Monday we told you about the disturbing attitude being exhibited by APD's Crimes Against Children unit. In essence they told the parents of two sexually molested children that their case wasn't a priority (read it here) because there was no penetration.
It seems that with the help of our Eyes and a heart-felt plea from the parents (read it here), the CAC got off of their, uh... cases and completed their investigation. We received another email from the two molested children's parents just today informing us that the parents had finally been contacted and that the APD portion of the case had been completed. According to the parents, the case is now in the hands of the district attorney's office for submission to a grand jury.
We're glad that this case is going forward. Our only concern is that it sure seems like it took public pressure to get the CAC to do their job. If so, it's more than a little concerning and reflects poorly on the leaders of the department - Chief Schultz and his boss, Mayor Martin Chavez.
Don't worry, we've got our Eyes on this one and will let you know how this case proceeds. You can be sure that if the DA drops the ball we'll be less than pleased and in an election year...
Aug 29, 2008
Aug 28, 2008
Incompetence and Excuses
We're finally getting some reaction from the 5th Floor with regard to nine of their officers allegedly trampling a crime scene.
We don't have a problem with officers going down there on their own time - we have a problem with the stunning lack of professionalism shown by the nine APD officers who allegedly entered an active crime scene. At the very least these officers made the jobs of OMI and the Valencia County Sheriff's Department much more difficult. At worst, they could have made prosecuting a murderer next to impossible.
No one may ever truly know what happened to Tera Chavez, particularly since our Eyes tell us that the VCSO isn't exactly known for its investigative prowess. When you add nine APD officers who should have known better to the mix what you're left with is incompetence and a few lame excuses.
Albuquerque Police Chief Ray Schultz says all but one of the officers who showed up at the home of a fellow officer after his wife was shot to death in the couple's Valencia County home were there on their own time.Uh... Excuse us but aren't these trained and sworn officers? It really doesn't matter whether they were on duty, of duty, or on vacation for that matter. Anyone who's watched more than one episode of Law and Order knows that you don't go trampling around a room containing a dead body unless your intent is to contaminate the crime scene.
We don't have a problem with officers going down there on their own time - we have a problem with the stunning lack of professionalism shown by the nine APD officers who allegedly entered an active crime scene. At the very least these officers made the jobs of OMI and the Valencia County Sheriff's Department much more difficult. At worst, they could have made prosecuting a murderer next to impossible.
"At the start of this, we truly believed it was a suicide," said Aaron Jones, the lead investigator for Valencia County. "Once we started looking at some things we didn't have knowledge of until days later, we realized it might not be a suicide. By then, the damage had been done to the investigation. We have learned a lot from this investigation."We don't know what's more frightening, nine officers stupidly trashing a crime scene or the revelation that VCSO's lead detective learned that having nine people trampling a crime scene is a bad idea.
No one may ever truly know what happened to Tera Chavez, particularly since our Eyes tell us that the VCSO isn't exactly known for its investigative prowess. When you add nine APD officers who should have known better to the mix what you're left with is incompetence and a few lame excuses.
Aug 27, 2008
Letters to the Eye: In Their Own Words
Often when we post stories about the goings on in some department or court case, family members contact us with more information about the story itself. Sometimes it corrects mistakes or clarifies facts. Other times these emails add a whole new dimension to the story.
After our post Disturbing Behavior, we received one such email. The author wishes to remain anonymous and since this case involves allegations of criminal sexual behavior, the author has withheld the names of the detectives assigned to the case and of course the accused.
Although the letter does not contain specific allegations regarding the accused, our Eyes tell us that that acts of the accused are particularly contemptible.
Disturbing Behavior - The Parents' Side
Dear EYE,
It has been brought to our attention that one of your Eyes gave you a heads up regarding the situation involving our two boys, ages four and seven. We are sending this in an effort to clarify the details of our plight, and pray that pointing the “Eye” in their direction won’t cause our case to get “lost”.
This nightmare started the day our children told us that a close family friend who watched them had sexually abused them. We did what any competent parents would do, called CPS and APD. CPS advised us that since the perpetrator didn’t live in the home, they wouldn’t investigate. APD sent out an officer nearly 20 hours after our initial call to make a report. An officer took the report and was extremely helpful. He even called us later that evening to let us know who the detective would be and when she would be calling.
“Detective A” (for the sake of protecting our boys, we have chosen not to name any names) called the next day and we set up an appointment for the following day at All Faith’s Receiving Home. Our children were interviewed (video and audiotaped) and “Detective A” spoke with us afterwards. She suggested that we get a restraining order and told us where we could get help obtaining one. She also said that she would contact the offender, provide him with a “No Contact” order, and offer him a chance to tell his side of the story. She further said that she would have the report typed up quickly and get it off to the DA’s office by the end of the next week and we could hopefully expect an indictment soon.
That same day, we obtained a restraining order through the Victim’s Advocacy office. We left feeling confident that things would be dealt with swiftly and our children would be safe. Throughout the weekend, however, the offender attempted to contact various family members by phone. We avoided the phone calls, and the family members that did answer only made small talk so as not to give him details of the pending action against him. This was clearly in violation of the restraining order, so we called “Detective A” immediately to inform her that he was trying to contact us. We got her voicemail and left a message. On Monday, we called again and got a full voicemail box, and at that point I called 242-COPS to find out what to do. Another officer was sent over to make a report. He called for the status of the restraining order and it hadn’t been served. The order was in place Wednesday afternoon and 5 days later it still hadn’t been served. We had absolutely no recourse against him for violating an order that he had no knowledge of.
