Volume 35, No. 2 - March/April 2005 Campus Law ... - IACLEA

MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 43

2004-2005 Board of Directors 

President 

Kenneth A. Willett 

University of Montana 

President Elect 

Priscilla Stevens 

University of Wisconsin at River Falls 

Treasurer 

Lisa A. Sprague 

Florida State University 

Immediate Past President 

Dolores Stafford 

George Washington University 

Directors 

Daniel Hutt 

Canada 

University of Toronto 

Jean Luc Mahieu 

International 

University of Brussels 

Raymond H. Thrower, Jr. Mid-America 

Gustavus Adolphus College 

James J. Bonner, Jr. Mid-Atlantic 

Arcadia University 

Steven J. Rittereiser Mountain Pacific 

Central Washington University 

Ernest H. Leffler 

North Atlantic 

Bentley College 

Michael Young 

Southeastern 

Washington & Lee University 

Robert K. Bratten 

Southwestern 

University of Texas Health Science Center 

Jasper Cooke 

At-Large 

Augusta State University 

Steven J. Healy 

At-Large 

Princeton University 

David M. Worden 

At-Large 

San Diego Community College District 

Chief Staff Officer/Editor in Chief 

Peter J. Berry, CAE 

Managing Editor 

Karen E. Breseman 

Production Director 

Gene Mandish 

Advertising Coordinator 

Karen E. Breseman 

Vol. 35, No. 2 March/April 2005 

Contents 

Dashboard Management, A Public Safety Application ........................................... 16 

By Henry Christensen, Director, Department of Public Safety, University of Miami and William 

Gerlach, Department of Public Safety, University of Miami 

Studying data in detail through projects and tasks in a Continuous Improvement environment 

The New Era of Campus Public Safety .................................................................. 21 

By C. Suzanne Mencer, Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness; Michael Lynch, Chief 

of Police at George Mason University; and Jeff Allison, Assistant Director for Training in the 

Office for Domestic Preparedness. 

Reality that while terrorism is a low frequency event, it is one of extremely high consequences 

Awareness of Weapons of Mass Destruction ......................................................... 27 

By Richard W. Lee, Program Specialist, University of Massachusetts – Boston 

Training offers opportunity for campus law enforcement to be proactive protectors of their 

community 

The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices (EMDs) 

in Higher Education Law Enforcement .................................................................. 29 

By Randy Mingo, University of Central Florida; Ross Wolf, University of Central Florida; Charles 

Mesloh, Florida Gulf Coast University; Tina Kelchner, University of Central Florida 

Less-than-lethal alternative can have positive impact on officer injuries, suspect injuries and 

the reduced use of deadly force 

IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City — Everything You Expect 

and More ................................................................................................................ 33 

Preview of Scheduled Workshops 

Departments 

President’s Message ................................................................................................. 2 

Association News ..................................................................................................... 3 

Member News .......................................................................................................... 9 

On the Cover 

On the Cover: University of Miami uses “dashboard management” information tools 

to measure and monitor the organization’s status and ability to reach goals. (See 

article on page 16) 

Campus Law Enforcement Journal is the official publication of the International Association of Campus 

Law Enforcement Administrators. It is published bimonthly and dedicated to the promotion of professional 

ideals and standards for law enforcement, security and public safety so as to better serve institutions 

of higher education. 

Single copy: $5; subscription: $30 annually in U.S. currency to nonmembers in U.S., Canada, Mexico. All 

other countries: $35. Manuscripts, correspondence, and all contributed materials are welcome; however, 

publication is subject to editing and rewrite if deemed necessary to conform to editorial policy and style. 

Opinions expressed by contributing authors and advertisers are independent of IACLEA Journal policies 

or views. Authors must provide proper credit for information sources and assume responsibility for 

permission to reprint statements or wording regardless of the originating organ. ©2005 International 

Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. All rights reserved. Business and Publication 

Office: 342 North Main Street, West Hartford, CT 06117-2507 (860) 586-7517; Fax (860) 586-7550. 

Printed in the U.S. by Sundance Press. This publication is available in microform from University 

Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA. 


President’s Message 

See You in Kansas City! 

By Kenneth A. Willett, President 

Here we are at the 

midway point of 

my term and I 

would like to congratulate 

the newest 

members of the 

IACLEA Board of 

Directors. Director 

at-Large Steven 

Healy has been elected President-Elect. 

Lisa Sprague has been re-elected Treasurer. 

Marlon Lynch will be the new Director 

at-Large and Phil Johnson will take 

over the remainder of Steven Healy’s 

unexpired term as Director at-Large. 

In July 2003, then President Dolores 

Stafford appointed a Dues Restructuring 

Task Force, chaired by board member 

Steve Rittereiser. Their charge was to “develop 

options for changing the dues structure 

that will leave the organization financially 

whole.” Another compelling reason 

was to address our objective of having 

a government relations presence in 

Washington, D.C. President Stafford distributed 

a membership survey to each of 

the regional meetings. Over 75% attending 

the meetings supported the increase 

and the presence in Washington, D.C. 

At the June Board of Directors meeting, 

the dues restructuring task force proposal 

was fine tuned and made part of 

the proposed bylaw amendment document. 

The resulting ballot was submitted 

to the membership with the following 

results: more than 50% of the voting 

membership returned their ballots voting 

almost 4 to 1 in favor of the dues restructuring. 

The success of this effort goes to 

all who worked on the task force and to 

every Board Member who discussed the 

issues with their regional members. Great 

communication of the issue and the goals 

of our Association were successfully conveyed 

to the members. 

IACLEA dues renewal notices will be 

going out to all members in early May. 

Members other than Institutional Members 

will see no change in their invoices. 

Institutional Members will receive a revised 

format invoice that incorporates the 

recent dues restructuring approved by 

IACLEA members. Institutional dues will 

now be based on full-time enrollment, 

type of institution and location. I am confident 

the variable fee schedule will bring 

additional small 4-year schools on board, 

attract the 2-year colleges and increase 

our international membership. 

With the Annual IACLEA Conference 

only weeks away, there is some 

serious planning that we as members 

need to start considering. (1) Have you 

made your conference and hotel reservations 

yet? (2) Have you been online 

to the IACLEA home page to see how 

easy it is to do all that? (3) Have you 

decided what you will bring to the 2005 

Silent Auction? The original McGovern 

Scholarship Fund is now self-supporting 

and we are attempting to accomplish the 

same thing for the Voswinkel Scholarship 

Fund. The more we bring and the more 

we buy, the sooner we will have the second 

scholarship self-funded. You can also 

make a donation using the online form 

on the IACLEA Web site. 

You will hear more about it at the Annual 

Conference; however, I wanted to 

get you started in thinking about it. You 

should have received your hard copy of 

the Annual Conference registration form 

by mail. Note the excellent programs that 

have been secured this year. Start thinking 

about which sessions you want to attend 

(see preview page 33). 

The deadline for early registration for 

the IACLEA Annual Conference is nearly 

here — save money by registering early! 

This conference is going to have one of 

the best programs ever with workshops, 

accreditation workshops on Wednesday 

afternoon, a WMD awareness workshop, 

and Clery Act Compliance training. If you 

have not yet looked at the conference 

schedule, Dolores Stafford will conduct a 

Clery Act Compliance Workshop on Tuesday. 

It will be based on the new compliance 

handbook of the Department of 

Education which they have promised to 

provide for each pre-registered attendee. 

Stafford has also been working behind 

the scenes to have U.S. Department of 

Education officials come to the conference 

to participate in that workshop and 

is 90%+ sure that someone from the Department 

of Education will be attending 

the Annual Conference in Kansas City to 

conduct the training session with her. 

So, if you have not yet registered for 

the Annual Conference, you may want to 

consider doing so! In addition, if you have 

a staff member who is responsible for 

Clery Act compliance on your campus, 

this would be the perfect conference to 

Continued on page 38 

2 / Campus Law Enforcement Journal

Association News 

IACLEA Southeast and Southwest Regions 

Combine for a Successful Conference 

in New Orleans 

The IACLEA Southeast and Southwest 

Regions recently held a successful conference 

in New Orleans hosted by Chief 

Ken Dupaquier of Tulane University. 

There were 54 attendees from Texas to 

Florida, Louisiana to Virginia. President Ken 

Willett, Southeast Regional Director Mike 

Young, and Chief Dupaquier opened the 

Conference. Tom Hogarty, IACLEA Project 

Director, gave a presentation explaining 

the ongoing training initiatives. FBI and 

Homeland Security instructors also conducted 

training sessions. 

Over three days, attendees were 

treated to the fine hospitality of Tulane 

University and Chief Dupaquier. The 

Hotel St. Marie on Toulouse did a superb 

job with making everyone comfortable 

and at reasonable rates. There were socials 

all three nights. Cindy Butler and 

numerous other university employees 

Left to right: Conference Host Ken Dupaquier, 

IACLEA president Kenneth A. Willett, and Tulane 

Capt. Reid Noble outside the conference center. 

collected goodies for the bags distributed 

at conference registration. 

Butler and Stanley Cosper graciously 

volunteered to set up and run the registration 

table in addition to transporting 

everything to the hotel with Olive Daw’s 

able-bodied assistance. Seslie Davis and 

Cathy Osborne gave impromptu tours to 

some of the group who took the streetcar 

uptown to see our campus. Programs 

offered included interview techniques, 

identity theft, leadership and a presentation 

on the IACLEA Domestic Preparedness 

Grant Initiative among others. 

IACLEA Regional Director Mike Young 

said that the conference was a complete 

success. The Tulane University Police 

Department strives for an excellent reputation 

in the organization and the conference 

cemented good relationships. 

Lt. Stanley Cosper (on left) and AP Cindy 

Butler (on right) check in conference 

attendees at the St. Marie Hotel in New 

Orleans at the Southeast/Southwest 

Regional Conference. 

2005 IACLEA 

Election Results 

By Dolores A. Stafford, Immediate 

Past President and Leadership 

Development Committee Chair 

The deadline to declare candidacy for 

President Elect, Treasurer and Director 

at-Large was January 28, 2005. The 

sole declaration of intent received for 

President Elect was from current Director 

at-Large Steven Healy, Director 

of Public Safety/Chief of Police, 

Princeton University, Princeton, New 

Jersey. The sole declaration of intent 

for Treasurer was from current Treasurer 

Lisa Sprague, Associate Director, 

Florida State University, Tallahassee, 

Florida. There were two declarations of 

intent for the position of Director at- 

Large: Marlon C. Lynch, Chief of Police, 

University of North Carolina - Charlotte, 

Charlotte, North Carolina and Phillip A. 

Johnson, Assistant Director, University 

of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana. 

Steven Healy is clearly qualified for 

the post of President Elect, pursuant 

to the IACLEA bylaws, and has met 

the filing requirements established by 

the Leadership Development Committee. 

Lisa Sprague is clearly qualified 

for the post of Treasurer, pursuant to 

the IACLEA bylaws, and has met the 

filing requirements established by the 

Leadership Development Committee. 

On behalf of the IACLEA Leadership 

Development Committee, I am 

pleased to cast one vote each for 

Steven Healy and Lisa Sprague thereby 

electing Steven Healy as President 

Elect and Lisa Sprague as Treasurer. 

Since the election of Steven Healy 

to the post of President Elect leaves 

an unexpired portion of his Director 

at-Large Term, I am pleased to cast 

one vote for Marlon Lynch for Director 

at-Large and one vote for Phillip 

Johnson to complete the unexpired 

portion of Steven Healy’s term as 

Director at-Large. 

Congratulations, Steven, Lisa, 

Marlon and Phil, and on behalf of your 

colleagues, thank you for your continued 

commitment to serve IACLEA as 

members of the Board of Directors. 


Letter to the Editor 


Ohio Regional Meeting 

By Tom Hogarty, WMD Project Director 

Members of the Ohio Association of Campus 

Law Enforcement Administrators gathered on 

February 25 at Capitol University in 

Columbus. The group meets twice a year. 

Topics for this meeting included a 

presentation by the Advisory Services 

Committee for the Ohio Chiefs of Police 

Association, a presentation by Alvin 

Thompson of Tomahawk Technologies on 

parking solutions, a program by Ohio Deputy 

Attorney General Alice Robinson-Bonds as 

well as a presentation by IACLEA Domestic 

Preparedness Grant Director Tom Hogarty 

on the status of Homeland Security funding 

to campus law enforcement around 

the country. For information about the 

Ohio Association contact Chief Julee 

Cope of Owens Community College at 

jcope@owens.edu. 

OACLEA meeting attendees. 

Keep Your Membership 

Information Up-to-Date! 

Check it out on the IACLEA 

Members Only Area Online 

Directory. 

Howard Korn, Chief of Police/ 

Director of Campus Services, 

Marietta College. 

Update membership information by 

completing the Members Only Online 

Directory Change of Address Form. 

Update your institutional information by 

submitting the online Institution Demographic 

Survey located in the Membership 

section of the IACLEA Web site, 

www.iaclea.org 

A recent email from Karen Breseman, 

IACLEA Administrator, to all who are on 

the Association’s mailing list, coupled with 

freezing temperatures ruling the coastal 

southeastern area of North Carolina, 

prompts this attempt to put into words a 

few of my many great memories related 

to the development of campus public 

safety and IACLEA. These observations 

come from a “has been” of advanced 

years who has been retired for 16 years 

following a 27-year career at Rutgers, The 

State University of New Jersey, as its first 

Director of Public Safety. 

IACLEA was not yet born when I attended 

my first meeting of campus security 

directors in 1962 at the University of 

Minnesota. Assuming my memory is reasonably 

on target, Ray Vernes was the 

host and the organization was known as 

The Campus Parking and Security Association. 

Pioneers in this then fledgling profession 

like Leonard Christensen (BYU), 

Sterling Baker (Houston), Frank Andrews 

(Northwestern), Doug Paxton (Arizona), 

and Charlie Ray (Pitt) had organized the 

first conference at Arizona State University 

in 1958. There were no more than 

25 schools at the 1962 conference. As 

the “new boy on the block” it was an 

opportunity to learn the business of campus 

public safety and to meet “old pros” 

who rapidly became career friends. 

In 1966 I had the pleasure of being 

elected to the Board of Directors at the 

conference held at the University of Maryland, 

and two years later had the privilege 

of becoming the 10th president of 

IACLEA. My conference was held at the 

University of Houston under the guidance 

of Sterling Baker and a flock of his Texas 

rascals. We had proudly doubled the 

Association’s membership to 200 over the 

span of a year, and the conference faced 

its first demonstration — a small group 

protested having a vendor on campus 

displaying firearms in the exhibitors area. 

Over 26 years I regrettably missed five 

conferences due to personal reasons. I 

became convinced early on that to keep 

abreast of the constantly increasing challenges 

and demands placed on campus 

public safety, and to share the knowledge, 

experiences and warm friendship offered 

by colleagues from all parts of the coun- 




Three IACLEA Subcommittees Launch 

Domestic Preparedness Research Projects 

By Chris Blake, WMD Project Coordinator 

Three subcommittees organized under a 

phase II federal grant awarded to IACLEA 

are launching research projects that will 

culminate with the development of model 

plans and policies to assist U.S. college 

and university campus public safety departments 

in training for and preventing 

acts of terrorism. 

These subcommittees are: 

• Best Practices and Recommendations 

for Response to Changes in the 

National Threat Alert, chaired by Ken 

Goodwin, director of public safety at 

Portland (Oregon) Community College, 

and Noel C. March, director of 

public safety at the University of 

Maine in Orono, Maine. 

• Recommendations for Enhanced 

Communications Between Campus 

Public Safety Departments and Federal/State/Local 

Emergency Response 

Agencies, chaired by Marlon C. 

Lynch, Chief of Police at the University 

of North Carolina-Charlotte. 

• Strategic Planning, chaired by Thomas 

P. Carey, director of security and 

campus safety at Bates College in 

Lewiston, Maine. 

These three subcommittees report to 

IACLEA’s Domestic Preparedness Committee, 

chaired by Oliver J. Clark, chief of 

police and executive director of public 

safety at the University of Illinois in 

Champaign, Illinois. 

The subcommittee and committee 

chairs met at a workshop in January in 

Baltimore, Maryland, to begin planning 

their activities under the grant awarded 

by the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. The workshop also provided an 

opportunity for the chairs to meet with 

representatives of the Johns Hopkins 

University Division of Public Safety Leadership, 

which is conducting research on 

the state of campus public safety in 

America under a separate grant from the 

U.S. Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. Discussions with Johns 

Hopkins representatives centered on the 

possibility of collaborative efforts involving 

the sharing of research and resources 

involving the two grant projects. 

The major focus of all three subcommittees 

in the initial phase will be to collect 

research both from IACLEA member 

institutions and the public domain. 

Research among IACLEA members will 

involve electronic surveys of members 

to solicit copies of existing plans that have 

already been developed to protect campuses 

against terrorist threats. This research 

will assist IACLEA to achieve the 

following goals under its grant award: 

• To create a Best Practices Guide for 

campus public safety personnel to 

use to develop emergency operations 

plans or a Terrorist Incident 

Annex (TIA). IACLEA will develop 

this guide by: analyzing existing TIAs, 

reviewing publications relating to 

TIAs that exist in the public domain, 

and by consulting with experts to 

develop such plans 

• To develop a Promising Practices 

Guide to highlight appropriate model 

campus responses to the changing 

levels of the National Terrorist Alert 

System 

• To produce recommendations to 

strengthen effective communication 

between campus public safety 

officials and appropriate federal, 

state, and local emergency responders 

• To identify existing antiterrorist 

training programs and current and 

future training needs. A Strategic 

Planning Group, or “Think Tank,” 

will: incorporate all research results, 

determine current and future 

training needs, and attempt to 

formulate a strategic vision of the 

training that campus public safety 

departments will need in the next 

three to five years to address future 

terrorist threats. 

