Our daily newsletter rounding up all of the top headlines from the DP. Get it Monday-Friday in your inbox. Free.
Sign up »
34th Street Magazine's "Toast" is a semi-weekly newsletter with the latest on Penn's campus culture and arts scene. Delivered Monday-Wednesday-Friday. Free.
Sign up »
Penn, Unbuttoned is Penn's only intentionally satirical newsletter, giving you your weekly dose of comedy from Under the Button every Wednesday. Free.
Sign up »
Quaker Nation is a weekly sports newsletter covering all things Penn sports. Delivered Monday mornings to your inbox. Free.
Sign up »
Recruiter's Row is a biweekly recruitment newsletter that keeps you up-to-date on all things employment related. Get it in your inbox every other Wednesday. Free.
Sign up »
I've already signed up
Below are your search results. You can also try a Basic Search.
The following letter was sent to members of the police department when Vice President for Public Safety Maureen Rush was notified of their intent to send a letter to The Daily Pennsylvanian.
This letter is in response to two recent articles published by the Daily Pennsylvanian on the topic of the crime log published by the Division of Public Safety. The articles have misled readers and, at times, contained incorrect explanations of the crime log requirements under the Jeanne Clery Act and the Pennsylvania Uniform Crime Reporting Act.
On behalf of the Philadelphia Police Foundation’s Board of Directors, I want to commend the Philadelphia Police Department, and specifically the Homicide Task Force, that so expertly and expeditiously investigated and charged the alleged perpetrator of the horrific homicide of Dr. Melissa Ketunuti in her Center City home on Monday, Jan. 21.
Policing and providing safety and security in an urban university environment like Penn is an ever challenging and difficult proposition. Much of the difficulty in understanding policing in the Penn patrol zone, which extends from 30th Street to 43rd Street, Market Street to Baltimore Avenue, lies in the fact that the Penn community is unaware of the depth and breadth of the portfolio of responsibilities falling under the University of Pennsylvania Police Department.
I would like to respond to the Daily Pennsylvanian Staff Editorial of Thursday, August 2, 2001 titled, "Student safety at risk." The article implies that the level of police, security and transit services at Penn decreases during the summer months. This is absolutely incorrect. All safety and security services operate at peak performance and staffing levels throughout the year -- including the summer months.
I want to set the record straight about an article that appeared recently in The Daily Pennsylvanian ("Race issues divide men in blue," 11/17/00). The truth is that the University of Pennsylvania Police Department has worked vigorously to recruit and promote minority officers, including women. Currently, there are four minorities at the rank of sergeant: three African Americans, one of whom is a woman, and one white woman. Recently, we promoted three additional minorities into the rank of corporal. We now have four minority corporals, including two women. The article stated that the promotion of minority supervisors is mere "window dressing." This is not only incorrect, it is insulting to the professionalism and integrity of the current minority supervisors and all the men and women of the Division of Public Safety. In May, the entire division took part in a full-day diversity program. Two training consultants developed this program based on feedback they received from four focus groups composed of faculty, staff, students and DPS employees. This program was highly interactive and touched on some tough real-life problems involving race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, and was well received by all. When the DP approached me about writing a story about race issues within the Penn Police Department and asked to speak to minority officers, I granted this request. Approximately 10 African-American and Latino officers were asked to call the reporter to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, the article relies more upon former employees than interviews with current officers. Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the alleged scenarios described by former officer Pat Chad occurred prior to the current administration. The article also states that George Clisby was demoted when the police chief position was split into two. This is not true. Mr. Clisby was a valued member of the UPPD during his entire tenure here, and was never demoted. The article further states that Mr. Clisby left the department two years later and the job, director of administration, was re-integrated into the chief's position. This again is inaccurate. The position remains a separate entity reporting directly to the vice president for Public Safety. I do not want to comment at length on the statements attributed to Ken Yuen and Mark Johnson because litigation is pending with both former officers. However, one aspect of the litigation with Mark Johnson has been resolved. On September 11, 2000, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied Mr. Johnson unemployment benefits. In its decision, the Board stated "the claimant acted insubordinately on two occasions." The board also wrote that "Claimant alleged that he did not respond to a fire call because his radio's volume was turned down too low. The Board does not find claimant to be credible in this regard. However, even if claimant had turned the radio's volume down too low, such negligence on the part of a police officer is tantamount to willful misconduct." Contrary to the implications of the DP article, we have been continually working to improve the skills, competencies and professionalism of the department. In March 2001, the department will attain a four-year goal: national accreditation. The UPPD will be one of only 327 police departments in the United States -- and one of 26 university police departments, as well as the first in Pennsylvania -- to attain this prestigious certification. This process required us to re-examine all of our policies and procedures. These binders of polices and procedures are not meant to collect dust; they are living documents that direct the officers and supervisors on how to do their jobs. It is also the basis of the disciplinary system. When officers do not follow these regulations, they are subject to disciplinary action. Included in this system is Directive 19, which details the prohibition of statements that are offensive to others on the basis of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and gender. Every member of the department is charged with upholding these directives and reporting to their supervisors when policies are violated. Serious crimes, such as robbery, have decreased dramatically between 1996 and 2000. We have opened up new opportunities for all officers, regardless of minority status, to expand their professional knowledge in areas such as the detective unit, the motorcycle unit, the emergency response team, the traffic unit and the special services unit. Minority officers are represented in all of these areas. I, along with the entire management team, continue to work diligently to increase the professionalism, harmony and effectiveness of the UPPD. In order to succeed, we need the input of every member of this department. The DP's article is not only inaccurate and biased, it is an insult to what the women and men of the Penn Police represent.