The next day, “Detective A” finally called back and told us that she and an advocate would make contact with the suspect and serve the restraining order. She went that afternoon and then took him for an interview where he of course denied the allegations. That’s the last time we heard from “Detective A” personally. We figured she would have had ample time to write the report and send it to the DA. Last week, we called the DA’s office to find out the status on the case, since “Detective A” had stopped returning our phone calls. The DA’s office had no record of it. We called “Detective A” again and left another message, and then we called her supervisor. “Supervisor B” returned our call the next day and said since our kids “weren’t raped or sitting in the emergency room with broken bones that they aren’t high on the priority list.” He further said “victims with offenders still living in the household take precedence. Emergencies are dealt with first, and (our) inquiries were doubling or tripling “Detective A’s” work load.” Please note that if our calls had been returned the first time, we wouldn’t have left 5 or 6 more messages, and certainly wouldn’t have called the DA’s office and then the supervisor.
Look, we completely understand that these things take time. It takes a lot of work to put a case together before it’s submitted to the District Attorney’s office so that the case is as strong as possible. We certainly don’t want this animal to get away with what he’s done. But all we’ve asked for is communication, and we are certainly entitled to at least that. We have a right to know where our case stands, and when this man will be indicted, arrested, and punished. And while we concede to the fact that there are children out there that are in greater danger and jeopardy than ours, it does not mitigate the fact that our children were sexually molested. We want justice for our children just as much as the other parents want justice for theirs.
It takes maybe 3 minutes to return a phone call and explain where things stand. We understand that the detectives in this unit have a huge case load and are understaffed, but it doesn’t excuse the fact that our case is “not a high priority”. Our children, especially the seven year old, are terrified that this man is going to come hurt them since they told on him. How do we reassure them that they are safe, when we can’t even count on law enforcement to serve a restraining order or even update us on the status of our case? We are good parents, have worked hard to protect our kids and arm them with the knowledge they needed to protect themselves. We never dreamed that something like this could happen, but when it did, we felt we did everything right. We find it unbelievable that “Detective A” couldn’t simply pick up the phone and call us back, and even more unbelievable that this supervisor would chastise and lecture us for simply wanting information on where we stood in the process. It certainly shakes our faith in the system.
We trusted the man that molested our boys implicitly. Our children loved him, and he used their love and trust for his own sick sexual gratification. We never, in a million years, would have thought he would be capable of doing something so absolutely disgusting and demented. Now we realize, despite knowing this man for nearly 20 years, that we really have no idea who he is or what he is capable of. The fact that he lives a block or two away from an elementary school is even more troubling. You would think that would be a pretty high priority, right?
In closing, there are a couple of details that need to be corrected in your story. While we did discover and report this incident in late July, we are UNSURE of how long it has been going on. The kids say this particular incident was the first and only time, but there are behaviors that our children have exhibited prior to our discovery of the molestation that lead us to believe otherwise. It is highly possible, and even likely (in our opinion) that this has happened before, and the kids simply don’t remember or have repressed. But at this point we can only prove this recent incident. This man has been a family friend for many years, and he has watched our children many, many times, so that aspect of your story is correct.
We want to thank “The Eye” for your attention to our story, and hope that our case gets the attention it deserves, and that justice is served for our children. We will keep you posted as things develop.
Sincerely,
Two very frustrated and disappointed parents
Our Take
We understand why parents would be concerned. Their faith in a family friend has already been betrayed and now the people charged protecting their kids from predators like this "friend" are acting as if their case and their children don't matter - yet another betrayal. The last thing that these folks want to do is anger the people in charge of their case, but fear and frustration are powerful motivators and when your children are involved there's little a parent won't do to make sure their children are safe.
Officers over at the CAC unit need to remember that there's no child that isn't a priority. Parents of child victims need constant communication and updates. After all, it's a parent's responsibility to protect their child and to help them heal. Parents can't go on vacation, and they can't move on to some other priority as long as there's a chance that their child may still be in danger - particularly since most parents would already be feeling (wrongly) that they had failed their child or were somehow responsible. When a child has been through something like this parents don't give a damn whether or not the courts are clogged, the police have other priorities, or the DA is overworked - they demand and deserve justice for their children.
After our post Disturbing Behavior, we received one such email. The author wishes to remain anonymous and since this case involves allegations of criminal sexual behavior, the author has withheld the names of the detectives assigned to the case and of course the accused.
Although the letter does not contain specific allegations regarding the accused, our Eyes tell us that that acts of the accused are particularly contemptible.
Disturbing Behavior - The Parents' Side
Dear EYE,
It has been brought to our attention that one of your Eyes gave you a heads up regarding the situation involving our two boys, ages four and seven. We are sending this in an effort to clarify the details of our plight, and pray that pointing the “Eye” in their direction won’t cause our case to get “lost”.