The subcommittees will achieve these 

goals not only by reviewing research generated 

from IACLEA members and other 

sources, but also will supplement this material 

through workshops with subject matter 

experts. Subcommittees and staff will 

identify subject matter experts who are 

qualified to serve as consultants and invite 

these consultants to attend workshops 

or focus groups to share their 

knowledge and expertise as it relates to 

the development of model plans and 

policies for campus public safety departments 

to counter terrorism. 

Anthony A. Vitale, IACLEA research 

consultant, will assist the subcommittees 




Incident Command Training 

to Be Offered 

Members of the Board of Directors and the Domestic 

Preparedness Committee gathered at the Spring 2004 Board 

Meeting in Chicago to evaluate the Incident Command training. 

The IACLEA Domestic Preparedness 

Committee has received approval from 

the Office for Domestic Preparedness to 

conduct two pilot test sites for a unique 

and powerful Incident Command training 

program. 

The cornerstone of the training is the 

use of a model city simulator. The simulator 

is used to run scenarios in real time 

with each student taking a turn as the 

incident commander. The scenarios range 

for a call for service all the way to a fullblown 

incident command/unified command 

exercise. 

The two sites selected are the University 

of Maryland at College Park and the 

Washington State Criminal Justice Training 

Center in Burien, WA. The locations 

were selected from over forty institutions 

that submitted proposals to become 

IACLEA Regional Training Centers. 

IACLEA’s mentor in the domestic preparedness 

grant process, Jeff Allison, suggested 

pilot sites as a way of demonstrating 

the need for and effectiveness of such 

training. 

Anticipating complete success the pilot 

sites should lead to ten more sites located 

around the country. 

Soon, recruitment for instructors for 

the pilot sites will begin. The selection 

process will be extensive as will the training. 

Prospective trainers must be at the 

command level for their agencies and will 

have to demonstrate exceptional ability 

as a trainer. 

The first cut will see candidates participate 

in the three-day “Critical Incident 

Management, Command Post Training,” 

that they will eventually be trained to 

deliver. Top performers in the class will 

be invited to move up to a two-week 

“Command Post Facilitator Training.” 

Graduates will then do direct deliveries 

of the three-day course in teams of 

four instructors and receive mentoring 

from a Master Instructor. 

The result will be a team of top notch, 

well trained instructors. Many agencies 

around the country have 

used this training model. 

Provided by IACLEA supporting 

members BowMac 

Educational Services, Inc. 

the training has received 

high praise from first responders 

and administrators 

across the country. 

To learn more about this 

exciting opportunity contact 

Tom Hogarty at 

thogarty@iaclea.org. 

Bring the Weapons of Mass Destruction Awareness Training to your 

campus. Visit the IACLEA Web site, http://www.iaclea.org/wmd/login/ 

login.cfm or contact Project Director Tom Hogarty, thogarty@iaclea.org. 

Three IACLEA Subcommittees 

Launch Domestic Preparedness 

Research Projects 

Continued from page 5 

by collecting and analyzing available research 

and drafting model plans and policies. 

Vitale has more than 15 years of experience 

in drafting policies for the Connecticut 

State Police. 

The research projects will culminate 

in the submission of written reports and 

recommendations to the Domestic Preparedness 

Committee in the fall. The 

Committee in turn will submit a final 

grant report to the IACLEA Board of Directors 

for review. 

The three research projects are just 

one component of the DHS continuation 

grant. Staff and volunteers working under 

the direction of Project Director Tom 

Hogarty are developing an Incident Command 

training program with the assistance 

of a curriculum development company. 

This two-week course will train public 

safety supervisors, who will then go out 

and give two-day Incident Command 

courses in their regions. 

As part of the Incident Command training, 

IACLEA will establish regional training 

centers that will be sites for Incident 

Command training and will house tabletop 

model city simulators. IACLEA is reviewing 

applications for regional training 

center sites in each region. 

The grant will also fund the development 

of a threat and risk assessment tool 

for use by campus public safety departments 

in developing written plans identifying 

terrorist threats and preventive 

measures. IACLEA is working with the 

National Emergency Response and Rescue 

Training Center (NERRTC) at Texas 

A&M University to develop this instrument. 

A training DVD will also be developed 

with instructions for completing the 

threat and risk assessment instrument. 

A final report on the grant is due in 

Spring 2006. 

If you would like to offer your 

institution’s emergency operations plans 

or terrorist annexes to your plans as part 

of this project, please contact Anthony 

Vitale at avitale@iaclea.org. 

If you are interested in learning more 

about Incident Command training or 

the threat and risk assessment project, 

please contact Tom Hogarty at 

thogarty@iaclea.org. 



Conference Update on Accreditation Workshops 

By Jack Leonard, IACLEA Accreditation Coordinator 

If you have ever thought about accreditation, 

you should also be thinking about 

training. Training is an essential component 

of a successful accreditation effort. 

The accreditation process is not overly 

difficult or complex. However, in order 

to accomplish it in an efficient and timely 

manner, department personnel require a 

thorough understanding of its concepts 

and procedures. Agency administrators 

should be familiar with the requirements 

of the program to allocate sufficient resources, 

delegate essential tasks, and 

implement required strategies. Similarly, 

staff members who coordinate the accreditation 

project, particularly the Accreditation 

Manager, need to understand the specific 

steps necessary to comply with standards, 

document their compliance, and prepare 

for the agency’s review by assessors. 

While procedural manuals will direct 

program implementation and provide 

useful guidance, participation in training 

sessions can accelerate and expand the 

understanding of concepts and procedures. 

The accreditation instructor will 

clarify, illuminate and spark enthusiasm 

during the training process. Training paves 

the way for a fuller and more comprehensive 

understanding of the principles 

contained in procedural guidebooks. 

IACLEA will be ready to start accepting 

applications for the accreditation program 

in January 2006. In preparation for 

fully implementing the program, a series 

of workshops has been planned during 

the Annual Conference in Kansas City. If 

you expect to participate in the accreditation 

program, this will be an excellent 

opportunity to learn about the process. 

You may also get a head start by bringing 

any staff members who may be involved 

in implementing your program. 

On Monday, June 27, 2005, Bob 

Dillard, Chair of the IACLEA Accreditation 

Committee, will present a workshop entitled 

Accreditation Overview. Whether 

you are committed to pursuing accreditation 

or simply considering it, this comprehensive 

examination of the IACLEA 

Accreditation Program will be informative 

and beneficial. The workshop will review 

the history of IACLEA’s accreditation efforts, 

summarize the features and requirements 

of the accreditation program, and 

explain the partnership with the Commission 

on Accreditation for Law Enforcement 

Agencies (CALEA). Specific attention 

will be given to the IACLEA standards, 

how they were developed, and their application 

to sworn and non-sworn departments. 

The procedures for application, 

self-assessment, on-site assessment, and 

review will also be discussed, as well as 

the fee schedule. Time will be allocated 

to respond to questions from participants 

about the accreditation process. 

The orientation program will continue 

on Wednesday, June 29, the final day of 

the Conference. Immediately following the 

Closing General Session and Breakfast, a 

CEO Panel on Accreditation will be 

convened. A group of Chief Executive 

Officers from CALEA-accredited campus 

departments will be assembled to discuss 

their experiences in the accreditation process. 

They will answer frequently asked 

questions and address areas of concern for 

department chiefs and directors who may 

be considering accreditation. Topics of discussion 

are likely to include the benefits of 

accreditation, how to manage the accreditation 

process, and common problems or 

pitfalls and how to avoid them. This will 

be an invaluable forum for any CEO who 

intends to seek IACLEA accreditation. 

Finally, Steve Mitchell, the former Accreditation 

Manager of the Fairfax, Virginia 

Police Department and long-time CALEA 

Program Manager, will close the program 

on the 29th by offering a four-hour presentation 

on Accreditation Management. 

Designed to provide an overview 

of the critical steps to achieving accreditation, 

this presentation will identify and 

explain the principal duties of an Accreditation 

Manager. Modified from CALEA’s 

New Accreditation/Recognition Manager 

Training, this important and informative 

training session covers topics including: 

writing effective directives; preparing a 

self-assessment plan; and organizing accreditation 

files. While the instruction is 

principally designed for prospective Accreditation 

Managers, it is highly recommended 

for CEOs and senior managers, 

those responsible for overseeing the accreditation 

process. Participation in the 

training session will provide an enhanced 

understanding of the accreditation process, 

as well as an awareness and appreciation 

of the functions and responsibilities 

of an Accreditation Manager. 

Plan to extend your stay in Kansas City 

by a few hours and reap the benefits of these 

informational sessions to jump-start the 

IACLEA accreditation of your department. 



Strategic Planning Group Focuses on 

Domestic Preparedness Training Needs 

By Christopher Blake, WMD Project Coordinator 

Interagency and multidiscipline cooperation, 

planning, and training are critical 

components in preparing for a potential 

WMD or terrorist incident on a college or 

university campus, a counter-terrorism 

expert told members of an IACLEA subcommittee 

that is developing a strategic 

plan for campus domestic preparedness 

training. 

“The next significant area of emphasis 

in domestic preparedness training for campus 

law enforcement should be cooperation,” 

Byron A. Sage told members of the 

IACLEA Domestic Preparedness 

Committee’s strategic planning subcommittee. 

“The nature of a WMD event will 

immediately impact multiple jurisdictions 

and agencies within the region. You will 

need a multi-disciplinary, coordinated response 

that plans for multiple ‘shifts’ over 

the course of several days, weeks or even 

months,” said Sage, who is president of 

International Crisis Management, Inc., of 

Austin, Texas. 

Sage, a former FBI agent with 34 years 

of law enforcement experience, was one 

of four presenters who addressed the subcommittee 

during a two-day workshop 

March 1-3, 2005, at George Washington 

University in Washington, D.C. Workshop 

presentations included: the current state 

of domestic preparedness in the U.S., the 

emerging training needs of campus public 

safety in domestic preparedness, a foreign 

perspective on Israel’s planning and 

training in an active terrorist environment, 

and views on the future focus of domestic 

preparedness training. 

Members of the IACLEA 

Domestic Preparedness 

Committee’s strategic 

planning subcommittee 

attended a workshop March 1- 

3, 2005 at George Washington 

University in Washington, D.C. 

Seated, left to right: Krystal 

Fitzpatrick, University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 

Bernard C. Alex, Whittier 

College; Thomas P. Carey, Bates College; Tex B. Martin, University of Texas System; Bruce E. 

Boucher, Bowdoin College; Toni Rinaldi, Naugatuck Valley Community-Technical College. 

Standing, left to right: Reid B. Noble, Tulane University; Paul F. Glowacki, St. Mary’s University; 

Phillip A. Johnson, University of Notre Dame; Raymond H. Thrower Jr., Gustavus Adolphus 

College; Susan Riseling, University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

IACLEA organized the strategic planning 

subcommittee under a grant from 

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to build a systematic program 

to assist campus public safety departments 

and personnel to access available 

training and to develop plans to prevent, 

prepare for, and respond to WMD/terrorist 

incidents. The strategic planning subcommittee 

is charged with developing a 

strategic vision of the kinds of training 

that campus public safety officers will 

need to adequately confront terrorist 

threats against U.S. college or university 

campuses in the next three to five years. 

Thomas P. Carey, chair of the IACLEA Domestic 

Preparedness Committee’s strategic planning 

subcommittee, poses with Byron A. Sage, 

president of International Crisis Management, 

Inc., during a break in the subcommittee’s 

workshop, March 1-3, 2005. 

The subcommittee is also charged with 

informing campus public safety departments 

of the many federally-funded and 

other training opportunities that now exist. 

Sage spoke to the subcommittee about 

the current state of domestic preparedness, 

emerging training needs, and what 

he perceived as the future focus of domestic 

preparedness training. Highlights 

included: 

• Recognizing the need for interagency 

cooperation and coordination 

is critical before an incident occurs. 



Member News 

Chiefly Speaking, Hall’s Paid Her Dues at EMU 

New top cop on campus, Cindy Hall has spent 25 years with the department 

By Janet Miller, News Staff Reporter 

Police Chief Cindy Hall with EMU Officer 

Hardesty. Photo courtesy of The Ann Arbor 

News. 

Reprinted with permission from The Ann 

Arbor News, 11/8/2004 . 

Cindy Hall still hasn’t moved most of her 

belongings into her new office, and the 

title of chief still seems foreign. But in 

some ways, Hall has spent 25 years preparing 

to head the Department of Public 

Safety at Eastern Michigan University. 

Hall, 47, was recently named chief, 

becoming the first woman to head the 

EMU department and the only female to 

lead a police department in Washtenaw 

County, although the State Police Post in 

Ypsilanti has a woman commander. 

Hall, who joined Eastern’s department 

as a patrol officer in 1979, oversees a staff 

of 25 sworn officers and is in charge of 

the university’s parking and health-andsafety 

operations. 

Hall worked as a security guard while 

attending Washtenaw Community College 

after she graduated from Huron High 

School in the 1970s, never dreaming that 

she would someday be a police chief. 

But when the post became vacant last 

summer with the retirement of John 

McAuliffe, Hall applied. 

“I knew I had the education, the skills 

and the dedication,” she said. “It seemed 

like the natural progression.” 

Things looked different earlier in her 

career at EMU. After working a few years 

with the department, Hall thought there 

was little hope to move up the ranks. 

She decided to attend law school at night, 

with an eye on becoming a lawyer. But 

midway through law school at the University 

of Toledo, she was promoted to 

sergeant, and was given the chance to 

develop crime prevention programs. 

She started the SEEUS – Student Eyes 

and Ears for University Safety – where 

two-member teams of students escort 

other students around campus in the 

evening. Today, 40 students work for 

SEEUS, wearing bright yellow jackets 

emblazoned with a large eye logo, escorting 

students from between 6 p.m. and 

3 a.m. 

Eventually, Hall was made lieutenant 

and then captain. She has served as associate 

director of public safety since 1989. 

Hall’s long service and solid record 

made her a good choice for chief, said 

John Beaghan, interim vice president for 

business and finance. “She has the credentials, 

the experience and really campus-wide 

support,” he said. 

Hall works well with students, said Jim 

Vick, vice president for student affairs. 

“She has a style and demeanor that are 

terrific. She’s calm and rational, and she’s 

very cognizant of the ramifications of 

decisions. ... And she understands our students.” 

Working in campus law enforcement 

for more than two decades, Hall has witnessed 

a parade of highs and lows. While 

there was never a homicide, there have 

been suicides, she said. She’s responded 

to large and unruly parties, broken up 

fights and sat watch in dark parking structures, 

keeping an eye out for trouble. 

She’s also offered police protection to 

President Bill Clinton, U.S. Supreme Court 

Justice Clarence Thomas and Michigan 

Gov. Jennifer Granholm. 

Policing the 24,000-student campus is 

like policing a city, she said. 

“We have the same issues as a municipality 

– we have larcenies and sexual 

assaults and aggravated assaults,” she said. 

“But there’s also more of an opportunity 

to do community police work and crime 

prevention.” 

Janet Miller can be reached at 

jmiller@annarbornews.com or (734) 994- 

6827. 


Member News 

Campus Police Department Wins First Quarter 

Employee Recognition Award at WestConn 

The Western Connecticut State University Police Department 

received the Employee Recognition Award for 

the first quarter of the 2004-05 academic year. In presenting 

the award, WestConn President Dr. James W. 

Schmotter praised the department’s two dozen employees 

for their dedication and professionalism. Pictured at 

the ceremony are (l-r): Police Officer Richard McGrath 

of Waterbury; Police Sergeant Ron Ferrante of Danbury; 

Chief of Police Neil McLaughlin of Terryville; WestConn 

President Dr. James W. Schmotter of Bethel; Processing 

Technician William Strickland of Danbury; Clerk Typist 

Shirley Hatch of New Fairfield; and Building and Grounds Patrol Officer Mauro Ongaro of Danbury. 

IACLEA Members from the Illinois State University Police Department 

Awarded Distinguished Service Medal 

IACLEA members from the 

Illinois State University Police 

Department were recently 

decorated with the 

Illinois State University Police 

Department “Distinguished 

Service Medal” during 

ceremonies in the 

President’s Conference 

Room at Illinois State University 

on Wednesday, December 15, 2004. 

The “Distinguished Service Medal” was awarded to Captain Keith Gehrand and Sergeant Bonnie Devore “in recognition 

of their many accomplishments, dedicated and distinguished service to the Illinois State University Police Department.” 

Captain Gehrand is in his twenty-forth year of service and Sergeant Devore is in her twenty-second year of police service. 

The medals were presented by Dr. C. Alvin Bowman, President of Illinois State University. 

From left to right: Vice President Steve Bragg, Officer Patrick Burke, Life Saving Medal; Marabeth Clapp, Vice President. 