Bill Conway says the Undergraduate Assembly's target sticker campaign promotes campus safety. The other night when I went into Steinberg-Dietrich Hall at 11:30 p.m., I found no guard at the front desk and a side door propped open. This was less than a week after a girl was assaulted in the bathroom with a knife. I was especially concerned because after an incident there is usually a sudden surge in security measures for a week or two, and then the concern is gradually placed aside. If this is what happens during the sudden surge, what will happen during the drop-off period? After the attack last on November 8, the Undergraduate Assembly quickly issued a resolution on facilities security. Most of the things we put in that resolution were fairly common sense things like installing card swipers at the entrances of SHDH and Rosengarten -- instead of just requiring students to flash their card -- and adding assault alarms in all public areas. We then wrote a general safety resolution and developed the target sticker campaign. This second resolution had many things that we felt were fairly obvious, like the University publicizing other options for ways to escort students safely from study areas to their homes after 3 a.m. There was also a somewhat controversial proposal. We pledged our support to Public Safety that if they wanted to require those in University buildings to wear ID cards after 10 p.m., we would back them. Three UA members were very much against this proposal, but most thought that clipping the ID card to one's shirt was not a hassle and that students need to do their part to make campus safer. However, it is not the actual proposals within the resolutions that are important. Rather, it is the message we are trying to send. This University can no longer deal with security by throwing money at the Division of Public Safety, which they have done after shootings in the past two years. The administration, faculty and, perhaps most of all, students need to be aware of how the actions we take affect the safety of others. I do not mean to condemn anybody. I have been known to prop the doors open in SHDH myself. The UA hoped that by printing 4,000, stickers with bulls-eyes and the words "Am I A Target?" and giving them out to students, faculty and administrators, it would make everyone more aware of safety issues on campus. The response from nearly everyone has been positive. I personally received 64 e-mails about the campaign. I knew only nine of the people who sent them. Of the 64, only two were negative. We also received positive coverage in The Philadelphia Inquirer and on the CBS and NBC local news. Despite the overwhelmingly positive response, there were some aspects of the campaign that had potentially negative effects we had to weigh. One concern was the effect the campaign would have on the community. West Philadelphia residents have done a great deal of work to make the community safer and we do not send a good message to them by walking around wearing target stickers. But crime around Penn has increasingly come from those in other parts of Philadelphia who come to this area because they know Penn students are vulnerable and see the opportunity to commit crimes. This is especially obvious when you look at the increasing number of arrests for crimes against members of the Penn community and the amount of those committed by people from other areas. Essentially, criminals are targeting Penn students. This is partly why we chose the phrase "Am I A Target?" The other negative effect was that it puts the Penn campus back in the spotlight as an unsafe place. But that was a cost we had to endure to get the message across. The attack in SHDH could have been the fault of the Spectaguard being away from the front desk, a student who propped the door open or an administrator who decided to turn off the door alarm -- which is now back on. The sticker campaign wasn't just about getting administrators to listen to our proposals. It was about everyone taking responsibility for the safety of ourselves and those around us. Judging by its success thus far, we are all ready to do that. I want to thank many of you who were supportive of the UA during this campaign and I ask you to fill out a safety survey on Locust Walk that the UA and the Division of Public Safety are conducting today and tomorrow.