This nightmare started the day our children told us that a close family friend who watched them had sexually abused them. We did what any competent parents would do, called CPS and APD. CPS advised us that since the perpetrator didn’t live in the home, they wouldn’t investigate. APD sent out an officer nearly 20 hours after our initial call to make a report. An officer took the report and was extremely helpful. He even called us later that evening to let us know who the detective would be and when she would be calling.
“Detective A” (for the sake of protecting our boys, we have chosen not to name any names) called the next day and we set up an appointment for the following day at All Faith’s Receiving Home. Our children were interviewed (video and audiotaped) and “Detective A” spoke with us afterwards. She suggested that we get a restraining order and told us where we could get help obtaining one. She also said that she would contact the offender, provide him with a “No Contact” order, and offer him a chance to tell his side of the story. She further said that she would have the report typed up quickly and get it off to the DA’s office by the end of the next week and we could hopefully expect an indictment soon.
That same day, we obtained a restraining order through the Victim’s Advocacy office. We left feeling confident that things would be dealt with swiftly and our children would be safe. Throughout the weekend, however, the offender attempted to contact various family members by phone. We avoided the phone calls, and the family members that did answer only made small talk so as not to give him details of the pending action against him. This was clearly in violation of the restraining order, so we called “Detective A” immediately to inform her that he was trying to contact us. We got her voicemail and left a message. On Monday, we called again and got a full voicemail box, and at that point I called 242-COPS to find out what to do. Another officer was sent over to make a report. He called for the status of the restraining order and it hadn’t been served. The order was in place Wednesday afternoon and 5 days later it still hadn’t been served. We had absolutely no recourse against him for violating an order that he had no knowledge of.
The next day, “Detective A” finally called back and told us that she and an advocate would make contact with the suspect and serve the restraining order. She went that afternoon and then took him for an interview where he of course denied the allegations. That’s the last time we heard from “Detective A” personally. We figured she would have had ample time to write the report and send it to the DA. Last week, we called the DA’s office to find out the status on the case, since “Detective A” had stopped returning our phone calls. The DA’s office had no record of it. We called “Detective A” again and left another message, and then we called her supervisor. “Supervisor B” returned our call the next day and said since our kids “weren’t raped or sitting in the emergency room with broken bones that they aren’t high on the priority list.” He further said “victims with offenders still living in the household take precedence. Emergencies are dealt with first, and (our) inquiries were doubling or tripling “Detective A’s” work load.” Please note that if our calls had been returned the first time, we wouldn’t have left 5 or 6 more messages, and certainly wouldn’t have called the DA’s office and then the supervisor.
Look, we completely understand that these things take time. It takes a lot of work to put a case together before it’s submitted to the District Attorney’s office so that the case is as strong as possible. We certainly don’t want this animal to get away with what he’s done. But all we’ve asked for is communication, and we are certainly entitled to at least that. We have a right to know where our case stands, and when this man will be indicted, arrested, and punished. And while we concede to the fact that there are children out there that are in greater danger and jeopardy than ours, it does not mitigate the fact that our children were sexually molested. We want justice for our children just as much as the other parents want justice for theirs.
It takes maybe 3 minutes to return a phone call and explain where things stand. We understand that the detectives in this unit have a huge case load and are understaffed, but it doesn’t excuse the fact that our case is “not a high priority”. Our children, especially the seven year old, are terrified that this man is going to come hurt them since they told on him. How do we reassure them that they are safe, when we can’t even count on law enforcement to serve a restraining order or even update us on the status of our case? We are good parents, have worked hard to protect our kids and arm them with the knowledge they needed to protect themselves. We never dreamed that something like this could happen, but when it did, we felt we did everything right. We find it unbelievable that “Detective A” couldn’t simply pick up the phone and call us back, and even more unbelievable that this supervisor would chastise and lecture us for simply wanting information on where we stood in the process. It certainly shakes our faith in the system.
We trusted the man that molested our boys implicitly. Our children loved him, and he used their love and trust for his own sick sexual gratification. We never, in a million years, would have thought he would be capable of doing something so absolutely disgusting and demented. Now we realize, despite knowing this man for nearly 20 years, that we really have no idea who he is or what he is capable of. The fact that he lives a block or two away from an elementary school is even more troubling. You would think that would be a pretty high priority, right?
In closing, there are a couple of details that need to be corrected in your story. While we did discover and report this incident in late July, we are UNSURE of how long it has been going on. The kids say this particular incident was the first and only time, but there are behaviors that our children have exhibited prior to our discovery of the molestation that lead us to believe otherwise. It is highly possible, and even likely (in our opinion) that this has happened before, and the kids simply don’t remember or have repressed. But at this point we can only prove this recent incident. This man has been a family friend for many years, and he has watched our children many, many times, so that aspect of your story is correct.
We want to thank “The Eye” for your attention to our story, and hope that our case gets the attention it deserves, and that justice is served for our children. We will keep you posted as things develop.
Sincerely,
Two very frustrated and disappointed parents
Our Take
We understand why parents would be concerned. Their faith in a family friend has already been betrayed and now the people charged protecting their kids from predators like this "friend" are acting as if their case and their children don't matter - yet another betrayal. The last thing that these folks want to do is anger the people in charge of their case, but fear and frustration are powerful motivators and when your children are involved there's little a parent won't do to make sure their children are safe.