Behind Ms. Clapp, Detective Tony Hosey, Chief’s Award of Merit — Meritorious Service Medal; Mr. Michael Williams, 

President, Bloomington/Normal Branch NAACP, Chief’s Award of Merit — Meritorious Service Medal; Mr. John H. Elliott, Vice 

President, Bloomington/Normal Branch NAACP, Chief’s Award of Merit — Meritorious Service Medal; Ms. Margie Meegan- 

Jordan, McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office; Captain Donald W. Knapp, Distinguished Service Medal; Ms. Samantha 

Stegall, Student Intern, Certificate of Appreciation; Behind Samantha is Chief Ronald D. Swan; Captain Keith Gehrand, 

Distinguished Service Medal; Sergeant Bonnie Devore, Distinguished Service Medal; Officer Eric Lutz, Certificate of Appreciation; 

Mr. Dan Simmons, Crime Stoppers TV Executive Producer, Certificate of Appreciation; Sergeant Derek Ronnfeldt, 

Excellence in Firearms Training; Sergeant Charlie Summers, Excellence in Firearms Training, Sergeant Tommy Kiper, Excellence 

in Firearms Training and Dr. C. Alvin Bowman, President, Illinois State University. 


Member News 

Mount Holyoke College Department of Public Safety 

Awarded Accreditation 

On January 28, 2005 the Mount Holyoke 

College Department of Public Safety became 

the first college or university in the 

state to receive accreditation status from 

the Massachusetts Police Accreditation Commission, 

Inc., and is one of only fifteen 

agencies statewide to achieve this status. 

Accreditation is a self-initiated evaluation 

process by which law enforcement 

departments strive to meet and maintain 

standards that have been established for 

the profession, by the profession. These 

carefully selected standards reflect critical 

areas of police management, operations, 

and technical support activities. 

They cover areas such as policy development, 

emergency response planning, 

training, communications, property and 

evidence handling, use of force, and prisoner 

transport. The program not only sets 

standards for the law enforcement profession 

within the Commonwealth, but 

also for the delivery of police services to 

the community. 

Achieving accreditation from the commission 

is the highest award given, and is 

a recognition that is highly regarded by 

the law enforcement community. Participating 

in the program and achieving accreditation 

status allows departments to 

demonstrate that they are among the finest 

in the state. The status of accreditation 

is granted for a period of three years. 

Participation in the program is strictly 

voluntary. 

Under the leadership of Director Paul 

Ominsky, the Mount Holyoke College 

Department of Public Safety underwent 

a two-day assessment in December by a 

team of commission-appointed assessors. 

The Assessment Team found the Department 

to be “in compliance with all 103 

Mandatory Standards.” And although the 

department was required to meet 60 

percent of the 121 Optional Standards, it 

was found to be in compliance with 68 

percent of those standards, exceeding the 

required minimum. 

Going through the process initially requires 

intense self-scrutiny, and ultimately 

provides a quality assurance review of the 

agency. In 1999, Director Ominsky appointed 

Barbara Arrighi and Jeanne Tripp 

to serve as the Department’s Accreditation 

Managers. The Department achieved 

certification, a halfway point to accreditation, 

in June 2003. This involved meeting 

151 mandatory standards. The Department 

was also the first college or university 

to attain that status. The Accreditation 

Managers were aided greatly in this 

effort by three Mount Holyoke College 

student administrative Fellows, Sarah E. 

Hayes ’05, Kirkley B. Strand ’04, and 

Stephanie M. Liotta ’03. 

Although the Director’s goal for the 

Department has been achieved, Arrighi’s 

and Tripp’s job is not done. Their focus 

will now shift to monitoring and maintaining 

compliance with these standards 

and preparing for scheduled reviews by 

the commission as they continue as the 

department’s Accreditation Managers. 

To date, only 15 police agencies in 

the Commonwealth have achieved the 

distinction of accreditation: Amesbury, 

Amherst, Danvers, Massachusetts Bay 

Transit Authority, Mendon, Mount Holyoke 

College, Northampton, Northborough, 

Peabody, Rowley, Sturbridge, Truro, 

Waltham, Watertown, and Weston. 

Origin and Composition of the 

Commission 

The mission of the Accreditation Commission 

is to ensure that the delivery of 

police services within the Commonwealth 

is at the highest level of professionalism 

and integrity. 

The Massachusetts Accreditation Commission 

was originally established in 1996 

through the combined efforts of the Massachusetts 

Chiefs of Police Association, the 

Massachusetts Police Accreditation Coalition 

and the Executive Office of Public 

Safety. In February 2004 the Commission 

transitioned from a state agency into a 

private non-profit organization. The Massachusetts 

Police Accreditation Commission, 

Inc. maintained the same standards, 

and recognized certification and accreditation 

status awarded by the state agency. 

The Commission is composed of 

eleven members appointed through the 

Massachusetts Chiefs of Police, the Massachusetts 

Police Association, the Massachusetts 

Municipal Association and the 

Massachusetts Police Accreditation Coalition, 

as well as a representative from an 

academic institution with demonstrated 

expertise in deliverance of law enforcement 

and public safety services. 

Benefits of Accreditation 

The standards for accreditation impact 

officer and public safety, address high liability/risk 

management issues, and pro- 



Member News 

January/February New Members 

Institutional Membership 

Berklee College of Music 

Richard N. Michaud, CPP 

California at Davis, University of 

Rita Spaur 

Charleston, College of 

Paul V. Verrecchia 

Cornell College 

Michael Williamson 

Dubuque, University of 

Lori Olson 

Georgia, The University of 

Opal D. Haley 

Grambling State University 

Garry Williams 

Grand Rapids Community College 

Cindy C. Kennell 

Guelph, University of 

Don Hawkins 

Illinois Institute of Technology 

Steven H. Rubin, PCI 

Lee University 

Ashley R. Mew 

Los Angeles Community College District 

Roosevelt Blow 

Millikin University 

John R. Mickler 

North Carolina Central University 

McDonald Vick 

Pacific - McGeorge School of Law, 

University of 

Alan J. Smith 

St. Francis, University of 

Perry Plarski 

St. Paul’s School 

George J. Pangakis 

St. Lawrence University 

Patrick W. Gagnon 

Siena Heights College 

Cindy Birdwell 

Smith College 

Scott Graham 

Sullivan University 

Ken Adair 

Trent University 

Louise Fish 

York University 

Anne-Marie Mair 

Professional Membership 

Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine 

at Peoria, University of 

Wayne Holly 

Massachusetts – Boston, University of 

Richard W. Lee 

Mills College 

Daniel Brown 

Northwest Arkansas Community 

College 

Walter Middleton 

Oakland Community College 

Mark Seder 

San Jose State University 

Jim Renelle 

Villanova University 

John Shuter 

Wisconsin – Madison, University of 

Peter Ystenes 

Yale University 

George R. Aylward 

Supporting Membership 

Kings III Emergency Communications 

Kyle Hamilton 

LRP Publications 

Cynthia Brodrick 

Zetron, Inc. 

Mark Musick 

Mount Holyoke College Department of 

Public Safety Awarded Accreditation 


mote operational efficiency throughout 

the agency. The benefits of accreditation 

are many and will vary among participating 

departments based on the state of 

the department when it enters the process. 

In other words, the benefits will be 

better known when the department 

quantifies the changes that it had to make 

as a direct result of achieving accreditation. 

Generally, these changes involve 

policy writing, facility improvements and 

equipment purchases. Listed below are 

some of the more common benefits of 

accreditation status: 

• provides a norm for an agency to 

judge its performance. 

• provides a basis to correct deficiencies 

before they become public problems. 

• requires agencies to commit policies 

and procedures to writing. 

• promotes accountability among 

agency personnel and the evenhanded 

application of policies. 

• provides a means of independent 

evaluation of agency operations. 

• minimizes an agency’s exposure to 

liability, builds a stronger defense 

against lawsuits and citizen complaints, 

and has the potential to reduce 

liability insurance costs 

• enhances the reputation of the 

agency and increases the public’s confidence 

in it. 

Recent events in the U.S. and throughout 

the world underscore the need to reassure 

the general public that the law 

enforcement profession is prepared, 

trained, and ready to handle future emergencies 

and calls for service. Agency preparedness 

begins with having a formal 

written directive system that incorporates 

professional state-of-the-art standards into 

agency policy, rules, procedures and 

plans. By achieving accreditation, the 

Mount Holyoke College Department of 

Public Safety demonstrates its capabilities 

to respond to the public safety needs of 

the community. 


Member News 

Mock Terrorist Attacks 

Nicholls State University Police Department 

By Rachelle Hitt, Student Public Information Officer 

Nicholls State University in Thibodaux, 

Louisiana is the safest university in the 

state. But for one day on October 6, a 

person driving past the university would 

have thought otherwise. 

In a mock terrorist attack orchestrated 

by the U.S. Department of Defense, students 

were scattered across the pavement 

of the John L. Guidry stadium. The students 

and other fans were awaiting a football 

game. Some mock victims were 

passed out under the release of sarin gas 

after a car chase across the stadium parking 

lot and others were victims of an explosion 

from a detonated bomb attached 

to a female terrorist. The students would 

undergo decontamination. 

The students were protected by the 

same police force that protects them everyday 

— University Police Officers. Police 

restrained the crowd as paramedics 

attended to the mock victims. The goal 

of the mock terrorist training exercises is 

to enable first responders such as local 

police agencies, ambulances and fire departments 

to act more quickly and efficiently. 

“One of the things they discovered 

during 9/11 while all that was going on 

was the first responders didn’t have an 

effective way to communicate with each 

other,” Charles Gaiennie, public relations 

specialist for the project told the student 

media. “That condition still exists today 

to some degree. What we’re trying to do 

is help address all these different things. 

It is designed to help all agencies be able 

The government is also expected to 

put in place a civil alert system so that the 

schools can receive notices during 

emergency incidents. 

to talk to one another, monitor things as 

they begin to happen and see events as 

they become a pattern.” 

Nicholls State University was the first 

in the state of Louisiana to be part of an 

18-month program called the Louisiana 

Regional Emergency Command and Operations 

Network (LA RECON) led by the 

Department of Defense to test new communication 

concepts that could be used 

during terrorist attacks. 

Prior to the mock attacks, University 

Police Officers were given over $15,000 

worth of equipment including laptops for 

their units and palm pilots and were 

trained by the Department of Defense 

on how to protect the community during 

a terrorist attack. All equipment will remain 

at Nicholls State University. 

During the mock attacks, officers were 

able to get descriptions of suspicious characters 

through the use of a palm pilot. 

Normally, the officers would have to report 

to the station or their squad car to 

obtain the information. 

The government is also expected to 

put in place a civil alert system so that 

the schools can receive notices during 

emergency incidents. 

In Betsy Cheramie Ayo Hall, identified 

as the “white cell,” emergency responders 

and operators of critical infrastructure 

from the Department of Defense were 

evaluating the latest in new communications 

capabilities—including a federal alert 

system, a civil alert system and an online 

message system that is part of a federal 

Web-based system, Homeland Security 

Services. 

Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-La.) was 

instrumental in securing funding for the 

program and suggested that it be tested 

at Nicholls. 

“The intent is to train Nicholls staff and 

provide ongoing assistance in that area,” 

Bob Bremmer, project manager said. “I 

believe this program will provide good, 

tangible benefits to the University and 

community.” 

University Police Chief Craig Jaccuzzo 

agrees. “This operation benefited the 

university not only in obtaining training 

and equipment but it was a true evaluation 

of how we would react to a situation 

if it occurred to that extent. It made us 

look at new ventures and ideas.” 

Chief Jaccuzzo believes this event was 

another way to train his officers in handling 

high-risk situations. “They have been 

introduced to training and technology and 

it gave them an opportunity to realize 

that things can happen here,” he said. “I 

have the confidence that we are making 

great strides to handle extreme situations. 

It’s a growing importance that we never 

become complacent.” 


Member News 

University of Central Florida Police Department 

Receives Donation 

By Sergeant Troy Williamson 

On January 17, 2005, Deputy Chief Mike Zelanes on behalf of the UCF Police 

Department received a $5,000 check for their canine program. UCFPD currently 

has one bomb dog and one drug dog. UCFPD will retire Bailey (the drug dog) and 

intend to use the donation for two new drug dogs. The University of Central Florida 

appreciates the generosity of both Albertsons and Milk-Bone for their contribution. 

Sergeant Dale Dennany UCFPD 

with customers. 

American 

Whistle defense 

pu last page 24 

Left to right: Ed Enix from 

Kraft/Milk-Bone, Shane 

McEntariffer from Albertsons, 

Andrew Linehan from 

Albertsons, Deputy Chief Mike 

Zelanes UCFPD, Randy Mingo 

UCFPD, Jerry Emert UCFPD. 

IACLEA Virtual 

Exhibition Center 

Is Open for Business 

24 Hours a Day • 7 Days a Week 



It’s More Than Just a Torch Run… 

Many of you have already supported the Law Enforcement Torch Run ® for Special Olympics. But what really is the Torch 

Run? Most if not all of us are aware of the annual Final Leg Run where officers from around your area carry the “Flame of 

Hope” to light the cauldron for your Opening Ceremonies of the Special Olympics Summer Games. But it doesn’t end there. 

Throughout the year the Law Enforcement Torch Run ® for Special Olympics organizes numerous other fundraising activities. 

These activities include Motorcycle Runs, Fire Truck and Semi Pulls, Polar Plunges, Snowmobile Rides, Building Sits, Golf 

Tournaments and Tip-a-Cop to name a few. This year will be the second year for the newest LETR organized event in 

Wisconsin. It’s the 25th Anniversary Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon. The triathlon is a fully sanctioned USA 

Triathlon ½ Ironman and International Tri course that draws participants from throughout the United States to Menomonie, 

Wisconsin. 

The Menomonie Tinman Triathlon officially partnered with the LETR in 2004 and created the official “Charter Communications 

Tinman Triathlon” benefiting the Law Enforcement Torch Run for Special Olympics Wisconsin. In 2004 the race 

was looking for leadership and a race director and the volunteers of the LETR were looking for a different type of fundraiser 

in the Indianhead Area. Participation in the Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon will not only help the Indianhead 

Area Special Olympics, but will support your agency’s commitment to a healthier lifestyle. 

Charter Communications 

Menomonie Tinman Triathlon 

Sunday, June 12, 2005 8:30 Long Start, 9:30 Int’l Start • Wakanda Park, Menomonie, WI 

Brief Description: International Course: ¾M swim, 32.9M bike, 10K run 

Long Course: 1.5M Swim, 58.5M bike, 20K run 

Prices: Individual Entry: $70 

Relay Entry (3 Person Team): $165 

Relay Entry (2 Person Team): $110 

Online Reg. Closes: May 31, 2005 11:59 PM Pacific Time 

Age limits: 

Proceeds: 

Long course participants must be 18 years of age by day of event. Relay participants must be 

14 years of age by day of event. 

Proceeds benefit Indianhead Area Special Olympics and the Dunn Co Food Pantry 

Race on your own or as a team, just like “Code Blue,” a team of three lieutenants from the Menomonie Police Department. 

“There is no better way to challenge yourself and to have a goal in your personal physical fitness. Working toward this goal 

as a team was fun, and it gave me the peer encouragement and the support that I needed.” said Lt. Wendy Stelter, 

Menomonie Police Department. 

As this year’s race director, I am challenging members of the Law Enforcement community to commit to participating in 

the 25th Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon. For more information on the race, go to http://www.tinmantriathlon.org 

Lisa Walter, Chief of Police, UW-Stout PD 

Race Director, Charter Communications Tinman Triathlon 

Chair, IACLEA – LETR Committee 


Dashboard Management, 

A Public Safety Application 

By Henry L. Christensen, Director, University of Miami Department of Public Safety and 

Lt. William Gerlach, M.P.A., University of Miami Department of Public Safety 

If you drove anywhere today, you probably 

started the car and glanced at the 

gas gauge, temperature, oil pressure and 

check engine lights. Chances are you 

were making sure you had the fuel to 

get to your destination, and the car was 

mechanically capable of getting you 

there. Car dashboards are becoming 

loaded with impressive new technology 

such as global tracking, electronic notification 

of air pressure, electronic driving 

help desk and more. The information presented 

to you on the car’s dashboard 

quickly gives you the insight to decide if 

the vehicle will take you where you want 

to go without opening the hood and 

checking the various fluids and components. 

On the way home from work you 

want to know your car is running at top 

performance; if not, you need to get your 

car repaired. 

Managers, like drivers, need to have a 

dashboard for their organization. You must 

have information tools for quickly measuring 

and monitoring the organization’s 

status and ability to reach the desired 

destination or goal. You must be able to 

receive help in time of need. You need 

to know where the organization is going, 

where it presently is and if it has the 

gas, oil and spark to get it there. You also 

need to know and understand the 

organization’s place in a larger organization, 

how it supplies other organizations, 

and how it consumes the resources of 

others. Like an automobile you can look 

under the hood of your organization, but 

it would be easier to have a dashboard 

that would let you sit down, buckle up 

University of Miami 

and go (unless you have a warning light 

on). 

The University of Miami Department 

of Public Safety, in Coral Gables, Florida, 

uses a management tool, called a Dashboard, 

to accomplish this. This living document 

is used to consolidate data and 

present it in graphical formats. The dashboard 

helps consolidate the framework 

for strategic plans in your fleet and measures 

the progress of continuous improvement 

projects It is driven, from the top 

down, by the University’s mission, strategic 

objectives, and goals. The mission, 

goals and objectives for which the Department 

of Public Safety has inputs, outputs 

and throughputs establish the 

Department’s own mission, goals and 

objectives. The dashboard presents these 

relationships in cascading order from goals 

to key objectives to key indicators to 

projects. 

