriate under the facts.
From before the Darren White incident and severely so afterward, I have been the victim of retaliation, harassment and demeaning conduct by officers that report to you directly. I have written you to put you on notice of the incidents and to request your held, and, to my knowledge, never once did you intervene. As best I can determine, you not only approved of the conduct, but you encouraged it at least tacitly. The conduct created a hostile work environment, contrary to the standard operating procedures of APD.
Once you advised in your letter that you intended to fire me, I had no choice. I have earned my service time, and I have earned the leave time I accumulated, over decades-nearly four- of serving as a law enforcement officer in this State. I could not afford to lose those hard earned hours.
I retire, and hereby give you notice of the same.
Officer Alfred R. Walck.
Dear Chief Schultz:
I write to advise you directly that I am retiring in lieu of further action against me. It is my deeply held opinion that the proposed termination gave me no option but to retire to protect myself and my family from further action against me. My retirement will be effective November 14, 2011.
Although our professional relationship has been tumultuous and difficult, I never was your enemy, although you clearly believed differently. I disagreed with many of your decisions, but, in all fairness, I was hardly unique.
You proposed to terminate me for reasons that are inconsistent with the actual events. In that particular incident, I was dispatched to a report of burglary, with the suspects attempting to gain entrance into a medical facility while staff was inside the facility. The report showed that two suspects were attempting to batter their way in, and members of the public were directly at risk. Under those circumstances, making the victims safe is, as always, the highest priority, and I did so. My back-up arrived at about the same time, and the initial scene was made safe.
By the time we arrived, however, the suspects had fled in two different directions. I was not directly involved in the search (either by way of coordination or undertaking the search) for the suspects, because events were moving quickly, and other officers immediately undertook those. Indeed, although I was initially dispatched as primary to the scene, two other officers, including a sergeant, declared that they were primary. Neither the officer nor the sergeant was from a specialized squad; neither of them clarified their declaration or suggested that claiming primary status was in error. Instead, at the scenes of the arrests, those officers were in charge, not me, and no one, other than Internal Affairs and you, seem confused about it.
While my back-up and I continued to secure the scene as would be customary, a high-priority domestic violence call came in. Officer Barnard was dispatched first, and a back-up unit was ordered. Both Officer Barnard and I were cleared from the scene by our sergeant because the domestic violence call was a high priority call, and the medical facility was entirely secure. Officer Barnard and I directly responded to that call and it was resolved without difficulty. It is depressing beyond words that I would lose my job for that, but I would rather lose my job knowing that I did mine, than the alternatives.
As best can be determined, no one believed that I was primary officer at the scene at the time we were dispatched to the domestic violence call. Dispatch showed other officers as primary, but I was investigated. Because the suspects had fled (one was arrested, suffering injuries in the process, and another was arrested after breaking into another building), air support was called in, and officers, including at least one sergeant, were scattered around the area, taking the incident in hand. I was not directly involved in any of their activities; I have no command authority over those officers and those officers were not even within my immediate chain of command.
This was primarily why, when a priority domestic call came in, and back up was required by dispatch, two officers, including me, responded. Scott Barnard and I both cleared the departure from the scene with our sergeant who approved our leaving the scene. If I was primary- and by that time, two other officers had taken primary and declared so to dispatch-this would not have made sense. With a more thorough, and less targeted investigation, you would have learned that other officers were on the scene (including command staff), and were, in fact, operating as primary officers. None of them were proposed to be terminated by me.
Officers in APD have long known that Internal Affairs runs at your command. The fact that I was investigated (and no one else) is hardly shocking. No doubt you blame me for Darren White's departure from the City. Although you blame me, the blame instead, belongs on him for crossing the line between personal interest and law enforcement and failing to recognize the inherent conflict of interest that comes from his relationship with Mrs. White and his position with the City and his appearance on an accident scene. Mr. White did what no other husband of an accident victim would be allowed to do, and he did so by virtue of his position.
Because I had legitimate concerns about Mrs. White's medical condition, I permitted him to remove her, but of course, my options were, in truth, to arrest him (and perform a probably cause exam) or to allow him to remove her as he clearly expressed he intended to do, and to continue my investigation once she and he were gone, lights and sirens flashing. With his job title, I could hardly deny him his demands. Of course, you forcing me into retirement prevents me from completing that investigation and referring charges if they were appropriate under the facts.
From before the Darren White incident and severely so afterward, I have been the victim of retaliation, harassment and demeaning conduct by officers that report to you directly. I have written you to put you on notice of the incidents and to request your held, and, to my knowledge, never once did you intervene. As best I can determine, you not only approved of the conduct, but you encouraged it at least tacitly. The conduct created a hostile work environment, contrary to the standard operating procedures of APD.
Once you advised in your letter that you intended to fire me, I had no choice. I have earned my service time, and I have earned the leave time I accumulated, over decades-nearly four- of serving as a law enforcement officer in this State. I could not afford to lose those hard earned hours.
I retire, and hereby give you notice of the same.
Officer Alfred R. Walck.
Jan 1, 2012
Downtown Gets Special Treatment, Despite The Violence!
Yet again, downtown Albuquerque is receiving special treatment and special police services, despite the large violent problems that plague the downtown area. If downtown Albuquerque was like any other Albuquerque business, the Criminal Nuisance Abatement Unit (CNAU) would have it shut down! The Eye did a story on November 16, 2011 that explained how it appeared as if the downtown area was receiving a "full immunity" from all of its criminal behavior. It seems as if the New Years Holiday is no exception to this immunity clause.
On December 23, 2011, an email from Karen Salazar, reiterating that field lieutenants are to be forced off "per dept memorandum 11-140". Ms. Salazar even stated that a few lieutenants have stated that they were required to work the holiday, even though it was in direct contradiction to the department memorandum.
Our eyes tell us the Valley Area Command Lieutenant (specifically graveyard) was forced to work overtime on New Years, solely for the the purpose of combatting the downtown area and the violence that was predicted to occur.
Low and behold, those predictions came true. There was at least one shooting (leaving two people shot) and one stabbing. This is on top of all of the other altercations and disturbances in the downtown area. This leads to many questions: What makes the downtown area so special? Why does the downtown area get special treatment and obviouse police presence at a cost to the city? Are all Albuquerque liquor establishments provided with the same treatment? Why aren't the downtown businesses required to hire chief's overtime officers as every other businesses are told to do? In fact, Graham Central Station (a local nightclub in the Northeast Heights) was threatened with a "hire chief's overtime or close" option.
As our story on November 16th indicated, this unfortunately is not an isolated incident. The downtown area has violent incidents every single week. What is keeping CNAU from issuing all of the businesses downtown with a notice to seize the violent behavior or be forced to close?
It seems like yet again, Mayor Berry and Chief Ray Schultz are discriminating against all of the other Albuquerque buisnesses while catering to those that are most violent and most dangerous to the citizens of Albuquerque.
Check out one of the stories that KOBTV covered regarding the New Years shooting by clicking here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)