Officers over at the CAC unit need to remember that there's no child that isn't a priority. Parents of child victims need constant communication and updates. After all, it's a parent's responsibility to protect their child and to help them heal. Parents can't go on vacation, and they can't move on to some other priority as long as there's a chance that their child may still be in danger - particularly since most parents would already be feeling (wrongly) that they had failed their child or were somehow responsible. When a child has been through something like this parents don't give a damn whether or not the courts are clogged, the police have other priorities, or the DA is overworked - they demand and deserve justice for their children.
Knocking the No-Knock Ordinance
When some terrible tragedy befalls someone or a particularly heinous crime is committed, there's often a public outcry to do something. In other cases, there's not really a public outcry but a political one. Of course there's no such thing as a political outcry, but there is such a thing as political opportunity.
The Almighty One is grasping at such an opportunity with his anti-knocker ordinance. No... The ordinance has nothing to do with last weekend's topless protest in Santa Fe (ABQ Journal - Subscription), it's an ordinance designed force those nasty solicitors to register with the city and for them to comply with a no-knock list.
Hey, we hate being harassed by solicitors as much as the next Eye but if we're not in the mood to deal with a vacuum salesman or some political or religious nut we don't answer the door.
So where's all of this coming from? According to The Almighty One, the registration and no-knock list is a reaction to the 2007 murder of Tak Yi and Pung Yi by a couple of traveling magazine salesmen (Subscription). Apparently in the Alcalde's mind, magazine salesman plus murder equals no-knock ordinance (political opportunity).
It's nonsensical yes, but it gives Marty an opportunity to claim that he's doing something to prevent crime - in this case murder. Look, we have a hard time believing that two rapists and murderers would hesitate for a moment to violate the city's no-knock ordinance when they're already willing to rape and murder - which by the way are a bit more serious than the petty misdemeanor proposed by The Almighty Alcalde.
Meanwhile, Marty is worried about traveling salesmen. Simply put, the no-knock ordinance is a nonsensical, politically motivated, unenforceable piece of, uh... legislation. It doesn't need re-writing as Councilor Ken Sanchez suggests, it needs circular filing.
The Almighty One is grasping at such an opportunity with his anti-knocker ordinance. No... The ordinance has nothing to do with last weekend's topless protest in Santa Fe (ABQ Journal - Subscription), it's an ordinance designed force those nasty solicitors to register with the city and for them to comply with a no-knock list.
Hey, we hate being harassed by solicitors as much as the next Eye but if we're not in the mood to deal with a vacuum salesman or some political or religious nut we don't answer the door.
So where's all of this coming from? According to The Almighty One, the registration and no-knock list is a reaction to the 2007 murder of Tak Yi and Pung Yi by a couple of traveling magazine salesmen (Subscription). Apparently in the Alcalde's mind, magazine salesman plus murder equals no-knock ordinance (political opportunity).
It's nonsensical yes, but it gives Marty an opportunity to claim that he's doing something to prevent crime - in this case murder. Look, we have a hard time believing that two rapists and murderers would hesitate for a moment to violate the city's no-knock ordinance when they're already willing to rape and murder - which by the way are a bit more serious than the petty misdemeanor proposed by The Almighty Alcalde.
"The Chávez administration will continue to support citizens against predators who would take advantage of the innocent victims in Albuquerque," a mayor's spokeswoman said.If the mayor is so concerned about forcing a few door-to-door salesmen to register with the city, pass background checks, and post $500 bonds, then why doesn't the Almighty Alcalde want APD to report suspected illegal aliens to the federal authorities (read it here)? There are quite literally thousands of illegal aliens running around this city - a disproportionate number of whom are involved in crime.
Chávez proposed the law after two magazine salesmen were accused of killing Tak Yi and Pung Yi at the couple's home. The measure calls for companies to conduct background checks on their solicitors and post a $500 bond. The city would also create a "no-knock" list for homeowners.
-ABQ Journal (Subscription)
Meanwhile, Marty is worried about traveling salesmen. Simply put, the no-knock ordinance is a nonsensical, politically motivated, unenforceable piece of, uh... legislation. It doesn't need re-writing as Councilor Ken Sanchez suggests, it needs circular filing.
Aug 25, 2008
Disturbing Attitude
Sex crimes are some of the most disturbing crimes committed in a civilized society. When that crime is perpetrated against a child the offense is particularly heinous. For that reason, police departments across the country have created specialized units whose primary function is to find these perpetrators and put them in prison.
In Albuquerque, the unit charged with protecting children from sexual predators is the Crimes Against Children Unit.
Our Eyes tell us about a recent case where a 4 year old and a 7 year old were allegedly being molested over a period of years by a family friend who had been babysitting the pair pretty much all of their young lives. The allegations came to light in early July and the parents of the children did what parents should do - they reported the 40 something babysitter to the authorities.
The case was referred to the Crimes Against Children unit who - following procedure - interviewed the children in a safe house to determine the veracity of the children's story. In addition, the detectives obtained a restraining order the required the babysitter to stay away from the children.
At that point the parents believed that the case was progressing and that something would be done about the sexual predator that they believe molested their child. However, this is where the story ends or at least the official investigation.