The Department is a unit of Business 

Services. This fleet all works on “Dashboard 

management.” Bookstore drivers 

measure on their dashboard textbook 

availability; Purchasing measures quality 

of staffing; and our new “e: Canes Travel” 

uses its dashboard to measure travel performance. 

The Public Safety Dashboard, 

therefore, has goals and key objectives 

which spill into it from the Business Services 

Dashboard, a point which illustrates 

why an understanding of inputs, outputs 

and throughputs is so important. We are 

interconnected with many other units of 

the University. Our goals and objectives 

reflect this and we need tools to help us 

monitor, measure and achieve them in 

an environment that is constantly changing 

and growing in complexity. 

TQM Driven 

It is important to note that our Department 

strongly subscribes to Total Quality 

Management, or Six Sigma principles (we 

call this Continuous Improvement or CI 

at the University of Miami), and these 

principles guide our long- and short-range 

decisions, as well as our daily activities. 

Data is gathered and analyzed in accordance 

with Continuous Improvement. Our 

decisions are not driven by emotions, 

knee-jerk reactions or hunches. Using 

data, decisions are based on facts. 

Data is linked to our objectives and is 

presented graphically. Most data appears 

as statistical control charts (an advanced 

form of a line graph), and is presented 

with the averages, upper and lower sta- 



Dashboard Management, A Public Safety Application 


Sample Control Chart for Burglary 

Figure 1 

tistical control limits (see Figure 1). It is 

not the intent of this article to explain 

the statistical calculations that establish 

these limits. What is important is that we 

have a quick gauge to determine if we 

are experiencing a crime wave or the 

typical fluctuations in the system (noise), 

like a needle telling the driver the car is 

running at the right temperature or about 

to overheat. Processes fluctuate all the 

time (what campus has the same number 

of larcenies every month, the same 

response time for every call, or the same 

number of alarms in a month?). For the 

most part our systems (crime data and 

other indicators) are in control. That is to 

say they rise and fall somewhere between 

the upper and lower control limits (given 

all of the factors that are a part of the 

process or system), and exhibit a predictable 

system of noise. In the below sample 

control chart (Figure 2), the system is generally 

in control, but two points require 

further consideration to determine 

the cause (but that is not 

the subject of this article). 

In the creation of a dashboard, 

or similar management 

tool, it is imperative that measurement 

data is available and 

collected. It is just as important 

that data is presented in 

a way that is meaningful and 

standardized (a control chart 

for example). Doing so ensures 

that the data tells something 

about the system being 

monitored. Otherwise, 

any management 

decisions 

based on the data 

may be seriously 

flawed (panic on 

the peaks – relax 

in the valleys). 

Construction 

The dashboard 

used at the University 

of Miami 

Department of 

Public Safety is 

constructed in a 

Microsoft Excel 

workbook (Figure 

2). The first page 

or worksheet displays the goals, key objectives, 

key indicators, related tasks and 

assignments. The left column lists goals, 

followed by key objectives, key indicators, 

etc. The vertical spacing leaves ample 

room between goals for all related key 

objectives to be listed and so on for key 

indicators, tasks and assignments. 

Notice in the sample Goal I is reduce 

crime. That is a broad goal, but one that 

is probably common to all law enforcement 

agencies. In this example, the key 

objectives for meeting this goal are reductions 

in larceny and burglary. In order 

to reduce larceny, it is necessary to know 

how many larcenies occur. In this example, 

bicycle theft is also an indicator (as determined 

by careful study using Continuous 

Improvement tools). Bicycle theft may 

account for a large portion of larceny and 

it would be reasonable to include it as a 

key indicator. There is even a project assigned 

to deal with bicycle theft and it is 

assigned to the crime prevention and 

crime suppression units. 

Another key objective listed is to reduce 

burglary. Again key indicators for 

burglary are presented along with relevant 

projects and tasks required to meet the 

goal. Projects are used to study problems 

when the cause is not known. Tasks are 

assigned to address problems where the 

cause is known. Moving from left to right 

in the sheet increases the detail (and often 

the number of items). The goal is established. 

Then the key objectives in 

meeting that goal are determined and 

listed. Once the key objectives are established, 

the key indicators are identified 

and included. Then projects and tasks 

are identified and assigned. The end result 

is a readily available tool for managers 

to review the performance of their 

organization from the goals and objectives 

to the individuals responsible for the 

associated projects and tasks. 

The next step is to use the software 

to link the key indicators with the data. 

We use a worksheet within the same 

spreadsheet (or workbook) as a master 

data table (Figure 3) for most of the information. 

The master data table must be 

structured in a way that allows the users 

to manipulate it for almost any data need 

and to continually add data as it is collected. 

Our data is kept in a table form 

that runs chronologically from left to right. 

The data table has all Part I UCR crimes, 

open door data, alarm data, and several 

other indicators important to the management 

of our organization. One thing in 

common for all the types is that the data 

for each month will appear in the same 


Goals Key Objective Key Indicator Project/Task Assigned to 

I. Reduce 

Campus Crime 

Reduce Larceny # of Larcenies by Month Secure Property Crime Prevention 

# Bicycle Thefts by Month Bike Security System Crime Prevention and 

Crime Suppression 

# Unattended Property Develop new Crime Prevention 

Reduce Burglary 

Created in Microsoft Excel TM 

Thefts by Month 

# of Burglaries by Month 

# Residential Burglaries 

by Month 

Programming 

# Non-Res Burglaries Open Door Project Continuous 

by Month 

Improvement Team 

Figure 2 




Sample Master Data Table 

Month Murder Rape Burglary Larceny Auto Theft 

Jan 02 0 0 12 8 0 

Feb 0 0 9 19 1 

Mar 0 0 15 28 1 

Apr 0 0 18 37 0 

May 0 1 22 41 2 

Jun 0 0 3 11 0 

Jul 0 0 14 6 0 

Aug 0 0 2 8 0 

Sep 0 1 8 29 1 

Oct 0 3 4 38 0 

Nov 0 1 22 24 3 

Dec 0 0 31 16 1 

Jan 03 0 0 14 42 0 

Feb 0 0 5 23 0 

Mar 0 0 9 30 1 

Sample Table Created in Microsoft Excel TM 

Figure 3 

column (no matter when you started collecting 

it). This is important because when 

the graphical presentations are updated 

you need only change the column addresses 

for each chart. Having it the same 

makes this process easier. 

Once the data table is constructed the 

graphical representations can be created. 

The charts we use show at least the last 

36 months of data (although all past data 

is maintained in the master data table). 

Line charts are created for each individual 

offense type from the data table; one 

each for murder, rape, robbery, burglary, 

etc. Each chart is saved in its own 

worksheet with the tab label being renamed 

to the corresponding chart (e.g., 

one for murder, one for rape, etc.). This 

way the user can click on the tab and 

view the data for each category, or what 

is known in the dashboard as a key indicator. 

Using statistical tools, the 

mean, upper and lower control 

limits should also be calculated 

from the data. This 

may require the use of a statistics 

package such as 

MiniTab. These limits can 

be added to the graphs by 

plotting the data in another 

worksheet and using them 

in the graph. The end product 

is a control chart for each 

indicator. Now the graphs 

have meaning and can tell the 

user if there is a problem or if 

the particular indicator is in a 

state of control (meaning it is 

exhibiting random noise and 

you should not be overreacting 

to valleys or peaks). 

Managers in any public 

safety organization should note 

the difference between statistical 

control and socially acceptable 

control. Some crimes will 

be so traumatic to your community 

that statistical analysis 

will be irrelevant. It will take 

common sense, sensitivity, and 

an overall understanding of 

what is acceptable to your community 

to properly apply this 

tool. At the same time, it is a 

tool you can use behind the scenes to 

help demonstrate how the problem at 

hand is being addressed and how well 

you understand it. 

There is no limit to the types of data 

that can be tracked and managed in this 

type of dashboard system, but it should 

have meaning and relate to the mission, 

goals and objectives. Periodically managers 

are asked to present their dashboards 

to cross-functional parts of the University 

in order to get feedback for improvement. 

In Business Services we run into issues 

everyday that we call “helter skelter 

items” or unplanned process events. 

Some of these helter-skelter items are the 

earliest indications of the need 

for process improvement. 

They end up on the dashboard. 

For example, if a department 

is experiencing numerous traffic 

crashes, then it may be necessary to 

track the number of crashes, warnings and 

citations issued. As a dashboard is constructed 

it is very important to challenge 

the usefulness of any data being collected 

and measured. Will it be necessary to measure 

the number of radio transmissions, 

number of phone calls, average response 

time? Don’t collect data just to collect data. 

As car dashboards evolve so must your 

management team. Those are questions 

that need to be answered by each individual 

manager and filtered through questions 

like: How does this relate to my 

mission? How does this measure progress 

toward that goal? Is this indicator really a 

measure of the objective? The point is to 

keep the data useful and relevant. 

Once the data and graphics are constructed, 

they can all be linked. Microsoft 

Excel allows users to hyperlink text to 

other locations. On the main dashboard 

page, text such as burglary can be linked 

to the burglary chart. If the user clicks on 

the hyperlinked text it will jump to the 

burglary worksheet. Clicking the “back” 

button will take the user back to the main 

dashboard page. In our dashboard, links 

have been created for each key indicator. 

The dashboard is updated regularly, 

generally monthly, based on the data for 

each indicator. With it, management is able 

to quickly determine if our organization 





is on track to meet its goals and is achieving 

its mission. Having the data presented 

in control chart form prevents us from 

taking unnecessary action that may be 

costly and ineffective. In the past we may 

have reacted to a spike in vehicle burglary 

with special task forces, extra security 

or new equipment. This could be a 

mistake if the perceived spike was not 

out of the ordinary statistical pattern for 

vehicle burglary on our campus. The true 

management reaction would be to study 

the data in a Continuous Improvement 

environment and look for methods that 

will improve the system in a way that 

reduces vehicle burglary overall. 

In a Continuous Improvement environment 

we have to study the data in 

detail through projects or tasks, see the 

last column of the dashboard. The data 

must be studied to determine the causes 

for variation in the system. The causes 

can then be addressed to develop new 

processes which will improve the 

organization’s outputs. This article cannot 

address Continuous Improvement or Total 

Quality Management in the space available 

as others have dedicated lifetimes 

and produced volumes explaining and 

teaching the concepts. Our dashboard is 

one very important tool and component 

of our Continuous Improvement initiative. 

There are several software packages 

that can be used to implement this concept. 

They may be called something 

other than “dashboard” such as: Scorecard, 

Balanced Scorecard, or Scoreboard. Some 

of these systems are very comprehensive 

and can encompass an entire organization. 

Large law enforcement agencies 

have systems like crimemap and 

compstat, the scale of which may be overwhelming 

and not feasible for small campus 

law enforcement agencies. The dashboard 

gives us the same result on a much 

smaller scale and price tag. It could be 

considered an economy model as opposed 

to the more developed luxury 

editions. Either way, the concept is not 

out of reach for any department. Some 

may opt for a well developed commercially 

available product. Those without 

ample resources but with savvy software 

skills can develop and implement a tool 

that is just as effective. 

Once implemented, a dashboard will 

reveal with just a few mouse clicks how 

the organization is doing. Our management 

keeps the updated dashboard on 

their computer desktop for quick access. 

With it we can answer questions from concerned 

parents, inquiring administrators, 

students, staff, police officers and media. 

We are able to see crime trends as they 

are developing between cycles because 

we know when we are approaching an 

out of control situation from a control chart. 

Since implementation we have remained 

below our ten year moving average for 

total crime on campus because we are 

better equipped to monitor our environment 

and manage our systems. For this 

reason alone, campus law enforcement 

agencies committed to providing safe, 

crime free environments should be considering 

data measurement and monitoring 

tools like a dashboard. A movement 

toward TQM or Continuous Improvement, 

while not heavily addressed but strongly 

encouraged in this article, should also be 

undertaken since knowing your organization 

is on empty means nothing if you 

don’t intend to refuel. 

The authors thank Mr. Alan Fish, Vice 

President for Business Services at the 

University of Miami, and Dr. Howard S. 

Gitlow, Ph.D., Executive Director of the 

University of Miami Institute for the Study 

of Quality in Manufacturing and Service 

and a Professor of Management Science, 

University of Miami for their support and 

contributions to this article. 

Plan Now for 

Future IACLEA 

Conferences 

2005 

June 25-29 

Kansas City, Missouri 

2006 

June 24-27 

Orlando, Florida 


International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators 

Standards for 

Campus Public Safety Departments 

The IACLEA Standards Manual is now available to campus public safety departments as a way to compare their practices and 

procedures to the highest professional standards for campus law enforcement and public safety services. IACLEA Standards apply 

to both sworn and non-sworn public safety departments for all sizes and types of higher education institutions. 

The IACLEA Standards Manual contains standards and commentary arranged in 27 chapters that cover topics such as: Agency 

Jurisdiction and Mutual Aid—Organization and Administration—Recruitment—Training and Career Development—Communications—Records—Disciplinary 

Procedures—Crime Prevention—Traffic—Clery Act Compliance. 

The IACLEA Standards Manual is published with the permission of and in cooperation with the Commission on Accreditation for 

Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Most of the standards in the IACLEA Manual correspond to CALEA Standards. IACLEA 

acknowledges the CALEA copyright on all standards derived from CALEA Standards and expresses appreciation to CALEA for its 

assistance. 

The IACLEA Standards are the standards on which the IACLEA Accreditation Program—now being developed—will be based. The 

IACLEA Accreditation is currently in the pilot stage and will be open to all applicants in 2006. 

How to Order: The IACLEA Standards Manual is available in looseleaf notebook format. Updates will be provided at no cost to 

the original purchaser for a period of three years following purchase. Cost of the Manual is $230 each. 

To order online, go to Publications on the IACLEA Web site: www.iaclea.org and click on the Publication Order form. To order by 

fax, print the Publication Order form from the IACLEA Web site and fax to (860) 586-7550. To order by U.S. mail, print the 

Publication Order form from the IACLEA Web site and mail to: 

IACLEA, Attn: Publication Order, 342 North Main Street, W. Hartford, CT 06117-2507 or use the form below. 

IACLEA – Standards Manual Order 

Name: ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Institution: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Address: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

City: _______________________________________________ State: ______________________ Zip Code: _______________ 

Telephone: ___________________________________________ Email: _____________________________________________ 

Send check payable to IACLEA or Charge to: MasterCard VISA American Express 

Card Number: _____________________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________________________ 

Name on Card: _______________________________________________ Today’s Date: ________________________________ 

Signature: ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 


The New Era of Campus Public Safety 

By C. Suzanne Mencer, Director of the Office for Domestic Preparedness; Michael Lynch, Chief of Police at George Mason 

University; and Jeff Allison, Assistant Director for Training in the Office for Domestic Preparedness. 

On the tragic morning of September 11, 

2001, the Borough of Manhattan Community 

College (BMCC) was instantly 

transformed from an institution of higher 

education to a command center for the 

law enforcement officers, fire fighters and 

other emergency personnel responding 

to the attack on the World Trade Center. 

This transformation took place with the 

full cooperation of the campus public 

safety agency protecting BMCC, as well 

as the college’s executive leadership. 

Located close to the World Trade Center, 

BMCC sustained significant structural 

damage to many of its buildings, and yet 

continued to serve as an asset to the immediate 

community, the City of New 

York, and by extension, the nation. In the 

days following the attack, BMCC’s rapid 

return to a “new normalcy” provided a 

powerful metaphor for our national effort 

to overcome threats to our safety that 

have no parallel in history. 

The need to embrace this new normalcy 

was underscored by the Boston 

Consortium for Higher Education in its 

report on a conference at the College of 

the Holy Cross in 2002. “Every college 

and university in the country now understands 

that traditional planning for crisis 

events is inadequate. The scale of the 

problem has changed dramatically, and 

while most of the work done in the past 

to contend with disasters on campus provided 

a solid foundation on which to build, 

a very different kind of preparation and 

response is now necessary” (Boston Consortium, 

November 2002). 

CERT is a training program that prepares 

you to help yourself, your family, and your 

neighbors in the event of a disaster. During 

an incident, emergency services personnel 

may not be able to reach everyone right 

away. By getting trained in CERT, you will 

have the skills to help emergency 

responders save lives and protect property. 

There are approximately 4,000 Title 

IV institutions of post-secondary education 

in the United States serving 15 million 

students, and several million faculty, 

staff and visitors. According to the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, there are roughly 

30,000 campus police and security officers 

protecting these institutions and individuals. 

Our colleges and universities house 

nuclear reactors and accelerators, chemical 

and biological laboratories, large capacity 

arenas and stadiums, and significant 

international student populations. 

Bombings at Hebrew University, and Peking 

and Tsinghua Universities, as well as 

incidents of domestic terrorism directed 

at campuses in this country validate congressional 

testimony by FBI Director 

Mueller that our colleges and universities 

are “soft targets” for terrorism (February 

2003). 