Our Eyes tell us that APD detectives stopped returning phone calls seeking to determine the status of the investigation. After repeated attempts, the frustrated parents went up the chain of command to the sergeant in charge. On the second phone call they were told that since there was no penetration involved, the case was not a priority.
We find that attitude more than a little disturbing. Pedophiles are among the most dangerous of sexual predators. More importantly, they are among the least likely to ever be rehabilitated. The attitude that repeated molestation over a period of seven years isn't a priority is simply appalling.
The Crimes Against Children unit has a duty to investigate every allegation of criminal sexual behavior against children no matter how small - today's molester is tomorrow's rapist. Failing to prosecute molesters simply because there's no penetration not only fails the victims in this case but places other children at risk.
----- Correction -----
Seems that our typos are showing... We initially entitled this post Distrubing Attitude. What we meant was Disturbing Attitude. Oops! It has been corrected above.
In Albuquerque, the unit charged with protecting children from sexual predators is the Crimes Against Children Unit.
Our Eyes tell us about a recent case where a 4 year old and a 7 year old were allegedly being molested over a period of years by a family friend who had been babysitting the pair pretty much all of their young lives. The allegations came to light in early July and the parents of the children did what parents should do - they reported the 40 something babysitter to the authorities.
The case was referred to the Crimes Against Children unit who - following procedure - interviewed the children in a safe house to determine the veracity of the children's story. In addition, the detectives obtained a restraining order the required the babysitter to stay away from the children.
At that point the parents believed that the case was progressing and that something would be done about the sexual predator that they believe molested their child. However, this is where the story ends or at least the official investigation.
Our Eyes tell us that APD detectives stopped returning phone calls seeking to determine the status of the investigation. After repeated attempts, the frustrated parents went up the chain of command to the sergeant in charge. On the second phone call they were told that since there was no penetration involved, the case was not a priority.
We find that attitude more than a little disturbing. Pedophiles are among the most dangerous of sexual predators. More importantly, they are among the least likely to ever be rehabilitated. The attitude that repeated molestation over a period of seven years isn't a priority is simply appalling.
The Crimes Against Children unit has a duty to investigate every allegation of criminal sexual behavior against children no matter how small - today's molester is tomorrow's rapist. Failing to prosecute molesters simply because there's no penetration not only fails the victims in this case but places other children at risk.
----- Correction -----
Seems that our typos are showing... We initially entitled this post Distrubing Attitude. What we meant was Disturbing Attitude. Oops! It has been corrected above.
Aug 24, 2008
Eye Poll - Leaning White
Last week's Eye Poll took up the race for Heather Wilson's vacated seat in the 1st Congressional District between Sheriff Darren White and former City Councilor Martin Heinrich. Sheriff White carried our unscientific Eye Poll by a solid double digit margin of 14 points (57% to 43% read it here).
When considering the 1st CD most people tend to focus on the 2006 election where Heather Wilson held on to beat Pausing Patsy Madrid by some 700 votes. People tend to forget that Congresswoman Wilson traditionally won the 1st CD by a margin of around 10 points. It will be interesting to see whether or not the "Democratic Wave" has started to recede even with the Obama World Tour rolling through the 2008 election.
This week we'll move on to that other open seat. You know the one where Tom Udall is trying to convince voters that he's really for drilling despite his record of voting to restrict oil exploration at every turn. If Udall wants anyone to believe that he's for drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan he ought to announce that his past support of radical environmentalists and their belief that any drilling harms the environment was a mistake. (Don't hold your breath on that one.)
It's the New Mexico U.S. Senate race - underdog Steve Pearce vs. Tom Udall. Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble! Don't forget to vote.
When considering the 1st CD most people tend to focus on the 2006 election where Heather Wilson held on to beat Pausing Patsy Madrid by some 700 votes. People tend to forget that Congresswoman Wilson traditionally won the 1st CD by a margin of around 10 points. It will be interesting to see whether or not the "Democratic Wave" has started to recede even with the Obama World Tour rolling through the 2008 election.
(Sidebar)With redistricting looming and a Democratically held New Mexico Legislature, you can bet that the 1st CD will be redrawn to lean further to the left. Sheriff White may be the only hope for Republicans to hold the district through redistricting.
The Anointed One's announcement of Joe Biden as his High Priest leads us to believe that Obama is reluctant to share the spotlight with anyone. Biden may bring foreign policy experience to the ticket but we're not convinced that his conclusions have been accurate. When you consider Biden's penchant for shooting his mouth off - he brings almost no upside and the potential to create scandal and distraction.
(End Sidebar)
This week we'll move on to that other open seat. You know the one where Tom Udall is trying to convince voters that he's really for drilling despite his record of voting to restrict oil exploration at every turn. If Udall wants anyone to believe that he's for drilling as part of a comprehensive energy plan he ought to announce that his past support of radical environmentalists and their belief that any drilling harms the environment was a mistake. (Don't hold your breath on that one.)
It's the New Mexico U.S. Senate race - underdog Steve Pearce vs. Tom Udall. Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble! Don't forget to vote.
Aug 22, 2008
Letters to The Eye - Retired APD Lt. Steve Tate Weighs In on Rehire Program
Monday we told you about retired Officer Dennis Patrick and his attempt to return to APD through the department's rehire program (read it here). Suffice it to say Officer Patrick was denied rehire on some rather shaky grounds. In fact, recently rehired Captain John Robert DeBuck had a similar (if not worse) black mark on his record yet was rehired anyway.