Clearly, the new normalcy that confronts 

our nation also affects colleges and 

universities, their surrounding communities, 

and the geographic regions in which 

they are located. Under certain scenarios, 

a strong argument can be made that a 

successful attack on an institution of higher 

education in America would have a cascading 

effect throughout various sectors 

of our society. In the realm of known facts, 

campus public safety agencies expended 

tremendous resources running anthrax 

calls during the 2001-2002 school year, 

and continue to engage in vulnerability 

assessments. 

While recognizing the unique vulnerabilities 

of our campuses to an attack, we 

must also acknowledge and address their 

potential attractiveness as inconspicuous 

sites for planning and carrying out activities 

in support of terrorist incidents directed 

at non-campus sites. Two of the 

9/11 hijackers carried out pre-attack planning, 

in part, from a college campus. Likewise, 

we now know that a portion of the 

surveillance which led to raising the alert 

level for financial institutions in New York 

City, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., 

was conducted by a person in this country 

as a college student. It is noteworthy 

that the George Washington University 

is immediately adjacent to the financial 

institutions subject to the increased alert 

in Washington. 

The traditional openness of our campuses 

— a hallmark of our system of 

higher education — may be used against 

us by those wishing to do us harm. This 

situation presents difficult choices for 

policymakers attempting to find the right 

balance between enhanced security and 

maintaining access for all. In fact, as our 

larger society debates this issue, it may 





be colleges and universities that point the 

way by identifying the most desirable and 

feasible solutions to a complex challenge. 

Colleges and universities also possess 

unique assets and make contributions to 

homeland security and the daily maintenance 

of order and safety, on campus and 

off. They develop and deliver weapons 

of mass destruction (WMD) training for 

state and local emergency responders, 

conduct technological and medical research 

to prevent and mitigate terrorist 

attacks, and serve as conveners of WMD 

exercises that demonstrate our community 

capabilities while also identifying areas 

of preparedness that we need to improve 

upon. 

Progress 

Since December 2001, the Office of State 

and Local Government Coordination and 

Preparedness (OSLGCP) 1 has made a concerted 

effort to enhance the preparedness 

of our campus public safety agencies 

to prevent, deter and respond effectively 

to incidents of WMD terrorism. The 

success of our efforts to date is due, first 

and foremost, to the vision and commitment 

of individual campus law enforcement 

and public safety executives. 

Second, we have formed effective 

partnerships with the national associations 

representing campus public safety, and 

college and university administrators. 

Along the way, we have learned a great 

deal about the early 21st century environment 

— the new normalcy — that 

today’s college and university leaders are 

navigating while protecting and educating 

tomorrow’s leaders. 

Working closely with the International 

Association of Campus Law Enforcement 

Administrators (IACLEA), the College and 

University Policing Section of the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police 

(IACP), and Louisiana State University, 

OSLGCP’s WMD Terrorism Awareness 

Course for Law Enforcement was tailored 

to fit campus policing. This initiative, 

which began during the summer of 2002, 

has produced a cadre of certified campus 

law enforcement trainers who in turn have 

trained approximately 2,000 campus public 

safety officers. IACLEA is using an FY 

2003 OSLGCP discretionary grant of $2 

million to expand this training. 

OSLGCP Mission Statement 

To develop and implement a national 

program to enhance the capacity 

of state and local agencies to 

prevent, deter and respond to 

threats or acts of terrorism involving 

weapons of mass destruction 

(WMD), through coordinated training, 

equipment acquisition, technical 

assistance, and support for federal, 

state, and local exercises. 

To help craft a comprehensive, strategic 

plan for enhancing campus preparedness, 

the OSLGCP co-hosted the Campus 

Law Enforcement Conference on WMD 

Terrorism at the George Washington University 

in December 2002. Our co-hosts 

were IACLEA, the IACP and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation. One of the primary 

and most compelling recommendations 

emerging from the Conference 

was that OSLGCP needed to engage more 

actively with campus presidents, vice 

presidents, chief financial officers and 

other key decision-makers to help focus 

planning and preparedness activities on 

campus. 

In April 2003, the OSLGCP co-hosted 

the Higher Education Summit on WMD 

Terrorism at the Washington, D.C. headquarters 

of the National Association of 

State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges 

(NASULGC). Our co-hosts were again 

IACLEA, the IACP and the FBI. The Summit, 

which was also attended by representatives 

of the U.S. Department of Education, 

succeeded in raising the 

awareness of college and university 

leaders to the most 

pressing homeland security 

needs confronting institutions 

of higher education. Following 

the Summit, OSLGCP staff honored 

requests to present on 

campus public safety issues at 

the annual conferences of several 

national associations of 

higher education. 

In May 2003, OSLGCP released 

the Campus Protective 

Measures document in both 

generic and Law Enforcement 

Sensitive versions. The generic version, 

which was disseminated to college and 

university administrators through their national 

associations, is appended to this 

article. The Law Enforcement Sensitive 

version can be viewed in the Members 

Only Area of the IACLEA Web site 

(www.iaclea.org). The Protective Measures 

document is not intended to be 

exhaustive, nor does it supersede federal, 

state, local or campus statutes, regulations, 

or policies. It is offered only to guide 

and inform campus public safety preparedness 

planning efforts. It may be calibrated 

to reflect changes in the alert level 

for the nation or particular regions and 

sectors. 

Under the auspices of OSLGCP, the 

Texas Engineering Extension Service 

(TEEX) at Texas A & M has developed a 

jurisdiction-based risk assessment instrument. 

In August 2003, OSLGCP convened 

a meeting with IACLEA and representatives 

of the IACP College and University 

Policing Section to begin tailoring the instrument 

for college campuses. Subsequently, 

the Campus Risk Assessment 

Instrument has undergone pilot testing 

at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota, 

George Mason University in Virginia, 

and at the University of Illinois Urbana – 

Champaign campus. The George Mason 

pilot was conducted by students in an 

upper level criminal justice course under 

the guidance of the campus police department 

(see May/June 2004 Campus 

Law Enforcement Journal). Findings and 

recommendations from the student-led 


Sergeant Bruce Jackson of the George Mason University 

Police Department with City of Fairfax, Virginia fire truck 

during a drill with the city and county police and fire 

departments. Fairfax, a neighboring city, is the “first due” 

to any emergency at the University. 




pilot are now under consideration by the 

police department and other university 

policymakers. We anticipate releasing the 

instrument with IACLEA by the end of 

2005 as a self-administered planning tool. 

In April 2004, OSLGCP assigned a senior 

staff member to the FBI Office of 

Law Enforcement Coordination as a Special 

Adviser, in part, to better coordinate 

campus public safety initiatives. The Special 

Adviser, working with IACLEA and 

IACP, convened an August 2004 meeting 

at the Washington, D.C. headquarters 

of the American Council on Education to 

begin developing a Campus Executive 

Leadership Workshop on Homeland Security 

for delivery regionally and at the 

annual conferences of national associations 

of higher education. This workshop will 

be supported by OSLGCP discretionary 

grant funds awarded to West Virginia 

University. As with some of the efforts 

cited previously, the workshop will be 

modeled on an existing initiative — the 

Senior Officials Workshop conducted by 

TEEX for local elected and appointed officials 

such as mayors, city managers and 

city and county board members. 

To ensure that command level officers 

in campus public safety agencies understand 

and can operate effectively in a 

unified command system environment, 

OSLGCP awarded a $1.5 million discretionary 

grant to IACLEA in FY 2004. The 

grant will support the delivery of training 

that is National Incident Management System 

(NIMS) compliant and will also provide 

seed funding to create a capability 

to identify and disseminate best practices 

relating to homeland security within the 

campus public safety community. 

A review of state Homeland Security 

strategies clearly indicates that states are 

also recognizing the vulnerabilities and 

assets presented by colleges and universities. 

A significant number of states are 

partnering with colleges and universities 

to deliver WMD terrorism training to state, 

county and municipal emergency responders. 

In two states, a university is 

designated as the primary provider of this 

training, statewide. 

Some states explicitly identify campus 

public safety officers as authorized recipients 

of WMD terrorism training. Other 

states note that colleges and universities 

may be targets of terrorist attacks, allocate 

equipment resources to campus 

public safety agencies, involve campus 

public safety in WMD exercises, or look 

to our campuses as host sites for Community 

Emergency Response Teams 

(CERTs). 

The Future 

We believe these efforts have created a 

strong foundation upon which we can 

continue to build campus preparedness 

“Every college and university in the country 

now understands that traditional planning 

for crisis events is inadequate. The scale of 

the problem has changed dramatically, and 

while most of the work done in the past to 

contend with disasters on campus provided 

a solid foundation on which to build, a 

very different kind of preparation and 

response is now necessary” 

(Boston Consortium, November 2002). 

capabilities. We also know, however, that 

there is a great deal of hard work ahead 

of us. 

Our challenge to each of you is to fully 

appreciate the reality that WMD terrorism, 

while a low frequency event, is one 

of extremely high consequences if it occurs. 

We must devote the necessary resources 

to prevent and deter WMD attacks 

on our campuses, and should they 

occur in spite of our best efforts, we must 

be prepared to effectively manage the 

incidents in order to achieve the best 

possible outcomes for the community. 

A good starting point is to conduct a 

risk assessment of your campus. Ideally, 

this assessment will be carried out in concert 

with your federal law enforcement 

partners (FBI, ATFE and DHS), and with 

an interdisciplinary, multi-jurisdictional 

team composed of key stakeholders on 

campus and in the surrounding community. 

Again, OSLGCP anticipates fielding 

a self-administered assessment instrument 

with IACLEA in Spring 2005. 

Increasingly, local jurisdictions are including 

colleges and universities in their 

threat and risk assessment process. If you 

have already conducted an independent 

assessment, this information can be rolled 

into the surrounding jurisdiction’s report 

to the state and/or be submitted separately. 

As mentioned previously, the campus 

assessment instrument closely mirrors 

the jurisdictional instrument. 

Second, share the assessment results 

with the executive leadership of your 

campus. They must be aware of the risks 

to students, faculty, staff and visitors, and 

to the continuity of the college or university 

as a business. 

Third, with the assistance of your assessment 

team, and possibly others, develop 

a plan. The plan, to be effective 

must: 

• Identify gaps in facility protection, 

equipment, training, and policies and 

procedures. 

• Prioritize actions based on risks and 

costs. 

• Assign key roles and responsibilities 

for plan execution in a manner that 

continues to build interdisciplinary 

and multi-jurisdictional partnerships. 

• Identify and leverage all available 

resources. Make contact with your 

State Administrative Agency responsible 

for your state’s Homeland Security 

Formula Grant. 

• Be consistent with operational security 

requirements and communicate 

the plan to all stakeholders, including 

students, parents and alumni. 

• Conduct periodic exercises of the 

prevention, deterrence and response 

portions of your plan. Use the results 

of these assessments to make revisions 

that address constantly evolving 

challenges and realities. 

Conclusion 

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 

Johns Hopkins University and the Mid- 

Atlantic Regional Community Policing Institute 

recently conducted the National 

Summit on Campus Public Safety: Strategies 

for Colleges and Universities in a 

Homeland Security Environment. A consensus 

theme throughout the Summit was 





Bombings at Hebrew University, and Peking 

and Tsinghua Universities, as well as 

incidents of domestic terrorism directed at 

campuses in this country validate 

congressional testimony by FBI Director 

Mueller that our colleges and universities 

are “soft targets” for terrorism 

(February 2003). 

that campus public safety was being performed 

in an increasingly complex environment 

even before 9/11. With the added 

challenges associated with homeland security, 

the complexity of the environment 

has never been greater. All of us share a 

commitment to meeting these challenges 

because our system of higher education 

is a potent symbol of democracy. 

Palma auto boot pu last page 35 

About the Authors 

C. Suzanne Mencer was nominated by 

President George W. Bush and subsequently 

confirmed by the United States 

Senate in September 2003 as Director of 

the Office for Domestic Preparedness. 

Prior to this appointment, Ms. Mencer 

was the Executive Director of the Colorado 

Department of Public Safety and a 

member of the Columbine Review Commission. 

Ms. Mencer is a 20-year veteran 

of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Michael Lynch retired as a Lieutenant 

from the Baltimore County Police Department 

in 1999. He is currently Chief of 

Police at George Mason University, which 

has three campuses and a department 

of 50 sworn officers nationally accredited 

by CALEA. 

Contributing Author 

Jeff Allison served with the Maryland 

State Police and the Aurora, Colorado 

Police Department before joining the U.S. 

Department of Justice in 1985. While at 

Justice, Jeff headed the department’s fatality 

assistance program for the fami- 

lies of fallen public safety officers and 

was the national director of the Police 

Corps Program. He was appointed to his 

current position as Assistant Director for 

Training in the Office for Domestic Preparedness 

in December 2001, and is now 

on special assignment with the FBI Office 

of Law Enforcement Coordination. 

Acknowledgements 

The U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security acknowledges and expresses its 

appreciation to the following campus 

public safety executives for their vision 

and dedication to homeland security: 

Oliver J. Clark, Director of Public Safety/ 

Chief of Police, University of Illinois; 

Dolores Stafford, Chief of Police, The 

George Washington University; Scott 

Doner, Director of Public Safety, Valdosta 

State University; Kenneth A. Willett, 

Director of Public Safety, University of 

Montana; Noel March, Director of Public 

Safety, University of Maine; Dr. Gary 

Margolis, Chief of Police, University of 

Vermont; Steven Healy, Director of Public 

Safety, Princeton University; Ray Thrower, 

Director of Safety and Security, Gustavus 

Adolphus College; Sue Riseling, Associate 

Vice President/Chancellor of Public Safety, 

University of Wisconsin; Asa Boynton, 

Associate Vice President, Office of Security 

Preparedness, University of Georgia; John 

Carpenter, Chief of Police, San Diego State 

University; Ken Goodwin, Director of 

Public Safety, Portland Community 

College. 

Notes 

1. In March 2003, the Office for Domestic 

Preparedness (ODP) transferred from the 

U.S. Department of Justice to the Department 

of Homeland Security, and was subsequently 

renamed the Office of State and 

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness 

(OSLGCP). 

References 

Boston Consortium for Higher Education, “Data, 

Dialogue, Decision Making: Disaster Planning 

for Higher Education,” Learning History, 

November 2002. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Campus Law Enforcement 

Agencies 1995,” National Criminal 

Justice Reference Service, December 

1996. 

Mueller, Robert S., “Prepared Statement Before 

the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,” 

February 2003. 





Campus Public Safety Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Terrorism Protective Measures 

There are approximately 4,000 Title IV institutions of postsecondary 

education in the United States serving 15 million 

students, and several million faculty, staff and visitors. According 

to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are roughly 30,000 

campus police and security officers protecting these institutions 

and individuals. 

Within available resources, and consistent with each college 

or university’s policies, procedures and governing philosophy, 

consideration may be given to the affirmative steps listed below 

to prevent, deter or effectively respond to a weapons of 

mass destruction terrorist attack. These steps may be calibrated 

to local, state or national alert levels. 

Prevention 

• Establish a working relationship with the Supervisory Agent 

in Charge of your nearest FBI field office, the regional Joint 

Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), as well as state and local 

officials to help ensure your timely receipt of threat information. 

• Consider assigning officers as liaisons with international student 

groups on your campus. In addition to potentially 

eliciting lifesaving information, the officer(s) may serve to 

build trust and allay fears among international students. 

Deterrence 

• Establish a management team responsible for directing the 

implementation of your campus emergency operations 

plan. 

• Immediately review your emergency operations plan, terrorism 

incident annex and mutual aid agreements with your 

management team, command staff and jurisdictional partners. 

Ascertain the need for immediate staff training. 

• The review of your emergency operations plan with jurisdictional 

partners should include a discussion of potential 

assets the campus can provide on its own behalf and that 

of the community in the event of an incident occurring 

outside the campus. Consider assigning a campus public 

safety liaison to the local Emergency Operations Center 

(EOC). 

• Review leave policies and standard operating procedures 

for reassignment of plainclothes officers to uniform to enhance 

visibility and coverage of vulnerable areas. 

• Update your most recent risk assessment inventory. 

• Increase physical checks of critical facilities during periods 

of increased alert. 

• Establish a single point of access for each critical facility 

and institute 100% identification checks. 

• Limit public access to critical facilities and consider escort 

procedures for authorized persons. 

• Increase administrative inspections of persons and their 

possessions entering critical facilities. 

• Increase administrative inspections of vehicles and their 

contents. 

• Assess adequacy of video monitoring. 

• Assess adequacy of physical barriers outside sensitive buildings 

and proximity of parking. 

• Ensure adequacy of your emergency alert and communication 

system for students, faculty, staff and visitors. 

• Review your parent communication and reunification plan, 

and then educate all stakeholders. 

Special Notes 

The suggestions set forth above are offered only to guide and 

inform your public safety planning efforts. They are not intended 

to be exhaustive, or to supercede federal, state, local or 

campus statutes, regulations or policies. 

More detailed guidelines have been provided to your campus 

public safety executive. 