One of the comments on the story caught our Eye. It was a story about another retired officer - Lieutenant Steve Tate - who applied for rehire not once but twice after being encouraged to do so by the officers placed in charge of two different departments. Lt. Tate had none of the financial difficulties evidenced by DeBuck or Patrick yet was denied both times.
We'll let Lt. Tate tell his own story but it's apparent to us that The 5th Floor's rehire policy is anything but consistent and seems to contain an extensive black list.
Retired APD Lt. Steve Tate Weighs In on Rehire Program
After reading and learning about Officer Patrick being turned down as a rehire, I felt the need to write this response as I may have indirectly impacted APD's decision in this matter. I was turned down on two separate occasions for positions as a part-time CSO during the past few months. I feel that my response to being turned down may have caused the department to more heavily scrutinize other rehires and deny them employment in an effort to masquerade their invalid reasons for denying me. Let me start by saying that I was only interested in these specific part-time positions because of the supervisors, the unit, and the ability to work around my current schedule of high school coaching and consultant training work. I was not interested in just coming back to APD in any capacity. Earlier this year I was asked to apply for a part-time CSO position in recruiting and Backgrounds by Sgt. Galindo with the blessing of Capt. Suazo. However, I was informed a week or so after filling out my application that I wouldn't be rehired because I "bumped" people off the list to attend the FBI National Academy and then retired a few months after attending the FBI Academy.
This reasoning given for not hiring me was very puzzling to me as the facts given were not accurate, and I do not understand how I could've ever had any input or power to "bump" people off any list since this decision rested solely with the Chief's Office and the FBI. The true facts are that I wrote a letter to then Chief Gallegos in 2002 requesting to be considered for the FBI Academy should any opportunities become available for lieutenants (as did many other lieutenants and captains). I later learned in December of 2003 that I was on a list and would be attending the FBI Academy in the Spring of 2005 (which I did). My retirement was effective on February 28, 2007. Because of these facts, the reasons given to for me not being hired for the Recruiting position made no sense and was not accurate.
Prior to turning in my first application to Sgt. Galindo, I informed him that due to my previous position as Academy Lieutenant, and my knowledge and involvement in the hiring and training processes, the Chief's Office may not want me conducting and presenting background investigations to the Chief's Selection Panel. Due to my position, I had been involved in Chief's selection processes where I voiced my opinion about the quality of candidates and whether or not they should be seated in academy classes. I also was aware of candidates that were previously denied for various reasons, being hired after my retirement. I told Sgt. Galindo that because of this, the Chief's Office may not feel comfortable having someone with that knowledge presenting candidates to them. After being denied, I felt that the awkwardness of that potential encounter was the likely reason.
I was later contacted in April of this year by Sgt. Ryan, of the Red Light Camera Unit, and asked if I would be interested in working with her. I advised her of my previous application denial and asked her to pursue it up her chain of command for their blessing. Sgt. Ryan advised me that Capt. Hetes approved it and would check with the Chief. However, I was later informed that they would not rehire me. The new reason given for me being turned down was now a simple "no", without any further explanation. The more I thought about this, the more it bothered me. I was being asked to help out units that had positions they needed filled and there was no valid reason to deny me. Based on my previous positions as a lieutenant in the Internal Affairs Unit and at the Police Academy, I was very aware of the hiring process and how backgrounds affected that process. However, there was nothing in my background that should eliminate me from being rehired with the Albuquerque Police Department. I was currently certified through the State through February 28th of 2009. I also knew the department was actively recruiting to reach its goal of 1100 sworn and that the part-time CSA/CSO positions (which are always counted for the numbers) are required to be filled by those already sworn (which I am).
On both occasions of my being asked to apply for these positions, I have had the blessings of the entire chains of command up to and including the Captain / Commander level. However, for some reason, someone in the Chief's Office had a problem with hiring me that appeared to be rooted in something other than my qualifications and background. Because of this, I sent an email to Chief Schultz on May 2, 2008 outlining these same issues I've explained here and asking him if I was being turned down due to any type of personal bias, discrimination, or retaliation, because without a valid explanation for these actions, it certainly appeared that I was not being treated fairly. However, I have never received a response to this date from Chief Schultz. So this wouldn't surprise me a bit if he refused to speak directly with Officer Patrick. After waiting a couple of weeks with no response, I sent an email to CAO Perlman explaining these issues. After receiving Perlman's response, it was clear he had no clue how the hiring process worked, let alone how the part-time CSA/CSO positions were being handled by APD. After explaining it again and clarifying some issues to him in a second email, I never heard from him again.
A few days after my email to Perlman, I learned that APD had setup a new policy for handling CSA/CSO applications. No longer would units contact people and ask them to put in for these part-time positions as they had in the past. This change would require them to apply at the city site for a general position and they would be assigned as needed once hired. Of course once hired, they will place the person where the need is. Anyone who works or has ever worked for APD knows what this really means. It's a way of discouraging those they don't want that are interested in certain positions, and ensuring they can take care of those they want to at the same time. I found it interesting and amusing that I was impacting policy after leaving the department.
I have also heard information that leads me to believe that Dennis Patrick would've most likely been hired if they weren't trying to make it appear that I wasn't being singled out. They know they had no valid reasons to deny me (only personal ones evidently) and if they were going to deny me, they better start denying some others that may have had some blemishes in their background...since they denied me and I have none......even if those blemishes wouldn't have disqualified them prior to me challenging my denials. Because of this , I feel sorry for those like Dennis that have gotten caught up in this charade. As for bankruptcy being an issue, I am aware of both cadets and rehires that have been hired that had them
in the recent past. So, I find it hard to believe that this was the only reason for him being denied.
When I retired, Capt. Sonny Leeper, Lt. Chas Hilger and I got involved in some training consultation services and some business ventures. None of us left APD disgruntled, contrary to what some have said. I enjoyed my time at APD and APD was good to me. There were issues I had involving hiring and training that I was not pleased about, but my decision to retire was based on multiple factors, the majority of which had nothing to do with APD. Those that worked for me and around me (and for Lt. Hilger and Capt. Leeper) at the time I retired know the truth. For some reason, still unknown to me, Chief Schultz has had some issue with us 3 that I have yet to figure out. Maybe he didn't like 3 command level officers leaving the training section within months? Maybe he felt it made him look bad? Who knows and who cares? To me it shows no level of maturity.
I was approached by members of the local Albuquerque Media during the months after my retirement. They were wanting to interview me regarding the hiring process for APD and the quality of candidates being let in. I had no idea who gave them my phone number as I had recently got a new number after turning in my department issued phone. I could tell they were looking for a story and at that time I felt that it was not in my interest nor APD's to go down that path. Any information provided wouldn't serve any useful purpose and any info that shed a bad light on APD would most likely be countered with allegations that I was disgruntled. Several months after retiring, I first learned of the Eye On Albuquerque site after a friend advised me that he overheard someone from APD's 5th Floor discussing the site and claiming that Sonny Leeper, Chas Hilger, and I were somehow involved in running it. This is not true. Over the past year or so, some of my friends at APD still jokingly call me the "EYE" when they see me, and I laugh and play along with them, but I need to set the record straight. I have no idea who runs this site, but I can say that their information usually appears to be fairly accurate. The do have inside sources for sure. The individual postings under the topics is a different story and they can get a little crazy. Trust me when I say that if I ran this site, I would claim it. If I have something to write about, I will put my name on it just like this post. This is the first post I have ever made here and have no problem putting my name on it.
I feel sorry for Dennis because after a career at APD, he deserves to be told the truth from those making the decision. Unfortunately, as I have learned that is not their style.....and it reveals more about them that they realize.
Steve Tate
Retired APD Lt.
One of the comments on the story caught our Eye. It was a story about another retired officer - Lieutenant Steve Tate - who applied for rehire not once but twice after being encouraged to do so by the officers placed in charge of two different departments. Lt. Tate had none of the financial difficulties evidenced by DeBuck or Patrick yet was denied both times.
We'll let Lt. Tate tell his own story but it's apparent to us that The 5th Floor's rehire policy is anything but consistent and seems to contain an extensive black list.
Retired APD Lt. Steve Tate Weighs In on Rehire Program
After reading and learning about Officer Patrick being turned down as a rehire, I felt the need to write this response as I may have indirectly impacted APD's decision in this matter. I was turned down on two separate occasions for positions as a part-time CSO during the past few months. I feel that my response to being turned down may have caused the department to more heavily scrutinize other rehires and deny them employment in an effort to masquerade their invalid reasons for denying me. Let me start by saying that I was only interested in these specific part-time positions because of the supervisors, the unit, and the ability to work around my current schedule of high school coaching and consultant training work. I was not interested in just coming back to APD in any capacity. Earlier this year I was asked to apply for a part-time CSO position in recruiting and Backgrounds by Sgt. Galindo with the blessing of Capt. Suazo. However, I was informed a week or so after filling out my application that I wouldn't be rehired because I "bumped" people off the list to attend the FBI National Academy and then retired a few months after attending the FBI Academy.
This reasoning given for not hiring me was very puzzling to me as the facts given were not accurate, and I do not understand how I could've ever had any input or power to "bump" people off any list since this decision rested solely with the Chief's Office and the FBI. The true facts are that I wrote a letter to then Chief Gallegos in 2002 requesting to be considered for the FBI Academy should any opportunities become available for lieutenants (as did many other lieutenants and captains). I later learned in December of 2003 that I was on a list and would be attending the FBI Academy in the Spring of 2005 (which I did). My retirement was effective on February 28, 2007. Because of these facts, the reasons given to for me not being hired for the Recruiting position made no sense and was not accurate.
Prior to turning in my first application to Sgt. Galindo, I informed him that due to my previous position as Academy Lieutenant, and my knowledge and involvement in the hiring and training processes, the Chief's Office may not want me conducting and presenting background investigations to the Chief's Selection Panel. Due to my position, I had been involved in Chief's selection processes where I voiced my opinion about the quality of candidates and whether or not they should be seated in academy classes. I also was aware of candidates that were previously denied for various reasons, being hired after my retirement. I told Sgt. Galindo that because of this, the Chief's Office may not feel comfortable having someone with that knowledge presenting candidates to them. After being denied, I felt that the awkwardness of that potential encounter was the likely reason.