The Office for Domestic Preparedness, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, gratefully acknowledges input from the 

following sources: 

• International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators 

(IACLEA) 

• The IACLEA Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference 

• The College and University Policing Section, International 

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 

• The Wisconsin Association of Campus Police Chiefs 

• University of Illinois Urbana - Champaign Division of Public 

Safety 

• Valdosta State University Department of Public Safety 

• The George Washington University Police Department 

• McDaniel College Department of Campus Safety 

• University of Maine Department of Public Safety 

• University of Vermont Police Services 

• The iXP Corporation, Campus Public Safety and Security 

• The Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Law Enforcement 

Coordination 

• The U.S. Department of Education 



Awareness of Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Training for the Worst — Hoping You Never Get to Use It 

By Richard W. Lee, Program Specialist, University of Massachusetts – Boston Department of Public Safety 

September 11, 2001 was an attack not 

only on my country but on that sense of 

security that I along with others felt because 

of the distance between us and the 

Middle East where all the “real” problems 

were occurring. I had seen the news on 

the bombings of our embassies and military 

assets in the area. While it was discomforting 

to realize that Americans were 

being killed I could see how it was happening. 

It was like being a police officer 

in my book; you were placing yourself in 

harm’s way for the good of your community 

or country and sometimes you lose 

the battle. I didn’t like it at all but maybe 

in a convoluted way I could understand 

it. September 11, 2001 derailed that chain 

of thought forever for me. 

Sometime after the events of that day 

had been tempered by time I read an 

article in which Army General Tommy 

Franks asked the question, “As an American 

how did you feel September 12, 

2001?” The answers were about what you 

would expect ranging from anger to depression. 

His next question was, “What 

would you do to prevent it or something 

similar from happening again?” The answer 

to that came for me in June 2003 

when I was selected to attend a trainthe-trainer 

program for “Campus Public 

Safety Response to Weapons of Mass 

Destruction.” I was pleased to be able to 

partake of this training because I felt 

deeply the need to contribute to fight 

the war on terrorism. As I watched several 

of our officers get activated by their 

respective military units to serve, I felt 

the need to do something. However I 

find myself too old and out of shape to 

compete in that venue unless the powers 

that felt my presence would incapacitate 

the terrorists by making them laugh 

themselves into oblivion. 

One of the first thoughts that ran 

through my mind as I attended the course 

to become a trainer was how frightening 

the possibility that this training could actually 

be used someday was to me. The 

possibility of a WMD being used even in 

my own campus community didn’t seem 

as farfetched as it would have back when 

I first came on the job. I could remember 

back with almost pleasant nostalgia that 

the biggest fear I had getting out of the 

Police Academy back in 1974 was getting 

shot by some perpetrator of evil 

holding up the local variety store or bookstore. 

However like most young recruits 

I couldn’t wait to get out and use all that 

training. This training I hope to never use. 

When the Congressional 9/11 Commission 

published their report I decided to 

read it. I was struck by a paragraph in the 

Preface that read as follows: “We learned 

about an enemy who is sophisticated, 

patient, disciplined, and lethal. The enemy 

rallies broad support in the Arab 

and Muslim world by demanding redress 

of political grievances, but its hostility 

toward us and our values is limitless. Its 

purpose is to rid the world of religious 

and political pluralism, the plebiscite, and 

equal rights for women. It makes no distinction 

between military and civilian 

targets. Collateral damage is not in its 

lexicon.” After reading that, I was glad to 

be able to get the chance to get the training 

and gain the knowledge. It gave me 

the feeling that I was doing something 

that would help me better protect my 

community. 

The course agenda was straightforward 

and easy to understand. It was not designed 

to make us experts. As the instructors 

told us, the only way you can be an 

expert in these things is to experience 

them. I will fall back on my crime prevention 

training and say I would rather 

be proactive here so we can either prevent 

or mitigate the worst effects of an 

incident rather than reacting to it afterwards. 

We were given knowledge to help 

us recognize a terrorist incident, what the 

possible weapons could be, what defensive 

considerations we could employ, and 

how to best help to contain and control 

the issues arising from the deployment 

of a WMD. 

The terrorist threat section gave us a 

process to help identify potential targets 

in our community and its environs. After 

going through this section you may never 

again take for granted the safe little world 

in which you work. Even as I write this I 

can look out my window at UMass Boston 

across Dorchester Bay to a large liquid 

natural gas tank. When I first got back 

I joked with my office mates that if they 

ever blew that up that tank we would 

have the opportunity to be one of the 

first true satellite campuses in the University 

of Massachusetts system. Unfortunately 

I am told that the class did not 

increase my sense of humor. 



Awareness of Weapons of Mass Destruction 


The next module gave us an overview 

of the concept of the Integrated 

Command System and how it works. 

Many times these concepts are couched 

in mystery terms and the very thought of 

them makes the primary users shy away 

because of their assumed complexity. It’s 

not so in this case; solid, no-nonsense 

examples gave you a firm idea of how it 

would work subject to local quirks. We 

left with the feeling that it could function 

in all jurisdictions with little or no problem. 

In the next module we were given an 

introduction to Weapons of Mass Destruction 

themselves. The who, what, why, 

where, and how, so to speak of how they 

would work if used. It was in this section 

that I began to realize that these weapons, 

while deadly and having the ability 

to cause significant damage, were not the 

city-busters of my youthful nightmares. 

As someone who lived under the threat 

of being disintegrated with about 20 

minute’s notice by a Russian ICBM for approximately 

40 years of my life, these 

weapons, while worthy of a healthy respect 

for their capabilities, do not instill 

the same feeling of helplessness in me. 

It is apparent that with knowledge of 

these systems they can be contained and 

the effects mitigated. 

Personal protection and safety was next 

on the agenda. As we went through it 

was obvious that we could take many 

effective steps to help adequately protect 

ourselves and our communities. Time, 

distance and shielding become a mantra 

for protection in all instances. I do believe 

I actually saw a few instances where 

the use of duct tape might actually work. 

One very important section was the area 

on Critical Incident Stress. Having been 

through a few very stressful incidents in 

my time as a police officer, I could actively 

relate to the need for this. It is the 

one weakness that I see in most preparations 

for this type of incident. We will 

probably be able to identify, manage, and 

cope with the initial incident. Traditionally 

organizations such as ours respond to 

critical incidents with skill and bravery 

during the ongoing incident. We may even 

deal adequately with the initial stress 

symptoms. However I feel that we must 

start to identify programs now to deal with 

the long term effects of Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder that will occur. 

The next part of the presentation was 

a method of dividing a Weapons of Mass 

Destruction Incident into five phases. The 

phases were Prevention/Deterrence, 

Notification, Response, Recovery, and 

Restoration. Prevention and deterrence is 

actually a new step for many public safety 

agencies. Most of the time in the past 

incidents began with notifications and then 

the response began. This training takes it 

up a step and suggests that with proper 

prevention and deterrence activities, incidents 

may be averted. Many of us have 

active crime prevention, and community 

policing programs which stress proactive 

approaches to crime control through training 

and education. There is no reason not 

to apply this to prevention of Weapons 

of Mass Destruction incidents. As in life 

there are no guarantees but an error of 

commission in trying to detect and prevent 

one of these incidents will be a lot 

easier to stomach that an error of omission 

in which you do nothing. Notification, 

the next step in the process, will 

begin after the threat is received or the 

incident occurs. Training stresses choosing 

the correct response which will guide 

your initial actions and help guarantee 

your survival. It also allows you to pass 

along information that will help guide the 

onslaught of emergency services that will 

hopefully start arriving after the determination 

that a WMD has been used. Your 

response will then be guided by four notable 

actions devised to isolate, identify, 

further notify, and protect yourself, community 

and other responders. In these 

sections are other important concepts 

such as media control, crowd control, 

crime scene protection and others too numerous 

to detail here. Recovery and restoration, 

the last two steps, are thought 

provoking, insightful concepts on just what 

it will take to return some sense of normalcy 

to the community and what the 

steps may be towards a period of restoration. 

The last section of the training was 

scenario based. It gave several very plausible 

scenarios. We then had to come up 

with concepts to deal with them. While I 

would like to say we all had happy endings 

in them it was not the case. The very 

nature of these incidents just drove home 

how important training and preparation 

will be in the prevention or in the lessening 

of the harmful impact should an incident 

occur. 

The training offers the opportunity for 

campus law enforcement to step up to 

the plate and be proactive protectors of 

their communities. It allows us to fulfill 

our nontraditional role by being educators 

by providing information and training 

that could be of great benefit to the 

communities in which we work. It also 

follows the advice of one very crusty, 

cranky instructor I had in the academy 

back in the dawn of time who drummed 

the “5 P” rule into our heads: “Prior Planning 

Prevents Poor Performance.” It was 

true then and it’s true now. Last of all I 

would like to express my deepest thanks 

to Don Kelly from Baton Rouge Police 

Department and Tom Fitzpatrick from 

Buffalo Fire Department, instructors par 

excellence, from the Louisiana State 

University Academy of Counter-Terrorist 

Education who coupled with IACLEA sponsored 

this training. Their insights and experiences 

were invaluable in getting the 

point across to us. 

About the Author 

Richard W. Lee currently holds the position 

of Program Specialist with the 

UMass Boston Department of Public 

Safety, reporting to the Director of Public 

Safety. In this position he oversees the 

areas of Crime Prevention, Crime Analysis 

& Mapping, Public Information, and 

Sponsored Projects. He is a 30-year veteran 

of campus law enforcement. A 

graduate of Northeastern University with 

a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice, 

he also holds a Paralegal Certificate 

from UMass Lowell. Rich also is a commissioner 

on the Massachusetts Neighborhood 

Crime Watch Commission, a 

member of the MACLEA Crime Prevention 

Training committee, and Treasurer 

of the New England Community Police 

Consortium (NECP2). He is married to 

another UMass officer, Susan Lee. They 

have two daughters 20 and 18 years old 

and a son 2½ years. 


The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices 

(EMDs) in Higher Education Law Enforcement 

By Randy Mingo, University of Central Florida; Ross Wolf, University of Central Florida; Charles Mesloh, Florida Gulf Coast 

University; and Tina Kelchner, University of Central Florida 

Introduction 

Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices 

(EMDs) are a relatively new phenomenon 

in use of force options by police departments 

throughout the United States. The 

majority of agencies only began to issue 

EMDs within the last two to three years. 

With the increased negative publicity 

being produced by police shootings 

across the country, police agencies have 

been seeking a more effective “less-thanlethal” 

force alternative. 

Although EMDs have existed for decades, 

initially police agencies were slow 

to utilize them because of their perceived 

ineffectiveness. However, “…in 1999, 

Taser introduced the Advanced M26, 

promising instant incapacitation without 

injury; its 50,000 volt charge overrides the 

central nervous system, forces muscle 

contraction and is virtually impossible to 

shrug off” (Anglen, 2004). Departments 

across the country saw the increasing use 

of the Taser by fellow agencies and began 

to purchase them by the truckload. 

Stock for Taser has been soaring, rising 

from a selling price of $2 per share in 

2002, to $40 per share in 2004 after a 

peak of $60 per share (Anglen, 2004; 

Berenson, 2004). 

More recently, EMDs available on the 

market today have drawn both criticism 

and accolades from law enforcement, 

politicians, newspapers, and public forums. 

The most commonly utilized EMD 

on the market today is the Taser. Taser 

International, Inc. repeatedly emphasizes 

that their less-than-lethal weapon saves 

lives; yet in story after story in the local 

and national news, citizens are bombarded 

with information on the danger of police 

delivering a powerful electric shock 

(Anglen, 2004). 

The use of EMDs on children and the 

elderly by police has caused serious controversy 

and anger. Additionally, Amnesty 

International and the Arizona Republic 

newspaper have questioned deaths following 

EMD deployments throughout the 

United States as excessive uses of force. 

In response to these issues, Taser International, 

Inc. issued a press release: “Concerns 

have persisted over the safety of 

Taser’s weapons, despite a recent report 

by the Department of Defense that 

Taser’s devices were probably not the 

primary cause of some reported deaths 

of individuals in custody” (CNN.com, 

2004). Repeatedly, medical examinations 

throughout the country have pointed at 

other causes for death on “Tased” suspects. 

In July 2004, Orange-Osceola Medical 

Examiner Dr. Jan Garavajlia reported 

to the Orange County (Florida) Taser Task 

Force that “the common factor in the 

deaths reported seems to be the excited 

state of the individual being shot by the 

[EMD]…Excited delirium is becoming increasingly 

recognized, and has been detected 

with patients with mental disorders, 

taking antidepressant medications, 

and in psychotic patients who have 

stopped taking their medication” (Orange 

County Sheriff’s Office). 

In an Amnesty International report in 

2004, over 5,000 law enforcement agencies 

in the United States were reported 

to be deploying or testing EMDs. Amnesty 

International reports that forty-three states 

have “few or no restrictions on the possession 

of stun weapons by members of 

the public for private use” (2004, p. 3), 

therefore making EMDs legal for use by 

the general public. 

In 1997, there were nearly 700 campus 

police agencies in the United States, 

employing over 43,000 sworn personnel 

with organizational structures mirroring 

those of municipal agencies (Paoline & 

Sloan, 2003). With campus police agencies 

mirroring their municipal counterparts, 

many of these agencies also began 

issuing EMDs to their officers. As a national 

trend, “administrators in higher education 

are facing the reality that campuses 

are no longer havens from crime” (Mesloh 

and Wolf, 2003, p. 26). Due to the individual 

campus politics, leadership goals, 

community input, and the legal environment 

of law enforcement in each state 

(Wolf, 2001; Paoline & Sloan, 2003), 

agencies must examine if the use of EMDs 



The Use of Electro-Magnetic Disruption Devices (EMDs) in Higher Education Law Enforcement 


on their campus is a constructive decision. 

Many agencies have found, however, 

that this less-than-lethal alternative can 

have a positive impact on officer injuries, 

suspect injuries, and the reduced use of 

deadly force. 

Case Study 

The University of Central Florida (UCF) 

is a sprawling campus, located in Orlando, 

Florida, of over 13,000 acres. There are 

also over 5,000 bed spaces in affiliated 

campus housing located off the main campus. 

There are over 127 permanent buildings 

on campus, 35 portable buildings, 

with an additional six structures under 

construction. In 2004, the enrollment approached 

44,000 students, making UCF 

the tenth largest university in the country. 

Growth has been manageable, but 

this rapid expansion presents problems 

for the police, including reduced response 

rates for calls for service. Officers also 

have found that they are unable to respond 

as quickly to assist other officers. 

As a solution to address officer and public 

safety concerns, EMDs were introduced 

as a viable tool for the UCF Police Department 

(UCFPD) as a less-than-lethal 

alternative. 

Prior to the implementation of EMDs, 

UCFPD officers have had two other intermediate 

weapons available on their 

duty belts. These options have included 

Oleoresin Capsicum (OC), or “pepper 

spray,” and the expandable baton. While 

OC spray is used widely throughout the 

United States, it is also not without controversy. 

For example, in December 

2004, the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

reached a tentative settlement for 

$500,000 with the family of a suspect 

who died after being sprayed with pepper 

spray (Wallman, 2004). UCF police 

officers, in proper use of force situations, 

have utilized both of these alternatives, 

and both are still issued to officers. When 

deciding to issue EMDs to UCFPD officers, 

administrators realized that with EMD 

technology available, there had been a 

gap in their use of force matrix and ability 

to respond to suspect actions. After 

considerable research, the decision was 

made to add EMDs as an additional lessthan-lethal 

alternative for police officers 

in the field. 

The University of Central Florida Police 

Department placed an order in June 

2003 for forty M-26 Tasers with laser 

sights, and forty K351-M26W high ride 

cross draw holsters with spare cartridge 

holders. Additionally, the department 

purchased 160 15' and 160 21' air cartridges 

for training and for issue to the 

officers. The purchase also included 

“smart” battery chargers for each officer. 

The start-up cost for these forty EMDs 

was $29,972, equating to approximately 

$749 for each officer. The projected recurring 

costs are minimal. 

A unique feature of the M-26 is the 

data port; this permits downloading of 

information regarding use of the Taser 

including time of discharge, duration of 

discharge, and number of discharges. 

Qualified UCFPD firearms and defensive 

tactics instructors were selected to attend 

Taser Instructor classes. During the eighthour 

training session for UCFPD officers, 

participants were permitted to fire three 

test cartridges and each officer was afforded 

the opportunity to be “Tased.” 

Nearly all departmental personnel volunteered 

and some officers volunteered to 

demonstrate the Taser effect as many as 

three times. Though each officer was not 

forced to take part, the value of training 

officers on rapid recovery was stressed, 

should they become accidentally or intentionally 

incapacitated by the Taser in a 

situation. The officers who volunteered to 

be Tased have gained a 

clear understanding of the 

weapon’s defensive abilities. 

UCFPD Emergency 

Response Team members 

also were issued Tasers 

with a mounting clip designed 

and manufactured 

by Advanced Research 

Solutions which mounts 

the Taser to a Remington 

870 shotgun. The ERT 

team carries these shotguns 

loaded with bean bag shot 

to provide two less-thanlethal 

alternatives as 

needed for dynamic entries 

or other confrontations. 

Community Concerns 

Mesloh and Hougland (2004) were quick 

to point out the importance of working 

with the community in developing policies 

regarding use of force. This includes 

discussion of perceived negatives as well 

as the potential positives involved in the 

deployment of EMDs by the police. The 

UCFPD understood the need to make the 

campus community aware of the new 

policies concerning EMDs. To inform the 

university community and off-campus citizens, 

an article was released in the student 

newspaper, interviews were granted 

with the departmental Public Information 

Officer, and officers were advised to answer 

all questions presented by curious 

students about the device. 