I was later contacted in April of this year by Sgt. Ryan, of the Red Light Camera Unit, and asked if I would be interested in working with her. I advised her of my previous application denial and asked her to pursue it up her chain of command for their blessing. Sgt. Ryan advised me that Capt. Hetes approved it and would check with the Chief. However, I was later informed that they would not rehire me. The new reason given for me being turned down was now a simple "no", without any further explanation. The more I thought about this, the more it bothered me. I was being asked to help out units that had positions they needed filled and there was no valid reason to deny me. Based on my previous positions as a lieutenant in the Internal Affairs Unit and at the Police Academy, I was very aware of the hiring process and how backgrounds affected that process. However, there was nothing in my background that should eliminate me from being rehired with the Albuquerque Police Department. I was currently certified through the State through February 28th of 2009. I also knew the department was actively recruiting to reach its goal of 1100 sworn and that the part-time CSA/CSO positions (which are always counted for the numbers) are required to be filled by those already sworn (which I am).
On both occasions of my being asked to apply for these positions, I have had the blessings of the entire chains of command up to and including the Captain / Commander level. However, for some reason, someone in the Chief's Office had a problem with hiring me that appeared to be rooted in something other than my qualifications and background. Because of this, I sent an email to Chief Schultz on May 2, 2008 outlining these same issues I've explained here and asking him if I was being turned down due to any type of personal bias, discrimination, or retaliation, because without a valid explanation for these actions, it certainly appeared that I was not being treated fairly. However, I have never received a response to this date from Chief Schultz. So this wouldn't surprise me a bit if he refused to speak directly with Officer Patrick. After waiting a couple of weeks with no response, I sent an email to CAO Perlman explaining these issues. After receiving Perlman's response, it was clear he had no clue how the hiring process worked, let alone how the part-time CSA/CSO positions were being handled by APD. After explaining it again and clarifying some issues to him in a second email, I never heard from him again.
A few days after my email to Perlman, I learned that APD had setup a new policy for handling CSA/CSO applications. No longer would units contact people and ask them to put in for these part-time positions as they had in the past. This change would require them to apply at the city site for a general position and they would be assigned as needed once hired. Of course once hired, they will place the person where the need is. Anyone who works or has ever worked for APD knows what this really means. It's a way of discouraging those they don't want that are interested in certain positions, and ensuring they can take care of those they want to at the same time. I found it interesting and amusing that I was impacting policy after leaving the department.
I have also heard information that leads me to believe that Dennis Patrick would've most likely been hired if they weren't trying to make it appear that I wasn't being singled out. They know they had no valid reasons to deny me (only personal ones evidently) and if they were going to deny me, they better start denying some others that may have had some blemishes in their background...since they denied me and I have none......even if those blemishes wouldn't have disqualified them prior to me challenging my denials. Because of this , I feel sorry for those like Dennis that have gotten caught up in this charade. As for bankruptcy being an issue, I am aware of both cadets and rehires that have been hired that had them
in the recent past. So, I find it hard to believe that this was the only reason for him being denied.
When I retired, Capt. Sonny Leeper, Lt. Chas Hilger and I got involved in some training consultation services and some business ventures. None of us left APD disgruntled, contrary to what some have said. I enjoyed my time at APD and APD was good to me. There were issues I had involving hiring and training that I was not pleased about, but my decision to retire was based on multiple factors, the majority of which had nothing to do with APD. Those that worked for me and around me (and for Lt. Hilger and Capt. Leeper) at the time I retired know the truth. For some reason, still unknown to me, Chief Schultz has had some issue with us 3 that I have yet to figure out. Maybe he didn't like 3 command level officers leaving the training section within months? Maybe he felt it made him look bad? Who knows and who cares? To me it shows no level of maturity.
I was approached by members of the local Albuquerque Media during the months after my retirement. They were wanting to interview me regarding the hiring process for APD and the quality of candidates being let in. I had no idea who gave them my phone number as I had recently got a new number after turning in my department issued phone. I could tell they were looking for a story and at that time I felt that it was not in my interest nor APD's to go down that path. Any information provided wouldn't serve any useful purpose and any info that shed a bad light on APD would most likely be countered with allegations that I was disgruntled. Several months after retiring, I first learned of the Eye On Albuquerque site after a friend advised me that he overheard someone from APD's 5th Floor discussing the site and claiming that Sonny Leeper, Chas Hilger, and I were somehow involved in running it. This is not true. Over the past year or so, some of my friends at APD still jokingly call me the "EYE" when they see me, and I laugh and play along with them, but I need to set the record straight. I have no idea who runs this site, but I can say that their information usually appears to be fairly accurate. The do have inside sources for sure. The individual postings under the topics is a different story and they can get a little crazy. Trust me when I say that if I ran this site, I would claim it. If I have something to write about, I will put my name on it just like this post. This is the first post I have ever made here and have no problem putting my name on it.
I feel sorry for Dennis because after a career at APD, he deserves to be told the truth from those making the decision. Unfortunately, as I have learned that is not their style.....and it reveals more about them that they realize.
Steve Tate
Retired APD Lt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)