Because the department has been concerned 

with student reactions to police 

procedures, the UCFPD’s annual survey 

of student perceptions included numerous 

questions related to the use of force. 

In 2003 and 2004 these survey results 

rated the UCFPD’s use of Tasers on campus 

as favorable in comparison to other 

intermediate less-than-lethal alternatives. 

In the 2004 survey, for example, students 

were asked to respond to various lessthan-lethal 

force options by the police. 

On this survey, one question asked students 

to indicate where each weapon or 

use of force would be appropriate in the 

following scenario: “A suspect violently 


Figure 1 




resists arrest and attempts to injure law 

enforcement officers. How appropriate 

are the following responses on the part 

of the police?” Each student was then 

given a 9 point Likert-type scale to reply 

for each listed officer response, with 1 

being “very appropriate,” and 9 being 

“very inappropriate.” The use of a Taser 

was rated as 3.66, while use of baton, 

beanbag, chokehold, and strike with the 

hand all rated higher. The only response 

by the officer that students rated as more 

appropriate than the Taser was the use of 

“mace” or “pepper spray” (see Figure 1). 

On the other hand, UCFPD administrators 

knew that the campus community 

was not acting in a vacuum. Local sheriff’s 

departments and police departments 

were also adopting the use of EMDs by 

patrol officers. Local newspapers were 

quick to report on use of EMD incidents, 

and the Orange County Sheriff’s office 

experienced several in-custody deaths 

after the use of an EMD. None of these 

deaths, however, were determined by 

medical examiners to be shock-induced. 

This alone, however, led to an increase 

in concern by the community regarding 

the use of these weapons. 

Communities may also be interested 

in additional information available on 

EMDs. Police departments have reported 

a significant fall in police shootings following 

the introduction of EMDs to officers’ 

less-than-lethal alternatives. According 

to Amnesty International (2004), the 

Phoenix (Arizona) Police Department “announced 

that officer-involved shootings 

had fallen by 54% from 28 in 2002 to 13 

in 2003, with fatal shootings down from 

13 to 9 during the same period, the lowest 

number since 1990.” Amnesty International 

is quick to point out, however, 

that they feel that police in the United 

States overuse and abuse EMDs. 

Agencies should also consider several policy 

issues when deciding whether or not to 

implement use of EMDs on their campus. 

Justifications for Use 

Documented UCFPD use of force reports 

indicate that the Taser (June 2003-December 

2003) had been discharged by 

the police department six times, and each 

was found to be in accordance with policy. 

In addition, there were (June 2003-December 

2003) twelve “non-activated deployments” 

(where the Taser was removed 

from the holster, laser activated, 

and pointed at a suspect but not discharged). 

In the entire 2004 calendar year 

(January-December), there were three 

discharges and five non-activated deployments. 

So far for 2005 (January data only), 

one discharge has taken place. 

In examination of UCFPD use of force 

reports, from implementation in 2003 to 

January 2005, officers were justified to 

use deadly force in several situations (for 

example when officers confront suspects 

armed with knives and crowbars). The 

use of force reports also indicated that 

these suspects tended to be intoxicated 

by alcohol and/or drugs, and several had 

mental illness related problems. The officers 

involved in these scenarios opted 

to use the EMD in these circumstances, 

possibly sparing a life they otherwise may 

have legally taken. 

The trend delineated in the UCFPD 

reports, regarding EMDs, has been the 

combination of strong verbal commands 

accompanied with a warning of deployment, 

and laser contact (amber laser connection 

from EMD to the suspect). This 

resulted in suspect compliance nearly 

50% of the time, and the EMD not having 

to be discharged. The value of the 

EMD as a deterrent weapon has become 

vastly recognized in the UCF community, 

due to both UCFPD and local agency use. 

Policy Implications and Conclusion 

When discussing policy issues, it is imperative 

to note that the UCFPD initially 

placed EMDs at level 3 (active physical 

resistance) on the use of force continuum; 

repeatedly stressing to officers that presence 

and strong verbal commands are still 

the best practice for compliance. Examination 

of the UCFPD records indicate that 

the 2003 implementation of EMDs into 

the less-than-lethal force alternatives for 

police officers saw a reduction in the use 

of OC spray and near zero use of the 

expandable baton. 

In late 2004, Orlando area law enforcement 

agencies made a consolidated stand 

to place EMDs at level 4 (active physical 

resistance). This change was a result of 

numerous negative media and public concerns 

regarding EMD use and in-custody 

deaths following discharge. Though these 

incidents were not related to UCF, area 

complaints were waged by citizens against 

EMD use in situations involving very 

young and very old suspects. Understanding 

that negative media events may affect 

community relations is imperative 

when considering EMD use on a college 

campus, even when a deployment decision 

may have been rationally sound. 

In UCFPD’s incorporation of Tasers 

into their use of force policy, local Emergency 

Medical Technicians (EMT) units 

were consulted for recommendations 

regarding the removal of “barbs” from 

Tased suspects. It was determined that 

the removal of Taser barbs from a suspect 

can be conducted by the officer by 

spreading the skin with the thumb and 

index finger and pulling out the barb. EMTs 

should be summoned to the scene for barb 

removal only if the barbs strike critical areas 

(any location in the head or groin). 

The UCFPD policy also requires that 

daily inspections (at shift briefings) are 

conducted on each issued Taser to ensure 

that the recommended battery charge 

is maintained. This act is now an inspection 

routine. Additionally, the department 

felt that it did not make sense to issue 

Tasers only to supervisors (who were the 

least likely to need an immediate less-thanlethal 

force alternative), so Tasers were issued 

to all sworn officers. In addition, 

UCFPD has not issued Tasers to non-sworn 

Community Service Officers (CSOs). 

If the EMD is utilized in the field, in a 

use of force situation, university police 

department policy requires that the Taser 

be immediately given to the Training 

Sergeant. A written computer download 

record must also accompany each use of 

force report completed by the officer 

who discharged the device. This procedure 

may assist in liability reduction and 

acts as a record to assure officers compliance 

and citizen safety from claims of 

brutality. Officers’ must then submit the 

spent cartridge to procurement in order 

to receive a replacement. 





Agencies should also consider several 

policy issues when deciding whether or 

not to implement use of EMDs on their 

campus. One issue is that smaller officers 

may have to remove other less-than-lethal 

alternatives from the duty belt. It may 

be difficult for all equipment to be worn 

comfortably and be readily accessible with 

the addition of a duty weapon, firearm 

magazines, EMD spare cartridge magazines, 

radio, handcuffs, biohazard equipment 

(rubber gloves/CPR mask), belt 

keepers, key rings and cell phone. Although 

any equipment removed from the 

duty belt should be stored in the officer’s 

patrol vehicle, it becomes less readily 

accessible in situations which may require 

its use. 

Throughout the United States, many 

agency and higher education administrators 

are considering the use of EMDs. 

Administrators and police management 

should consider the valuable law enforcement 

tools available that may have a place 

in university and college environments. 

Liabilities involved with any use of force 

device are always present, but can be 

PU for MITI 

pu last issue page 5 

minimized by policy compliance, standard 

operating procedures, proper training, an 

informed public, consequences for misuse, 

and responsible feedback from the 

community. Positive results, such as reduced 

injuries to officers and suspects, 

may outweigh negative concerns. 

About the Authors 

Randy Mingo is assistant director of police 

and police major for the University 

of Central Florida Police Department. 

Major Mingo is also an adjunct professor 

with the UCF Department of Criminal Justice 

and Legal Studies. Of interest to this 

article, Major Mingo has volunteered to 

be “Tased” three times and supports operational 

use of EMDs as a police tool. 

Ross Wolf is an assistant professor and 

coordinator of Criminal Justice at the University 

of Central Florida in Orlando and 

holds a Doctorate in Higher Education 

Administration and Educational Leadership. 

He has over thirteen years of experience 

as a law enforcement officer 

and has worked various assignments including 

Patrol and Criminal Investiga- 

tions. Dr. Wolf continues to serve as a 

Police Academy Instructor and as a Chief 

with the Orange County Sheriff’s Office 

Reserve Unit. 

Charles Mesloh is an assistant professor 

and Director of the Institute for Technological 

Innovation and Research at 

Florida Gulf Coast University, which specializes 

in less-lethal weapons research. 

He holds a Doctorate in Public Affairs 

and has twelve years of experience as a 

law enforcement officer. Dr. Mesloh holds 

instructor certifications in most lesslethal 

weapons and is currently involved 

in the development of new less lethal technology 

and training methods. 

Tina Kelchner is a graduate research 

assistant in the Criminal Justice master’s 

degree program at the University of Central 

Florida. She has focused her research 

on police use of force and discretionary 

decision-making in law enforcement. 

References 

Anglen, R. A. (July 18, 2004) Taser safety claim 

questioned. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved 

December 9, 2004, from http:// 

azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/ 

0718taser-main18-CP.html 

Amnesty International (2004) USA: Excessive and 

lethal force? Amnesty International’s concerns 

about deaths and ill-treatment involving 

police use of Tasers. 

Berenson, A. (July 18, 2004) Taser injuries: As 

police use of Tasers rises, questions over 

safety increase. Wound-Ballistics.com. Retrieved 

December 7, 2004, from http:// 

www.wound-ballistics.com 

CNN.com (November 30, 2004) Taser responds 

to Amnesty’s claims. Retrieved December 

9, 2004, from http://money.com/2004/11/ 

30/news/midcaps/taser.reut/ 

Paoline, E. and Sloan, J. (2003) Variability in 

the organizational structure of contemporary 

campus law enforcement agencies: A 

national-level analysis. Policing: An International 

Journal of Police Strategies and 

Management, 26(4). 

Mesloh, C. and Wolf, R. (2003) The use of canines 

in higher education law enforcement: 

An examination of policies and procedures. 

Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 33 (6), 

26-29. 

Orange County Sheriff’s Office, Florida (July 

28, 2004) TASER task force medical findings. 

Report available from the Orange 

County Sheriff’s Office, 2500 West Colonial 

Drive, Orlando FL. 

Wallman, B. (December 16, 2004) $500,000 is 

offered to family of man who died from 

police spray. Sun Sentinel. 


IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City — 

Everything You Expect and More 

Kansas City is just like the food it’s famous 

for: spicy, sizzling, casual and 

friendly. It has everything you expect to 

find in a major metropolitan city — worldclass 

hotels, professional sports, full-gaming 

casinos, a fabulous zoo, top-notch 

museums, live theater, great places to eat 

and shop, and interesting places to relax 

and have fun. 

IACLEA’s 47th Annual Conference and 

Exposition in Kansas City has everything 

you expect to find — great hotel, first 

class workshops and speakers, networking, 

socializing… 

Kansas City 

Hyatt Regency Crown Center 

The Hyatt Regency Crown Center sets 

the standard for Kansas City hotels. The 

newly renovated hotel is connected to 

the Crown Center Exhibit Hall and just 

minutes from downtown Kansas City, the 

Country Club Plaza, and nearby theaters 

and dining. It is connected by an enclosed 

walkway to the Crown Center, an office 

and shopping complex, and is adjacent 

to Science City at Union Station and the 

Kansas City convention center, Bartle Hall. 

There’s plenty to keep you occupied 

at the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Crown 

Center with a heated, all-season, outdoor, 

freeform pool with sundeck; whirlpool and 

sauna in health club; complimentary 

health club for all guests, with access to 

climate-controlled pool and fully equipped 

fitness area offering free weights, exercise 

cycles, steppers, stair climbers and 

rowers; nearby Crown Center that connects 

you by glass enclosed walkway to 

IACLEA’s 47th Annual Conference and 

Exposition in Kansas City has everything you 

expect to find — great hotel, first class 

workshops and speakers, networking, 

socializing… 

more than 80 shops and restaurants, two 

live theaters, movie theater and ice skating 

and the international headquarters of 

Hallmark Cards, Inc., featuring Kaleidoscope, 

Hallmark’s free creative workshop 

for kids ages 5 to 12, and Hallmark Visitors 

Center, offering 85 years of Hallmark 

history. 

Workshops 

The Clery Act: Department of Education 

Compliance Handbook Review 

presented by Dolores Stafford will 

focus on a four-hour review of the new 

Clery Act Compliance Handbook developed 

by the U.S. Department of Education. 

The DOEd will distribute the handbook 

to each institution as soon as it is 

completed, but the goal of this training 

program is to provide information contained 

in the new handbook and to clarify 

requirements of the Clery Act that campuses 

have struggled with over the years. 

U.S. Department of Education representatives 

have been invited to participate 

in this training session and IACLEA is 

looking forward to the addition of these 

experts to assist in conducting this training 

program. 

Copies of the final compliance handbook 

(or the last available draft version 

of the handbook) will be distributed as a 

handout for this training session. Please 

note: there will only be one copy per 

attendee of the handouts and handbook 

for those people who pre-register for this 

session. No extra handouts will be available 

during or after the conference. 

This session is free to conference attendees 

but you must complete the separate 

registration form for this session in 

order to receive the handbook. The information 

and registration form are at 

http://www.iaclea.org/conf/05index.htm 

The IACLEA Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Awareness Course for first 

responders will be presented on Tuesday, 

June 28 from 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. 

This eight-hour course is designed for all 

campus public safety personnel who 

could participate in a response to a WMD 

incident. Regardless of your rank or job 

title, this course provides important, up 

to date information on WMD preparedness. 

There is no fee to attend the training. 

Upon successful completion participants 

will receive a certificate of attendance 

and documentation for continuing 

education units from Louisiana State University. 

The presentation includes properties 

of, effects of, and methods of delivery/ 

dispersal of potential WMD weapons. It 

addresses priorities for protection of persons, 

environment and property during 

WMD incidents. Specifically, it includes 

discussion of procedures that campus 

public safety personnel can implement 

to protect themselves and others as well 

Continued on page 35 



IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City — Everything You Expect and More 


as describing decontamination procedures 

appropriate for WMD events. 

The course is being funded by a grant 

from the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness. 

The curriculum was developed by 

Louisiana State University and Agricultural 

and Mechanical College (LSU) and the International 

Association of Campus Law Enforcement 

Administrators (IACLEA). 

The Campus Avenger: Workplace 

Violence will be presented by Dr. John 

Nicoletti, Police Psychologist, Nicoletti- 

Flater Associates and Dr. Sally Spencer- 

Thomas, Director, Leadership Development 

and Behavioral Health Promotion, 

Regis University. After attending this session 

participants should be able to develop 

a basic understanding of the different 

dynamics of workplace violence 

prevalent for colleges and universities; 

appreciate why colleges are vulnerable 

targets for workplace violence; explore 

the phases of action related to workplace 

violence and develop corresponding intervention 

responses; and develop a basic 

understanding of effective threat assessment 

and disaster management techniques. 

The presenters will discuss workplace 

violence cases on college campuses 

and discuss why campuses are vulnerable. 

They will provide intervention techniques 

and time to discuss issues on your campus. 

Legal Liability and Campus Suicide 

Case Update is presented by Peter Lake, 

Esq. and Professor, Stetson University 

College of Law. It will include recent developments 

in the law regarding suicide 

and self inflicted injury and updates on 

student wellness, policy initiatives and 

university liability trends. 

Don Awles, a consultant for the National 

Tactical Officers Association, will 

present Campus Violent Critical Incidents: 

Planning and First Response. 

This session will address the law enforcement 

response to a threat from a lone 

individual or a group and the focus will 

be on the roles of university law enforcement 

officers and university security officers 

as first responders. Emphasis will 

be placed on active shooter and destructive 

device response. Participants in this 

workshop will leave with an understanding 

of the sources and types of threats of 

In times of critical incidents, small CSU 

police departments needed to rely on local 

law enforcement agencies or borrow 

officers from any of the 22 CSU 

departments. 

mass violence. They will possess an overview 

of planning and response options 

that will help them in the prevention of, 

planning for, and response to acts of mass 

violence. You will be shown tools and 

resources that could assist in mitigating 

threats and minimizing casualties should 

such an attack occur. Topics to be discussed 

include a brief history of violent 

critical incidents at colleges and universities; 

current and future threats; interagency 

cooperation; site surveys and essential elements 

of information; planning and 

preparation; recommended procedures 

and equipment; active shooters; suicide 

bombers; and rapid deployment/immediate 

action/instant response. 

Strategies for Addressing Racial 

and Ethnic Tensions or Conflict on 

Campus will be presented by Shari Freeman, 

Director, Community Relations Service, 

U.S. Department of Justice. Ms. Freeman 

will focus particularly on CRS training 

on Arab, Muslim, and Sikh-American 

cultural awareness, providing a short video 

training presentation to help law enforcement 

personnel when interacting with 

university students who are members of 

these respective communities. The program 

was developed to address growing 

tensions and disruptions throughout the 

country following the attacks of September 

11, 2001. Through this presentation, 

campus law enforcement officials will 

learn of different strategies to avoid or 

address racial conflict or violence on campus. 

Moreover, they will gain a basic cultural 

understanding of the practices and 

protocols of Arab, Muslim, and Sikh communities, 

which will help officers serve 

the entire campus community better. 

Learn how to effectively manage interviews 

to get the type of information 

you need to make successful hiring decisions 

by attending Getting the Right 

People on the Bus — Using Targeted 

Selection to Attract and Select Top 

Performers presented by Steven Healy, 

Chief of Police, Princeton University. Participants 

will be exposed to the Targeted 

Selection Strategy, which recommends a 

multi-tiered process that is both affordable 

and effective. Attendees will review 

the universally accepted “dimensions” for 

law enforcement positions and learn how 

to uncover appropriate evidence of the 

presence of these dimensions through 

behavioral interviewing. The workshop 

will also cover planning and administering 

Targeted Simulations, using the assessment 

center methodology. 

Jackie McClain, Vice Chancellor for 

Human Resources, California State University 

System, Office of the Chancellor; 

Commander Kirk Gaston, San Francisco 

State University Police; and Lt. Bob 

McManus, Asst. Commander, San Diego 

State University will provide an overview 

of human resources issues, training, tactical 

command and policy issues during 

their workshop: Development of a 

Multi Agency Tactical Team. The California 

State University System consists of 

23 separate campuses with 22 police 

departments. The smallest police department 

consists of 12 sworn officers and 

the largest, 33 officers. In times of critical 

incidents, small CSU police departments 

needed to rely on local law enforcement 

agencies or borrow officers from any of 

the 22 CSU departments. The 50 sworn 

police officer tactical team referred to as 

the Critical Response Unit was formed 

from officers from 22 CSU campuses, creating 

a highly trained and skilled tactical 

unit that responds to CSU natural disasters, 

crowd control and dignitary protection 

events. 

Hoping to form a coalition between 

the NCAA and IACLEA, Rachel Newman, 

Assistant Director of Agent, Gambling and 

Amateurism Activities, National Collegiate 

Athletic Association will present Sports 

Wagering on College Campuses. This 

session will focus on the issues of gambling 

and sports wagering and provide 

information regarding the role of the 

Agent, Gambling and Amateurism Activities 

staff within the NCAA structure. The 

results of the NCAA’s 2003 National Study 


MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 35

Arson 

Assault 

Vandalism 

Intoxication 

Theft 

INCIDENTS HAPPEN… 

KNOW… 

What’s happening… and where. 

Who’s involved… and how. 

• Limit liability. 

• Control insurance costs. 

• Ensure compliance with the Clery Act. 

TOLL FREE 1-888-776-9776 

www.ppm2000.com 

IRIMS ® —Incident Reporting & Investigation Management Software 


IACLEA’s Annual Conference in Kansas City — Everything You Expect and More 

Continued from page 35 

on Collegiate Sports Wagering and Associated 

Health Risks will be presented. 

The goal of Closed Circuit Television: 

Policies, Procedures and Partnerships 

that Can Lead to Acceptance 

of CCTV on Campus presented 

by Frederick Gardy, Assistant Chief of 

Police, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and 

Owen Yardly, Chief of Police, University 

of Nebraska-Lincoln is to generate feedback 

that can be used to create an operational 

model for CCTV supported by 

IACLEA. The presentation will develop 

understanding of the issues you will face 

when implementing policies presented 

that can assist you when considering a 

CCTV network. Discussion will include 

implementation of policies and procedures 

that standardize equipment; address 

faculty, staff and student concerns over 

privacy issues; ensure functionality and 

expandability; and produce evidentiary 

quality videos. The full range of considerations 

affecting the decision to implement 

CCTV will be discussed with special 

attention given to the brief history of 

CCTV, purchasing committees, vendor 

selection, CCTV networking, systems integration, 

purchasing standards, operational 

standards, and legal standards. 

Community Service Officer Program 

will be presented by Barry 

Roberson, Chief of Police, Rutgers University 

and Commander Daniel Pascale, 

Rutgers University. They will provide an 

overview of the extensive student CSO 

program at Rutgers University. Assignments 

include mounted patrol, escorts, 

transportation, bus security, CCTV monitoring, 

first aid/CPR certifications, CERT 

and crime scene preservation. 

Julie Friend, Project Director, Office of 

Study Abroad, Michigan State University, 

and Inspector Mary Johnson, Michigan 

State University Police Department will 

discuss the creation of an Incident Command 

Team for High-level University 

Officials to address long-term crisis abroad 

in Students, Faculty and Staff in Crisis 

Abroad. They will walk participants 

through the steps necessary to create a 

coordinated effort between the Study 

Abroad and Police Department that includes 

training police cadets and Study 

Abroad staff to respond to hotline calls 

and questions. Presenters will distribute 

sample intake forms and response procedures. 

Additional presentations include: 

• Accreditation Overview and Accreditation 

Manager Training 

(see page 7 for details); 

• Campus Domestic Violence 

Training presented by Malcolm 

Adams, Division Chief of the National 

Center for Law Enforcement Training; 

• Random Actor Violence Prevention 

by Dan Korem, Korem and Associates; 

• Developing and Understanding 

Diversity Training for Public 

Safety Employees by Eric Cook, 

University of Illinois, Urbana- 

Champaign and Vanessa Horsman, 

University of Illinois, Urbana- 

Champaign. 

Check out the Weapons of Mass 

Destruction Awareness training 

classes being offered by IACLEA 

at www.iaclea.org. Click on 

Awareness Training/WMD to locate 

a class near you or contact 

Project Director Tom Hogarty, 

thogarty@iaclea.org 

Your Campus Relies 

On You For Security... 

Information 

You Can Use! 

All IACLEA members now 

have access to a searchable 

resource database that includes 

publications, previously 

published Campus Law Enforcement 

Journal articles, 

and links to other helpful Web 

sites. Check it out in the 

Members Only area of the 

IACLEA Web site. 


...When you Need Help, Rely on Us 

FOG ADVISORS, LLC 

Security Management Consultants 

(630) 563-9701 

www.fogadvisors.com 

Providing expert security assistance to campus security experts 


President’s Message 


bring them to—as the information will be 

hot off the press! It will be an in-depth 

four-hour class focusing on the clarifications 

and modifications in the interpretation 

of the law that have been made by 

the Department of Education and are now 

in writing in the new handbook. If you 

haven’t noticed by now, I have now 

mentioned the Annual Conference 

a total of seven times. This is a priceless 

marketing ploy to make sure you 

don’t forget it. See you in Kansas City! 

In 2008, IACLEA will celebrate its 50th 

anniversary. The plan is to start the celebration 

at the end of the Annual Conference 

in 2007 so that we will have a full 

year of celebratory programs and events 

leading up to this once-in-a-lifetime event. 

How good can a regional conference 

be? How about the highly successful 

IACLEA – Southeast Regional Conference 

held in New Orleans, Louisiana? The conference 

started the day after Fat Tuesday 

in the City of Mardi Gras. As one might 

expect, attendance was very good. In 

addition, our host Director Ken Dupaquier, 

Tulane University, ran an excellent program 

of presentations and made everyone 

attending feel like we were locals to 

New Orleans. As we all learned from Ken, 

“laissez les bon temps roulez” (let the 

good times roll). The FBI identity theft 

program and the Taser demonstration program 

were two of best presentations I 

can remember. Thank you Ken 

Dupaquier! 

In November 2004, IACLEA and IACP 

were invited by the U.S. Department of 

Justice COPS Office to convene with a 

group of law enforcement, government 

officials and national educators in Baltimore, 

Maryland to hold a National Summit 

on Campus Public Safety. The event 

was hosted by the Mid-Atlantic Regional 

Community Policing Institute (MARCPI) 

at Johns Hopkins University. IACLEA and 

IACP, University and College Police Section 

were the most prominently represented 

groups. Not to be left out were 

our friends from the Department of 

Homeland Security Office of State and 

Local Government Coordination and 

Preparation. The Summit was facilitated 

by John Firman, IACP Director of Research 

and a final report of the Summit is 

being prepared for the COPS Office by 

Johns Hopkins University’s Division of 

Public Safety Leadership. One of the key 

outcomes of the Summit was the suggestion 

to establish a National Center for Campus 

Public Safety. Such an idea was already 

on the radar within IACLEA; however, 

this type of suggestion and attention 

will move us along at a much quicker 

rate. It really places IACLEA at the cutting 

edge of 21st century campus law enforcement 

and security. I plan to ask for 

Board of Director and Association endorsements 

of the final report and the establishment 

of the National Center for Campus 

Public Safety. 

As a gesture of Association support, I 

submitted a letter of congratulations to 

Judge Michael Chertoff when he was confirmed 

as the new Secretary for U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security and to 

The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales when 

he was confirmed as the new Attorney 

General, U. S. Department of Justice. Both 

of these gentlemen are in critical government 

positions that will have an impact 

on how we conduct business in the field 

of campus public safety. 

I would like to bring to your attention 

an individual from IACLEA that I have 

known for as many years as she has been 

a member. Her name is Susan Riseling 

and she is the Chief of the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison Police Department. 

Why is it important that you get to know 

this individual? Sue will be running for the 

Vice President-at-Large at the 2005 IACP 

conference in Miami. Many of our IACLEA 

members are also members of the University 

and College Section of IACP. 

Whatever we can do to get Sue elected, 

we need to do. Thank you, Susan Riseling 

for always moving the bar higher for our 

membership. 

In December, IACLEA was invited to 

participate in the Department of Homeland 

Security Advisory Committee to the 

National Center for State and Local Law 

Enforcement Training. (see article page 

8) IACLEA is now forging a partnership 

with the National Center to deliver training 

at our Kansas City Conference. We 

are seeking additional opportunities for 

our membership to benefit from training 

offered by the National Center. Malcolm 

Adams, Division Chief, State and Local 

Programs Division has been most helpful 

in this process. Serving as the point position 

for this project was Steve Rittereiser, 

Mountain Pacific Regional Director. Thank 

you Steve for the 150% you give to our 

organization. 

See you in Kansas City! 

Join Us in Kansas City 

for IACLEA’s 

47th Annual Conference 

June 25-29, 2005 

Links to area attractions 

have been posted on the 

IACLEA Web Site: 


GOT NEWS? 

Have you received an award, been 

interviewed by the media, moved 

into new office space, retired, 

accepted a new job, received a 

promotion, received accreditation for 

your department, or anything else 

that might interest other IACLEA 

members? 

We want to hear 

about it and 

tell your colleagues 

about it. 

Mail the information (and photos) to: 

Karen E. Breseman, Managing Editor, 

Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 

IACLEA, 342 North Main Street, West 

Hartford, CT 06117-2507 or email to 

kbreseman@iaclea.org 


Strategic Planning Group Focuses on Domestic Preparedness Training Needs 


Close coordination should be established 

and maintained with local and 

state counterparts, federal agencies 

(including the FBI and Joint Terrorism 

Task Forces, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF)), and state Offices of Emergency 

Management. 

• Campus law enforcement officials 

need to establish and train on the issue 

of “who’s in charge” of a scene. 

Under Congressional mandate, the 

FBI will continue to have the lead 

regarding law enforcement investigation 

of terrorist-related incidents. 

However, campus law enforcement 

will have immediate and continuing 

campus venue responsibilities and 

coordinate with other responding assets 

and agencies, including the FBI. 

• Future training must be driven by 

identified developing trends and 

techniques. Campus law enforcement 

should be plugged in to the development 

of emerging trends and should 

be actively involved in identifying 

emerging threats, which in turn 

should drive the focus of training. 

• All crisis management/emergency 

response plans must be tested and 

exercised on a multi-tiered basis 

(table top, command post, full field/ 

field training exercises). Training 

should include the executive officers 

of the campus. 

• Exercises should include all appropriate 

and affected agency representatives 

(campus administration, law 

enforcement, facilities, academic, logistics, 

etc.). 

• Approach to training should be “all 

hazards” in nature, to address response 

to terrorist incident, but also 

to include ability to respond to natural 

disasters and other events. 

• Training should be standardized in 

concepts, yet tailored to the unique 

characteristics of each campus and 

address its critical infrastructure, ethnic/cultural/exchange 

students, and 

programs that might garner the focus 

of international or domestic terrorist 

groups. 

• Immediate near-focus should be on 

campus preparedness threat assessments 

that identify potential threat 

elements, the nature of the threat, 

vulnerabilities of campus assets, and 

types of threat elements. 

The subcommittee also heard presentations 

from Georgeann C. Rooney of the 

U.S. Secret Service, Paul M. Plaisted of 

Justice Planning Management Associates, 

Inc., and Brigadier Gen. Simon Perry of 

the Israeli Police and Ministry of Public 

Security. 

Rooney, who is a threat assessment 

specialist with the U.S. Secret Service’s 

national threat assessment center, gave 



Strategic Planning Group Focuses on Domestic Preparedness Training Needs 


an overview of the Safe School Initiative. 

This initiative is a joint study with the U.S. 

Department of Education of school 

shootings in elementary and secondary 

schools in the U.S. 

Plaisted gave a demonstration of an 

online learning tool developed by his 

company. The online tool allows local 

agencies to administer online classes and 

maintain records of students’ completion 

of courses, as well as grades. Classes are 

generally one hour in duration and can 

be stopped and started again at a student’s 

convenience. An online test is taken to 

gauge the student’s grasp of the material. 

Perry gave an overview of the structure 

of the Israeli Police, which has primary 

operational responsibility within the 

borders of the State of Israel to protect 

the public against terrorist activity. Perry 

stressed the importance of operational 

Letter to the Editor 


try, budgeting for the annual conference 

was a wise investment for me and my 

university. 

Perhaps my one claim to IACLEA fame 

was serving with Jerry Witsil (Princeton) 

as a two-man committee appointed by 

the Board of Directors to interrogate Peter 

Berry on the Rutgers campus as a candidate 

for the position of Executive Secretary. 

As I view the growth and development 

of the Association from that day 

to this, it is evident that the team of Ochs 

and Witsil made a wise decision when 

recommending to the Board that this 

young man from Connecticut be hired. 

Since retiring in 1988 I remain an avid 

CLEJ reader, and am impressed with the 

articles discussing the techniques that have 

been developed and implemented by 

dedicated public safety directors to upgrade 

and improve their programs. The IACLEA 

training programs, strategic plan, information 

services, publications, video workshops, 

and special training programs have had a 

vital role to help public safety assume its 

earned and deserved position as a vital 

member of a university’s administration. 

It appears that the protests, 

demonstrations, teach-ins, sit-ins, building 

readiness and public cooperation in combating 

and preventing terrorism. “The 

public needs to know who to call when 

they see something [suspicious],” he said. 

“They need to know also that when they 

call, someone is going to listen and follow 

up…Students and faculty have to 

know they have someone to talk to when 

there’s a problem.” 

In terms of resources, law enforcement 

agencies need to conduct threat assessments 

to determine all foreseeable scenarios 

and invest in manpower and technology 

to deter terrorism, he said. 

The subcommittee, chaired by Thomas 

P. Carey, director of security and 

public safety at Bates College in Lewiston, 

Maine, plans to conduct additional research 

and survey IACLEA members and 

others to determine current and future 

training needs in domestic preparedness. 

take-over, and the more violent actions 

associated with campus public safety 

during the Viet Nam era have passed. 

However, the crimes associated with any 

community continue, if not increase, on 

many campuses. The professional 

advancement and achievements of 

campus security and police officers have 

met these challenges with distinction and 

reflect why public safety is no longer an 

obscure campus agency. The 16 years of 

being a “has been” have increased my 

respect and admiration for the men and 

women who are the current leaders in 

this proud profession. 

IACLEA, the glue that unites campus 

public safety programs, has enjoyed and 

will continue to enjoy unlimited success 

as its leaders and members are dedicated 

to assure that the Association never fails 

to meet its core purpose: “To represent 

and promote campus public safety.” Being 

confident that this will happen, it is 

more than evident that campus public 

safety has been recognized and accepted 

as a superior law enforcement profession. 

Bob Ochs, Honorary Member, IACLEA 

Wilmington, NC 

IACLEA STORE 

NOW OPEN FOR BUSINESS 

IACLEA Logo Apparel 

and Accessories 

Now available to IACLEA members 

online, http://www.iaclea.org, in the 

Members Only area. 

Campus Safety 

and Security 

Is Our Business . . . 

Let Us Help You Improve 

Your Institution’s 

Effectiveness 

LEMAP is a program sponsored 

by IACLEA for the purpose of 

providing management consultation 

and technical assistance 

to association members and 

non-member campuses. 

For More Information on 

the Program 

Contact Tessa Wilusz O’Sullivan at 

the IACLEA Headquarters, 

(860) 586-7517 Ext. 521 or by 

email at tosullivan@iaclea.org. 

To discuss the scope of your 

review, contact our LEMAP 

Coordinator, John Carpenter, 

directly at (619) 594-6905 or email 

at carpenter@sdsu.edu. 


Protect Your Campus! 

Desktop Anti-Theft 

Cables and Locks 

Security Enclosures 

Computer Case Locks 

Electronic Central Alarms 

Asset Tracking ID Tags 

Laptop Anti-Theft 

Cables and Locks 

Motion Alarms 


Mobile Security Carts 

Asset Recovery 

Tracking and Recovery Software 


LCD Projector Security 

Sonic Shock Alarm 

Electronic Central Alarm 


Computer Lab Anti-Theft 

Electronic Central Alarms 

LCD Projector Security 

PC Access Control 

Biometrics (Fingerprint ID) 

RFID (Radio Frequency ID) 

Other Security Products 

Disk Drive Locks 

3M Privacy Filters 

Security Cables 

Security Fasteners 

College & University Pricing 

For more details on these products: 

Call - (800) 451-7592 Ext. 710 

URL - www.Secure-It.com/710 

Your One Source For Computer Security Solutions

Volume 35, No. 2 - March/April 2005 Campus Law ... - IACLEA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?